logo
The case for self-funding: A solution to rising healthcare costs

The case for self-funding: A solution to rising healthcare costs

Today, about 37% of covered workers are enrolled in fully-insured healthcare plans. But what does that really mean? In a fully-insured health plan, the employer pays a fixed amount – also known as a premium – to an insurance company. In return, the insurance company takes on the responsibility of paying for employees' medical claims. It's like buying a subscription to cover all healthcare costs, except it comes with a hefty price tag and very little control.
In comparison, in a self-funded insurance plan, the employer assumes the financial risk for providing healthcare benefits to its employees. Instead of paying premiums to an insurance company, the employer sets aside funds to cover medical claims.
Fully-insured plans are typically 10%-15% more expensive than self-funded plans, according to OneDigital. That difference adds up fast – and the ripple effect has dire consequences on American families. The average family has just $6,700 in liquid assets. Meanwhile, out-of-pocket maxes often climb past $10,000, leaving many just one medical emergency away from bankruptcy.
Employers are making every effort to control rising costs, but it often feels like an insurmountable challenge. In 2025, they will contribute nearly 12 times more to employee healthcare than they did in 2000. Despite this, many employees still struggle to afford healthcare, without a corresponding improvement in quality.
Families shouldn't have to delay care or risk financial ruin to get the treatment they need. That's not just unfair, it's unacceptable. And it's time we do something about it.
The players in the healthcare cost game
When healthcare costs soar year after year, it's natural to wonder who's responsible. But the reality is more complex than just 'insurance companies' or 'hospitals.' At OneDigital, we've made it our mission to dig into the data and uncover what's going on beneath the surface.
According to a RAND Corp study, employers pay hospitals an average of 254% of the Medicare rate. For perspective, that's approximately 100% more than what half of those hospitals need to break even. These inflated charges don't just bloat costs – they block access. They especially hurt people facing emergency medical needs, when shopping around simply isn't an option.
Worse yet, today's system does not align incentives with employee needs or member outcomes. Most network contracts do little to protect the people actually using the care. Up to 80% of medical bills contain errors, and under these contracts, many carriers pay them without reviewing them. That leaves patients footing the bill for services they never received.
Instead of focusing on getting people healthy, our current model treats symptoms, overprescribes medications, and leans heavily on surgeries and tests. The result? High costs, low value, and poor long-term outcomes.
For employers, this is a wake-up call. If we want to control costs and improve outcomes, we can't just keep shifting expenses around. We need a better strategy – one that reduces costs at the source.
The case for self-funding
Employers can make their benefits an asset and align with their incentives by choosing a self-funded, customizable plan. Many employers fear the only way self-funding works is if they have over 500 employees. But that's not the case at all. Employers just need a willingness to learn and to understand how to manage risk to succeed with this type of health plan. Self-funding also allows employers to implement innovative cost-containment solutions – including reference-based pricing – to reduce overall healthcare costs while maintaining quality for employees.
Some worry that self-funding creates disruption. Yes, there might be a learning curve. Yes, there may be changes. However, I believe the level of disruption is often influenced by how the plan is managed. Teaching someone how to read a new ID card is a small price to pay to ensure that, if they ever face a medical crisis, they won't have to drain their savings or lose their home just to stay alive. And this isn't theoretical, it's personal.
In one year, I had a baby, needed emergency surgery for appendicitis, and was diagnosed with cancer. We paid $15,000 out-of-pocket, which wiped out my and my husband's Health Savings Accounts (HSA). It was a financial punch at a time when we were already overwhelmed. That experience changed how I see health benefits, and why I'm so passionate about helping employers build plans that protect their people.
A smarter strategy starts now
Employers have more power than they realize. When you invest in employee health, you're not just doing the right thing, you're doing the smart thing. Healthy employees are more productive and engaged. They take fewer sick days, perform better, and tend to stick around longer.
At OneDigital, we help employers reimagine what healthcare can look like. We don't offer cookie-cutter solutions. We build customized, data-driven, and people-focused plans designed to meet the unique needs of your workforce.
With our proprietary Impact Studio, we can transform data and technology into actionable insights – helping our clients to build benefits that deliver real impact to their employees and their bottom line. It's time to break away from outdated models, challenge the status quo, and build a better future for our people. Let's start now.
Stop overpaying for healthcare. Contact me at cschlarb@onedigital.com to explore a smarter, self-funded solution that protects your people and your bottom line.
Cassie Schlarb leads the Risk and Underwriting department at OneDigital for the West Region. Her career has been focused on helping clients achieve high level benefits at competitive costs, utilizing innovative strategies on the market and her team is focused on achieving the best financial outcomes for our clients. This team of analysts and underwriters has several decades of experience in both the carrier and broker side and is skilled in providing the necessary insights for OneDigital clients to make the right decisions for their business.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Unpacking rumor that Trump is sending out $5K stimulus checks
Unpacking rumor that Trump is sending out $5K stimulus checks

