AC599 Unit 6 Capstone Analysis Draft Example

Reviewed by Chester Goodwin, MBA Graduate Capstone in Accounting Purdue University Global Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This AC599 Unit 6 analysis draft estimates an accounting balance step by step from raw data and then tests the result against a past year. Purdue Global AC 599, Graduate Capstone in Accounting, asks MS in Accounting students to show every step from data to figure. At Hollis Creek Supply, a made-up distributor with a self-funded plan, completion factors and a trended $453 per-member projection give $612,400 of unpaid medical claims, pharmacy adds $48,900 and a $38,000 stop-loss recovery leaves a $623,300 net cost, against $410,000 recorded. The hindsight test on 2025 lands within 2.4 percent of actual run-out, while the one-month rule missed by about a third.

CourseAC599 Graduate Capstone in Accounting
UnitUnit 6
Paper typeAnalysis draft
LengthAbout 1,100 words, 6 pages double-spaced
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolPurdue University Global
ProgramMS in Accounting
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for AC599 Unit 6

1

$410,000 Recorded, $623,300 Indicated: A Unit 6 Capstone Analysis Draft of a Health Claims Reserve

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

AC599: Graduate Capstone in Accounting

Unit 6 Analysis Draft

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Hollis Creek Supply and every figure are composite; completion factors and claims are illustrative; the actuarial guidance, standards and texts cited are real.

What this part is doingStating both figures and the steps between them in the lead shows the analysis's result and structure.
2

Exhibit A: The Lag Triangle and Completion Factors

The reconciled medical lag report covers incurred months from January 2024 to December 2026, with payments through December 2026. For months with at least nine months of run-out, the average share of the eventual cost paid by each lag is: 51 percent in the month of service, 84 percent by the end of the following month, 94 percent by lag two, 97 percent by lag three, 99 percent by lag five and effectively 100 percent by lag eight.

These factors show why the rule of thumb falls short. Under the one-month rule, everything older than one month would be fully paid. In fact, about 16 percent of a month's cost is still unpaid at the end of the following month, 6 percent at the end of the month after that, and smaller amounts trail for months. The pipeline is longer than one month.

Exhibit B: The Estimate by Month

September and October 2026. Paid to date is divided by the completion factor at the corresponding lag. September, at lag three with $398,600 paid, has an expected total of $410,900 and $12,300 unpaid. October, at lag two with $371,200 paid, has an expected total of $394,900 and $23,700 unpaid. Older months add $9,500 in total.

November and December 2026. For these months, little has been paid, and completion factors would magnify noise. The per-member projection is used instead. Cost per member per month over the past twelve months, trended for medical inflation, is $453, and with 1,018 covered members, expected incurred cost is about $461,200 a month. November has $352,300 paid, leaving $108,900. December has $3,200 paid in the month itself, leaving $458,000, since services in late December are mostly unbilled.

Medical incurred but unpaid totals $612,400.

Pharmacy. Pharmacy claims are paid on a two-week cycle. Applying the pharmacy manager's one-lag factor to December fills gives $48,900 unpaid.

Stop-loss. One member's 2026 claims reached $188,000 by year end, $38,000 above the $150,000 specific deductible. The contract requires reimbursement once the claim file is complete, and the carrier has acknowledged the filing. The $38,000 is probable of recovery. Because the stop-loss contract allows the carrier to reduce future premium payments by amounts it owes, this draft nets the recovery against the liability; whether that offset is supported is flagged for review at the seminar checkpoint.

Exhibit C: The Total

Medical $612,400 plus pharmacy $48,900 gives a gross liability of $661,300. The stop-loss receivable of $38,000 brings the net cost to $623,300. Against the recorded $410,000, the reserve is short by $213,300 on a net basis, or $251,300 gross with a separate $38,000 receivable.

A range is computed by applying the highest and lowest completion factors observed at each lag over the thirty-six months: $571,000 to $684,000 net. The recorded $410,000 lies well outside the range.

Exhibit D: The Hindsight Test

Run as of the 2025 year end with nothing but that date's information, the method estimated $574,000 of unpaid claims, net of stop-loss. Actual payments for 2025 services made after December 31, 2025, through September 2026, totaled $588,200. The method was within 2.4 percent of the actual run-out, inside the 5 percent threshold set in the methodology memo. The one-month rule had recorded $380,000 at that date, short by $208,200, or 35 percent.

The rule of thumb was not slightly off; it missed last year's actual run-out by more than a third, while the lag method, using only what was known at the time, came within two and a half percent, which is the evidence that justifies replacing the rule rather than adjusting it.

What this part is doingThe highlighted sentence states the hindsight result that carries the analysis, the evidence graders look for.
3

What the Shortfall Means

The 2026 shortfall of $213,300 is made up mostly of the prior year's shortfall carried forward. Because the reserve was understated by $208,200 at the end of 2025, 2025 expense was understated and 2026 expense absorbed that difference as claims were paid. The change in the shortfall during 2026 is only $5,100. How the correction is reported, and how the bank's covenant treats it, is a question for the findings.

Sensitivity

The estimate is most sensitive to the December per-member projection. A 5 percent change in cost per member moves the liability by about $46,000, since it affects both November and December. It is much less sensitive to the completion factors for older months, which are stable.

Why the Estimate Is a Liability, Not a Choice

The accrual is required, not optional: services were received before December 31, the plan must pay for them, and the amount can be estimated from history (Financial Accounting Standards Board, 1975). The only judgment is how much.

