Renewal at $12.6 Million: Raise the Deductible or Form a Captive?
A three-hospital system with $1.4 billion in net patient revenue is renewing its professional liability program. Current structure: $250,000 per-claim deductible, $1 million per-claim limit, $5 million aggregate, commercial premium $12.6 million. Actuarial projections show expected losses of $8.9 million, of which $6.2 million falls below the $250,000 deductible; loss adjustment expense is 14% of losses. The CFO proposes a $1 million per-claim deductible with a premium of $7.4 million and collateral equal to 40% of expected losses in the deductible layer. A broker proposes instead a single-parent captive at a $500,000 retention with fronting. The board wants a recommendation in 60 days. The credit agreement requires 120 days cash on hand, currently 134 days.
1. Calculate the total cost of risk under the current program and the proposed $1 million deductible, and state what data is missing.
Read the worked answer
Current program
- Retained losses: $6.2M
- LAE at 14%: $6.2M × 1.14 = $7.07M
- Premium: $12.6M
- Total cost of risk: $19.67M
Proposed $1M deductible Retained losses must include the layer from $250,000 to $1 million, and that figure is not in the data provided. Using an illustrative $1.8M for that layer:
- Retained: $6.2M + $1.8M = $8.0M
- With LAE: $8.0M × 1.14 = $9.12M
- Premium: $7.4M
- Total: $16.52M, a savings of roughly $3.1M
- Collateral: 40% × $8.0M = $3.2M of restricted capital
Missing data - request before any vote:
- Losses by layer, $250K–$1M, both ground-up and developed to ultimate.
- Claim count and frequency trend in that layer; credibility matters at these volumes.
- Collateral terms: evergreen, letter of credit cost, and release schedule.
- Whether the quoted premium is guaranteed-cost or includes a retrospectively rated element.
Without the layer data, the savings figure is an illustration, and a board vote on an illustration is a governance failure.
2. What non-financial factors should drive the captive versus higher-deductible decision?
Read the worked answer
The two options are not equivalent, and the difference is control.
Higher deductible: simple, reversible at renewal, no new entity, no domicile regulator, no fronting fee. It consumes balance sheet capacity and exposes the system to severity swings in the $250K–$1M band, but it can be unwound in a single renewal cycle.
Captive: offers claims control, direct access to reinsurance, and the ability to accumulate underwriting margin rather than gifting it to a carrier. It also brings:
- Fronting cost and fronting-provider credit risk, since the hospital still needs a licensed paper issuer for most payers.
- Domicile regulation, minimum capital, annual audits, and a captive manager.
- Collateral and trust requirements that may be less flexible than the commercial market's.
- Exit costs. Unwinding a captive with open claims is slow and expensive.
The organization's loss history is modest relative to premium, which favors retaining more risk - but only if the system has the actuarial and claims infrastructure to manage it. Buying a captive to solve a pricing problem, without claims management capability, converts a market problem into a governance problem.
Given a 60-day window and 134 days cash against a 120-day covenant, recommend renewing with the increased deductible and commissioning a captive feasibility study for the following renewal.
3. Draft the recommendation to the board, including the conditions under which you would reverse it.
Read the worked answer
Recommendation: Renew with the $1,000,000 per-claim deductible and commission a captive feasibility study with a 9-month horizon.
Rationale: the deductible move captures most of the economic benefit, requires no new entity, and preserves optionality. The captive decision is durable and should not be made on a 60-day clock.
Conditions precedent to the renewal:
- Layer data confirms retained losses between $250K and $1M are within the range that supports a $3–4M collateral posting.
- Collateral is structured as a letter of credit or trust with a defined release schedule, not an evergreen obligation.
- Cash covenant headroom is modeled under a stress scenario of a 3-claim severity spike in a single year.
What would reverse the recommendation:
- Layer data showing the $250K–$1M band is thin and volatile, which would make the premium credit illusory.
- Collateral terms requiring cash rather than letters of credit, which would push days cash below the covenant.
- A market turn at renewal that reprices the deductible credit below the actuarially indicated level.
Report progress to the board's audit and finance committee quarterly, with a decision point at the next renewal.