Yahoo

time17 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Unpacking rumor that Trump is sending out $5K stimulus checks

According to a rumor that spread online in late May and early June 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump would be sending out $5,000 "stimulus" checks to Americans after his administration uncovered billions of dollars in "wasted money." The viral rumor likely stems from an investment firm CEO's proposal to send some taxpayers so-called "DOGE Dividend" checks. The original proposal for $5,000 checks was based on the assumption that DOGE would achieve $2 trillion in total savings, which is highly unlikely. Trump has previously floated the idea of a "DOGE Dividend," but there was no proof at the time of this writing that he would send $5,000 checks to Americans. Snopes reached out to the White House for clarity but has not received a response. In late May and early June 2025, a rumor on TikTok (archived) claimed that U.S. President Donald Trump was reportedly sending out $5,000 "stimulus" checks to Americans after his administration uncovered $50 billion in "wasted money." "Trump is going to be sending out five grand to everybody and this is because they uncovered $50 billion … of just wasted money," the TikTok video's narrator said. @todaynews919 #fyp #foryou #new #news ♬ original sound - todaynews919 The video's narrator later said the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency initiative allegedly proposed sending money it had "recovered" to the American people. The initiative, spearheaded by tech billionaire Elon Musk before his departure, works to slash government spending through layoffs and cuts to various federal programs. Though Trump has previously floated the idea of a "DOGE Dividend," there was no proof at the time of this writing that he would send $5,000 checks to Americans. Snopes reached out to the White House to ask if the president has any plans to send such checks and is awaiting a response. Since we were not able to definitively prove or disprove this rumor, we have not put a rating on this claim. The viral rumor likely stems from a proposal to send some taxpayers "DOGE Dividend" checks. Trump previously said he would consider such a plan, but his administration has not confirmed that it's sending any checks. The idea for DOGE Dividend checks was originally proposed by James Fishback, the founder and CEO of the investment firm Azoria Partners, in an X post (archived) shared on Feb. 18, 2025: Fishback's post also included a more in-depth proposal based on the assumption that DOGE would achieve $2 trillion in total savings. He suggested that the federal government take 20% of DOGE's presumed savings, or about $400 billion, and return it to approximately 79 million taxpaying households in the form of $5,000 tax refund checks called the DOGE Dividend. Under Fishback's plan, the government would send checks only to "households that will be net payers of federal income tax," meaning those that pay more money in taxes than they get back in tax credits or refunds. That means American households that do not owe federal income tax would not qualify for the proposed payments. In 2025, an estimated 40% of U.S. households will pay no federal individual income tax, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Most of these households have lower incomes, with about 70% earning less than $75,000 and about 45% earning less than $40,000, the Tax Policy Center estimates. On the same day that Fishback shared his proposal for the $5,000 checks, Musk replied (archived), "Will check with the president." Trump quickly acknowledged the idea as he delivered remarks during a Saudi investors conference in Miami on Feb. 19, 2025. "There's even under consideration a new concept where we give 20% of the DOGE savings to American citizens and 20% goes to paying down debt, because the numbers are incredible, Elon," Trump said at the conference. A reporter also asked Trump about the plan as he flew back to Washington, D.C., aboard Air Force One that day. He said: I love it. A 20% dividend, so to speak, for the money that we're saving by going after the waste and fraud and abuse and all the other things that are happening, I think it's a great idea. The dividend checks would also give taxpayers "an incentive … to go out and report things to use when we can save money," Trump added. Several weeks later, Fishback spoke further about his proposal during a March 2025 podcast appearance. He said if DOGE didn't hit the $2 trillion in projected savings, the amount of money in the dividend checks should be adjusted. "This plan is not predestined to the $5,000 number. If the savings come in above or below that, the check will be reflected accordingly," Fishback said. "So again, if the savings are $1 trillion — which I think is awfully low — the check goes from $5,000 to $2,500." At a town hall in Wisconsin on March 30, 2025, Musk fielded questions about the proposal, ultimately putting the responsibility of approving tax refund checks on Congress and Trump. "It's somewhat up to the Congress and maybe the president … as to whether specific checks are cut," Musk said in response. A search of did not return any results for legislation proposing "DOGE Dividend" tax refund checks. Snopes also could not find any record of Trump sharing additional details about a plan for such checks since February 2025, and we are still awaiting a response from the White House. It's still unclear how much money DOGE might ultimately save. Musk said in October 2024 that he expected to cut "at least $2 trillion" but he later lowered that estimate to $1 trillion. However, both of those estimates were "wildly unrealistic," PolitiFact reported in June 2025. As of June 6, 2025, DOGE's online "wall of receipts" touted an estimated $180 billion in cuts, but analyses by PolitiFact (here and here) and The New York Times found that the online ledger was riddled with errors. X. Accessed 6 June 2025. "Who Will Pay No Federal Individual Income Tax in 2025?" Tax Policy Center, 4 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. X. Accessed 6 June 2025. Palm Beach Post. "Full Donald Trump Speech at Miami FII Investment Summit Hosted by Saudi Public Investment Fund." YouTube, 19 Feb. 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. David Lin. "Will You Get a $5,000 Check? "Doge Dividend" Explained | James Fishback." YouTube, 12 Mar. 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. FOX 9 Minneapolis-St. Paul. "LIVE | Elon Musk Holds Town Hall in Wisconsin." YouTube, 30 Mar. 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Legislative Search Results." 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. WFAA. "Elon Musk Full Speech at Trump Rally in Madison Square Garden (Oct. 27, 2024)." YouTube, 27 Oct. 2024, Accessed 15 Nov. 2024. X. Accessed 6 June 2025. Clarke, Amelia. "Yes, Musk Said He'd Ask Trump about $5K Checks for US Taxpayers Funded by DOGE Savings." Snopes, 21 Feb. 2025, Czopek, Madison, and Amy Sherman. "Trump and Musk Public Bickering Raises More DOGE Uncertainty." @Politifact, 5 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. DOGE. "DOGE: Department of Government Efficiency." DOGE: Department of Government Efficiency, 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. McCullough, Caleb. "Where Do DOGE's Reported Savings Come From?" @Politifact, 21 Feb. 2025, Fahrenthold, David A, and Jeremy Singer-Vine. "DOGE Is Far Short of Its Goal, and Still Overstating Its Progress." The New York Times, 13 Apr. 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025.