How the Estimate Compares With Benchmarks

Two rough benchmarks support the result. Employer health plans of Hollis Creek's size commonly carry unpaid claims of about one and a half months of incurred cost, and $661,300 is about 1.4 months of the $461,200 monthly incurred cost. And the hindsight test's actual 2025 run-out, $588,200, was about 1.4 months of that year's cost. Both point the same way: the pipeline is closer to six weeks than four, which is why a one-month rule falls short every year by roughly the same amount.

What the Draft Leaves for the Findings

The draft does not yet decide how the shortfall should be recorded, how the bank's covenant treats it or what policy should replace the rule. Those belong to the findings and recommendation. The draft's job is to establish the number and show that it can be trusted.

A Check on the Pharmacy Figure

The pharmacy estimate was checked a second way. December pharmacy fills averaged about $3,500 a working day, and roughly fourteen days of fills are unpaid at any time under the two-week cycle, which gives about $49,000, close to the $48,900 from the factor.

Both checks are rough, but agreement between independent approaches is part of what makes the estimate defensible to an auditor.

Limitations

Three limits apply. The lag data begins only in January 2024, so completion factors rest on about two years of fully developed months. The per-member projection assumes 2026 costs follow the recent trend. And the administrator's processing speed, confirmed stable through the third quarter, could change in the fourth (Actuarial Standards Board, 2011; Bluhm, 2012; Friedland, 2010).

What this part is doingEnding on limitations shows the draft is honest about how far its numbers can be trusted.
4

References

Actuarial Standards Board. (2011). Incurred health and disability claims (Actuarial Standard of Practice No. 5). Actuarial Standards Board.

Bluhm, W. F. (Ed.). (2012). Group insurance (6th ed.). ACTEX Publications.

Financial Accounting Standards Board. (1975). Accounting for contingencies (Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5). FASB.

Friedland, J. (2010). Estimating unpaid claims using basic techniques. Casualty Actuarial Society.

The Purdue Global AC599 Unit 6 instructions

Unit 6 of AC599 asks you to perform the capstone analysis and present it in a draft with exhibits. Show the data and the derived factors or inputs. Present the estimate by component so a reader can follow each step, with arithmetic shown. Total the components and compare with the recorded amount. Compute a range from the variation in your inputs. Apply the test defined in your methodology, report the result against its threshold, and compare the existing practice on the same test. Explain what the result means, including how any difference arose over time. Check the estimate against independent benchmarks where possible. Report sensitivity to the most important assumption and state limitations. Leave decisions about recording and reporting for the findings. Reference the accounting standard, professional guidance and methods texts in APA 7.

How the AC 599 Unit 6 example is put together

Exhibit A shows completion factors of 51, 84, 94 and 97 percent by lag and explains why a one-month rule falls short. Exhibit B estimates September and October from factors, applies a $453 per-member projection to November and December, adds $48,900 of pharmacy and treats one member's $38,000 stop-loss recovery. Exhibit C totals $661,300 gross and $623,300 net, with a range of $571,000 to $684,000. Exhibit D applies the method to 2025: $574,000 estimated against $588,200 actual, while the rule recorded $380,000. The highlighted sentence states the hindsight result. Sections cover how the shortfall built up, benchmarks, a pharmacy check, sensitivity and limitations.

AC599 Unit 6 rubric: what earns full points

Analysis drafts in AC599 earn points for transparent computation and a credible test of the method. Graders check each component's arithmetic, the totals and the range, and expect the estimate to be traceable to the data. The rubric gives significant weight to applying the predefined test and comparing existing practice on the same basis, since that comparison carries the argument. Explaining how a difference accumulated over time, checking against benchmarks and reporting sensitivity show analytical maturity. Limitations should be specific. Drafts that present a single figure without derivation, skip the test or mix analysis with recommendations lose credit. Exhibits and APA 7 references support the draft.

Common AC599 Unit 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Common Unit 6 problems include a final figure with no visible path from the data. Ranges are omitted, so the reader cannot see how far the recorded amount falls outside reasonable estimates. The method's test is run but the existing practice is not tested the same way. Arithmetic errors go uncaught because components are not shown. Sensitivity analysis changes everything at once rather than the key assumption. The draft jumps to recommendations. If your capstone analysis covers a different estimate, a writer can build the exhibits and tests from your data. Another frequent slip is omitting benchmarks, which leaves the estimate without any outside check.

Get an AC599 Unit 6 example written to your instructions

Attach the data your evidence plan confirmed, the method memo you submitted and the Unit 6 prompt with its rubric. Your analysis comes back tested against the question your proposal approved, every classification traceable, the total tied to the ledger and corrections shown where testing found them. First custom sample free; 24-48h is typical. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.

More AC599 papers and MS in Accounting samples

AC599 Unit 6 questions, answered

Where can I find a free AC599 Unit 6 sample paper?

This page holds a full AC599 Unit 6 analysis draft of Hollis Creek Supply's year-end health claims liability, with completion factors, a per-member projection, a range, a hindsight test and APA 7 references.

How did the hindsight test turn out?

Applied to the 2025 year end with only the data available then, the method estimated $574,000 against actual run-out of $588,200, an error of 2.4 percent. The one-month rule had recorded $380,000, about a third too little.

Why is most of the shortfall not a 2026 problem?

The reserve was already short by $208,200 at the end of 2025, so 2026 expense absorbed that cost as claims were paid. Only $5,100 of the $213,300 shortfall arose during 2026.

Which assumption matters most?

The December per-member projection. A 5 percent change in cost per member moves the liability by about $46,000, because it affects both November and December, while the factors for older months are stable.

How does the estimate compare with benchmarks?

The gross liability equals about 1.4 months of incurred cost, and 2025's actual run-out was also about 1.4 months. Both suggest the claims pipeline is closer to six weeks than four.