| Course | GB545 Strategic Total Rewards and Financial Impact |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Benefit plan comparison |
| Length | About 900 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB545 Unit 5
Replace, Offer Both or Wait for Pricing: A Unit 5 Benefit Plan Comparison for 2,050 Enrollees
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB545: Strategic Total Rewards and Financial Impact
Unit 5 Benefit Plan Comparison
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The company, its plans, premiums and every scenario are composite and illustrative; the statutes and sources cited are real, and the comparison is educational, not benefits or legal advice.
Design Table
Current PPO. $750 single deductible, 20 percent coinsurance after the deductible and a $4,000 single out-of-pocket maximum; family deductible $1,500 and family maximum $8,000.
High-deductible plan paired with an employer-seeded savings account. $2,000 single deductible, 10 percent coinsurance and a $4,500 single out-of-pocket maximum; family deductible $4,000 and family maximum $9,000. The employer seeds each account with $750 for single coverage and $1,500 for every other tier. Contributions to the account are excluded from employees' income and may be carried forward from year to year (26 U.S.C. § 223, 2024).
Premiums. The high-deductible plan's premiums run 22 percent below the PPO's in every tier. The employer pays 80 percent of the single PPO premium and 85 percent of the single high-deductible premium, with somewhat lower shares in the dependent tiers.
Cost Table
Figures are the employer's annual medical cost by tier for 820 single, 390 employee and spouse, 330 employee and child, and 510 family enrollees. Medical is $26,477,920 of the $28,495,000 health line in the Unit 2 audit; dental, vision and administration make up the rest.
PPO. Single $6,428,800; spouse $5,733,000; child $4,367,550; family $9,948,570. Total $26,477,920.
High-deductible plan if everyone moved. Single $5,327,540; spouse $5,008,380; child $3,814,140; family $8,119,314; account seeds $2,460,000. Total $24,729,374, a saving of $1,748,546.
Both plans offered, 40 percent switch. If switchers cost the same on average as everyone else, the saving is 40 percent of the full-replacement figure, $699,418.
Both plans offered, PPO reprices 6 percent. People who expect low claims are the likeliest to move to a high-deductible plan, so the PPO keeps a costlier group and its carrier reprices. A 6 percent increase on the 60 percent of employer cost still in the PPO adds $953,205, turning the saving into a loss of $253,787.
Offering employees a choice looks like the gentle option, but if the healthiest leave the PPO, the company pays more than if it had changed nothing.
Cutler and Reber (1998) documented this pattern when Harvard University changed how it priced its plans: healthier employees left the richer plan, its premium rose and the plan eventually disappeared. The 6 percent figure is an assumption that illustrates the risk, not a carrier quote. The break-even repricing is about 4.4 percent; any increase above that makes the voluntary option cost more than the current plan.
Employee Exposure Table
An average hides who gains and who loses, so the table shows a single employee's annual premium share plus out-of-pocket spending at three claim levels. The single employee pays $1,960 a year in PPO premiums and $1,147 in high-deductible premiums, and the high-deductible figures subtract the $750 seed.
Claims of $1,000. PPO: $1,960 plus $800 out of pocket, $2,760. High-deductible: $1,147 plus $1,000, less $750, $1,397.
Claims of $4,000. PPO: $1,960 plus $1,400, $3,360. High-deductible: $1,147 plus $2,200, less $750, $2,597.
Claims of $14,000. PPO: $1,960 plus $3,400, $5,360. High-deductible: $1,147 plus $3,200, less $750, $3,597.
For a family with $40,000 in claims, the PPO costs $7,933 in premiums plus the $8,000 maximum, $15,933, and the high-deductible plan $5,483 plus $7,600, less $1,500, $11,122.
On an annual basis, the new plan costs less for employees at every level shown, because the employer pays a larger share of a smaller premium and funds the account. The risk is timing. An employee with $2,500 of claims in January pays $2,000 before coinsurance begins, against $1,100 under the PPO, and the seed may not cover it if it is deposited over the year. Brot-Goldberg et al. (2017) studied a large firm that shifted its workforce to a high-deductible design and found the drop in spending came from people cutting back on care, valuable care among it, rather than from comparing prices. That finding argues for depositing the full seed in January and covering preventive care before the deductible.
Coverage Obligations
Both designs keep the employee share of single coverage low, $1,960 and $1,147 a year, and the comparison assumes both would continue to meet the employer's coverage obligations. Any affordability determination is left to counsel.
What the Comparison Does Not Settle
The figures hold enrollment and claims constant, so they do not capture how employees' use of care might change under a higher deductible, which could lower the employer's cost further or raise it later if people delay treatment. They also say nothing about how employees will feel about losing a familiar plan. Field service engineers, who spend their days on the road, may value a broad provider network more than a lower premium, and the carrier's networks for the two plans should be compared before any change is announced.
Recommendation
Ask the carrier to price migration before choosing. If its quote for PPO repricing under a voluntary offer is below about 4.4 percent, offering both plans saves money while keeping choice. If it is above, the company should either replace the PPO outright, with the full seed deposited in January, or keep the current plan and look for savings elsewhere.