How Much the Average Homeowner Has in Savings vs. the Average Renter
How Much the Average Homeowner Has in Savings vs. the Average Renter

Yahoo

time37 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

How Much the Average Homeowner Has in Savings vs. the Average Renter

Housing is the largest expense for the average American consumer. The more people have to spend on housing, the less money they have available to invest, save, or spend in other categories. But does owning your home instead of renting affect how much you have in your savings account? And is it the best financial decision for you right now? Check Out: Try This: The Federal Reserve's most recent Survey of Consumer Finances suggests the answer is yes. Here's how the average renter's savings compares to those of the average homeowner. The Survey of Consumer Finances data goes back to 1989, and since then, homeowners have always had more in savings than renters, on average. However, the gap between homeowners' and renters' savings has been growing. For example, in 1995, on average, homeowners had around twice as much saved as renters. Now, homeowners have five times more in savings than the average renter. Up Next: The most recent national data estimates that the average renter had $16,930 in savings. That includes all money in savings, checking, emergency funds and money market accounts. Though rent amounts will vary greatly depending on your location and size of your space, the current national average rent in the United States ranges from about $1,625 to $2,100 per month, which is a 1.1% increase compared to last year. By comparison, the average homeowner had $85,430 in savings, which is nearly $70,000 more than the average renter. That's a big difference when it comes to what you're able to allocate for emergency savings and retirement accounts. However, buying a home is not an option for the average savings, as the national average house price in the U.S. for Q1 2025 is $503,800, whereas the median sales price in the same period was $416,900, Perhaps counterintuitively, renting is often less expensive than owning a home. In the largest 50 metropolitan areas in the U.S., the median cost of renting is currently $1,398. This figure has been trending modestly downward since the second half of 2022, and represents the middle ground, with half of rents being higher and half lower, so it is quite subject to fluctuations. The median home price is currently $416,900, and the average mortgage rate is 6.97%, per the Fed. With a 20% down payment and a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, your monthly mortgage payment likely ranges from $2,167 to $2,715, excluding taxes and insurance. High interest rates are likely driving most of the higher costs of homeownership. If mortgage rates go down as expected, monthly mortgage payments will decrease. However, despite the higher costs, homeowners still save more than renters. So why is there such a big difference between how much renters save and how much homeowners do? One explanation is that rental prices continually increase while the cost of owning a home stays relatively stable after the purchase. Say you buy a new home with a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. Your monthly housing costs will be stable for the 30 years of the loan. After you've paid off your mortgage, you'll have to pay only taxes, insurance and maintenance. Unexpected maintenance costs, such as roof damage or broken pipes, can eat into a homeowner's savings, whereas renters don't have to pay for these costs out of pocket since they're the landlord's responsibility. However, renters do have to cover rising rental rates nearly every year. Since 2019, rent prices have increased by around 19% nationwide. Rising rent prices can take up larger and larger chunks of renters' budgets. As their housing costs increase, they have less money to put toward savings and other financial goals. By comparison, homeowners have more of their income to put into savings after paying off their mortgages. The bottom line is that if you're a renter hoping to put more in your bank account, you should try these money-saving strategies: Pay off debt with high interest rates: High-interest debt can prevent you from building your savings. Start by paying off any loans with high interest rates, like credit card debt. Live with a roommate: Splitting your housing costs with a roommate will give you extra money each month to put toward savings. Renegotiate with your landlord: When your lease is up and it's time to sign a new one, negotiate your monthly payment. If your landlord charges more than the market rate, it may be worth moving to a more affordable home. Finally, remember to put at least some of your savings into a high-yield savings account so you can grow your money. Caitlyn Moorhead contributed to the reporting for this article. More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard How Much Money Is Needed To Be Considered Middle Class in Every State? 10 Unreliable SUVs To Stay Away From Buying This article originally appeared on How Much the Average Homeowner Has in Savings vs. the Average Renter Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

