These three series are planned. No interviews have been conducted and no employer outcomes are claimed here. Our completed pricing-transparency audit uses public pages and has a separate method.
Investigate the decisions behind the numbers
A useful case study explains the starting conditions, alternatives, decision, implementation and outcome. It also identifies which claims came from a participant and which records were examined. Our reporting program will use that structure across three complementary series.
The series will not assume every employer should adopt ICHRA or that a successful launch guarantees a good renewal. Cases that reject the model, encounter problems or change course belong in the evidence base alongside favorable experiences.
Series 1: Why employers chose—or rejected—ICHRA
Reporting question: What evidence changed the benefits decision? Planned interviews will cover the original renewal or benefits problem, workforce context, options considered, cost assumptions, employee tradeoffs and reasons for selecting or rejecting the arrangement.
Evidence to request: redacted proposals, a dated comparison, contribution assumptions and the final decision record. A quoted saving should identify its baseline, period, population and included cost categories. Projected savings will be labeled as projections; actual spending requires an appropriate measurement period and records.
Series 2: The first 90 days
Reporting question: What happened between the launch plan and active coverage? The intended reporting will follow milestones for notices, enrollment, required payment, coverage confirmation, employee support and reconciliation.
Evidence to request: a redacted project timeline, aggregate status reports and issue-resolution records. A selected plan will not be counted as confirmed active coverage without an appropriate definition and supporting evidence. Delays will be attributed to documented causes where possible, with uncertain explanations labeled.
Series 3: Questions for ICHRA administrators
Reporting question: How do administrators explain price, scope, payment controls and service accountability? Each participant will receive the same core questions, with follow-ups for its particular operating model.
Evidence to request: a dated sample fee schedule, service scope, workflow descriptions and the definitions behind performance claims. Provider statements will be identified as such. Nonresponse will be reported neutrally and will not be treated as proof of poor performance.
Publication standards
- Recruit varied employer situations, including decisions against ICHRA; disclose how each case was selected.
- Confirm publication consent, attribution and the handling of sensitive records before interviewing or collecting documents.
- Keep employee health details out of the reporting dataset; use necessary aggregate or redacted information.
- Disclose relevant commercial relationships and who introduced participants.
- Offer a focused factual response opportunity for material criticism without granting editorial control.
- Attach dates, definitions, evidence limitations and corrections to published findings.
These are case-reporting plans, not a representative survey design. A collection of interviews cannot establish national adoption, average savings or average satisfaction without a suitable sampling and measurement method. Any future benchmark will need its own protocol.
Read and reuse the interview framework
Download the question sets and reporting protocol. The framework specifies the information to collect, how to label evidence and what must be resolved before a case is publishable.
Recruitment is not open on this page. The publication's contact inbox has not yet been established; do not send private employer or employee records to a placeholder address. When intake is available, its purpose and handling process will be stated before submissions are requested.
For practical decisions today, explore the guide library, quote worksheet and source library.