What size operator does this suit?
One with enough scale that the frequency layer is genuinely predictable, a stable and good loss record, a long time horizon, and liquidity such that the collateral is not competing with something more important.
TL;DR
- Guaranteed cost means you pay a premium and the insurer bears the loss. A captive means you formally insure your own risk through a company you own, usually fronted by a licensed carrier and secured with collateral.
- The economics favor a captive at scale on the predictable layer. The constraint is almost never the economics; it is the balance sheet.
Comparison
Captive versus Guaranteed cost
Is a captive the right structure for us, or should we stay on a guaranteed cost program?
Whose decision: CFOs and owners at scale, with the lender in the room.
Last updated
Side by side
| Factor | Captive | Guaranteed cost |
|---|---|---|
| Who bears frequency losses | You do, through the captive | The insurer does |
| Underwriting profit on good years | Stays with you | Leaves the business |
| Collateral requirement | Letter of credit for expected losses plus margin | None, or minimal |
| Effect on borrowing capacity | Direct reduction, competing with real estate debt | None |
| Cost predictability year to year | Variable with actual losses | Fixed at binding |
| Exit | Run-off over years; collateral released slowly | Non-renew |
| Administrative burden | Real: captive management, actuarial, audit, domicile filings | Minimal |
The recommendation
Model the collateral and the unwind before you model the savings
The frequency layer in senior care is predictable enough at scale to finance rather than insure, and that is a genuine argument for a captive. It is also the easy half of the analysis, and the half most presentations lead with.
The harder half is that the fronting carrier will require collateral for expected losses plus a margin, and that letter of credit competes directly with the capital a senior care operator actually runs on: real estate debt, acquisition lines, working capital. For an operator planning a HUD 232 refinance or an acquisition, that trade is frequently worse than it looks.
And the exit outlasts the decision. Claims from prior years run off for years, and collateral cannot be released until they do. Model the unwind first. If it still works, a captive is a good structure; if nobody has modeled it, the answer is not yet.
Follow-up questions
Captive versus Guaranteed cost: what people ask next
Is a group captive an easier entry point?
Often, because the capital commitment is smaller. The tradeoff is that you share results with members whose operations you do not control, which is the same tradeoff a risk retention group presents.
Go deeper
Other comparisons
Defense inside the limit versus Defense outside the limit
Should I pay more for defense outside the limit?
Claims-made versus Occurrence
Which trigger should a senior care liability program be written on?
Admitted carrier versus Surplus lines
Should I insist on an admitted carrier?
Risk retention group versus Commercial carrier
Should we put our program in a risk retention group?
Shared aggregate versus Per location aggregate
Is a per location aggregate worth the extra premium?
Combined form versus Split between carriers
Should general liability and professional liability sit on one policy?
Free coverage review
The general answer is above. Yours is in your policy.
Send the declarations page and a specialist returns an item-by-item read within one business day.