U.S. ambassador says Canadians facing device searches, detainment ‘not a pattern'
U.S. ambassador says Canadians facing device searches, detainment ‘not a pattern'

Hamilton Spectator

timean hour ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

U.S. ambassador says Canadians facing device searches, detainment ‘not a pattern'

OTTAWA - The American ambassador to Canada is pushing back on Ottawa's travel advice, saying his country doesn't search phones at the border and arguing some Americans travelling here are having a tough time. 'We welcome Canadians to come in and invest, to spend their hard-earned Canadian dollars at U.S. businesses,' U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra told The Canadian Press in an interview Friday. 'If a Canadian has had a disappointing experience coming into the United States, I'm not denying that it happened, but I'm saying it's an isolated event and it is not a pattern.' In April, Ottawa updated its advice to Canadians travelling to the United States to warn them about the possibility they might be detained if denied entry. 'Expect scrutiny at ports of entry, including of electronic devices,' reads the new guidance. There have been reports of Canadians facing intensified scrutiny at the border, having phones searched and, in some cases, being detained. Hoekstra insisted concerns about device searches are not grounded in reality. 'Coming to the U.S., that's a decision for the Canadians to make. Searching devices and all of that is not a well-founded fear. We don't do that. America is a welcoming place,' he said. He said some Americans have expressed similar concerns about Canada. 'I've heard that from Americans coming into Canada as well, OK? Saying, 'You know, we've not received a warm reception when we've gotten to Canadian customs,'' he said. When asked if these reports from American travellers involve arbitrary phone searches and lengthy detainment, Hoekstra said there are consular cases of Americans complaining to the embassy about the Canada Border Services Agency. 'We've said, 'OK this may have been an isolated event. There may have been a Canadian border person who was having a bad day, and thought they'd take it out on, you know, somebody across the border,'' he said. In a statement, the CBSA said its officers follow a code of conduct and the federal ethics code that both require them to treat everyone equally, and the agency investigates any complaints of mistreatment. 'Employees are expected to conduct themselves in a way that upholds the values of integrity, respect and professionalism at all times,' wrote spokeswoman Karine Martel. 'Treating people with respect, dignity and fairness is fundamental to our border services officers' relationship with the public and a key part of this is serving all travellers in a non-discriminatory way.' Hoekstra said travel to the U.S. is up to individuals. 'If you decide that you're not going to come down or whatever, that's your decision and you're missing an opportunity. There are great things to see in America,' Hoekstra said. He also noted the case of CNN journalist Christiane Amanpour, who recently said she prepared to visit the U.S. last month as if she was 'going to North Korea' — with a 'burner phone' that didn't carry any personal information — only to experience a warm welcome. 'It's like, (let's) get past the rhetoric and let's look at the real experiences that people are having here,' Hoekstra said. Airlines have been cutting flights between Canada and the U.S. due to a slump in demand, and Flight Centre Travel Group Canada reported a nearly 40 per cent drop in flights between the two countries year-over-year in February. A survey in early May conducted by Leger Marketing for the Association for Canadian Studies found 52 per cent of respondents feel that 'it is no longer safe for all Canadians travelling to the United States,' with 29 per cent disagreeing and 19 per cent saying they were unsure. Roughly the same proportion said they personally feel unwelcome in the U.S. LGBTQ+ groups have opted against attending World Pride events in Washington and United Nations events in New York, citing scrutiny at the border as the Trump administration scales back protections for transgender and nonbinary people. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 7, 2025.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store