References
Brot-Goldberg, Z. C., Chandra, A., Handel, B. R., & Kolstad, J. T. (2017). What does a deductible do? The impact of cost-sharing on health care prices, quantities, and spending dynamics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132(3), 1261-1318. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx013
Cutler, D. M., & Reber, S. J. (1998). Paying for health insurance: The trade-off between competition and adverse selection. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2), 433-466. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355398555649
26 U.S.C. § 223 (2024). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/223
The Purdue Global GB545 Unit 5 instructions
GB545 Unit 5 asks you to compare two or more benefit plan designs. Lay out the designs side by side, including deductibles, coinsurance, out-of-pocket limits, any account funding and premium differences. Calculate employer cost by coverage tier under each option, including a scenario in which employees choose. Address adverse selection and what it could do to the remaining plan's price. Show employee cost at several claim levels, not just the average, and note any timing effects. Confirm briefly that the designs would meet coverage obligations. Recommend a course of action and the information needed before deciding. Expect about six pages with design, cost and exposure tables, citing sources and statutes in APA 7.
How the GB 545 Unit 5 example is put together
The design table compares a $750 PPO deductible with a $2,000 high-deductible plan seeded at $750 and $1,500, with account rules from the federal statute. The cost table prices four coverage tiers, single through family, $26,477,920 under the PPO and $24,729,374 if all move. Cutler and Reber's account of a richer plan's collapse supports the repricing scenario, and the highlighted sentence warns that choice can cost more than change. The exposure table shows a single employee paying $5,360 under the PPO and $3,597 under the new plan at $14,000 in claims. Brot-Goldberg and colleagues inform the January timing risk, and the recommendation asks for migration pricing first.
Reading the GB545 Unit 5 grading rubric
Instructors grading a GB545 plan comparison look for a voluntary-choice scenario that accounts for who switches, not just how many. Side-by-side designs earn points because they make every later number traceable. Employer cost by tier shows accuracy. Pricing adverse selection, with a break-even repricing, shows insight beyond averages. Employee cost at several claim levels shows attention to who wins and loses. Noting timing, such as a deductible due in January, shows practical judgment. A brief coverage note shows awareness of legal obligations without overreaching. A recommendation that names the information still needed shows sound decision-making. The account statute, Cutler and Reber, and Brot-Goldberg and colleagues are cited.
GB545 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points
Many GB545 Unit 5 comparisons calculate savings as if every employee moved to the new plan, then recommend offering both, without noticing that choice changes who stays in the old plan. Others report average employee cost, which hides the effect on employees with high or low claims. A frequent gap is timing: an annual comparison can favor a high-deductible design while a January claim still strains a lower-paid employee. Some writers treat the repricing assumption as fact. Set designs side by side, price each tier, model voluntary choice with repricing, show employee cost at several levels, note timing, confirm coverage briefly and recommend what to learn before deciding. Calculating break-even turns uncertainty into a test.
Get a GB545 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Plan designs, premiums and enrollment by tier are the inputs; the Unit 5 case usually supplies them, and the rubric decides the emphasis. Send both. Within 24-48h the comparison arrives with employer share figured, migration modeled three ways and employee cost shown at three claim levels. The first one is free. 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 GB545 papers and MBA samples
- GB545 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB545 Unit 2: Rewards Program Audit
- GB545 Unit 3: Market Position Memo
- GB545 Unit 4: Labor Cost Model
- GB545 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB545 Unit 7: Incentive Plan Proposal
- GB545 Unit 8: Pay Equity Analysis
- GB545 Unit 9: Executive Compensation Review
- GB545 Unit 10: Rewards Business Case
- GB542 Unit 5: Development Program Design
- GB541 Unit 5: Case Analysis
- GB534 Unit 5: Attitude Measurement Exercise
GB545 Unit 5 questions, answered
Where does the 6 percent repricing figure come from?
It is a labeled assumption illustrating adverse selection: when lower-cost members choose the high-deductible option, the remaining PPO population costs more per person, and carriers reprice. The actual figure would come from the carrier or a benefits consultant. The example uses it to show that the voluntary scenario's result hangs on this one number, which is why the paper asks for migration pricing first.
Does the comparison need to address the Affordable Care Act?
Usually only briefly. Many sections expect a sentence confirming that both designs would still meet the employer's coverage obligations, without legal analysis. The example notes that its contribution rates keep the employee share of single coverage low and leaves any affordability determination to counsel. If your prompt asks for more, treat it as a separate section rather than weaving it through the cost tables.
Why show employee cost at three claim levels?
Because an average hides who wins and who loses. A healthy single employee and one managing a chronic condition experience the same plan very differently, and a recommendation that reads well at average claims can still shift real cost onto one group. Low, median and high levels cover that range without drowning the reader. Family coverage deserves the same treatment if your case includes it.
Where can I find a free GB545 Unit 5 sample paper?
This page carries a full GB545 Unit 5 benefit plan comparison weighing a PPO against a high-deductible design for 2,050 enrollees, with three tables, an adverse selection scenario and APA 7 references.
What repricing would make offering both plans lose money?
About 4.4 percent. Above that, the extra cost of the healthier members leaving the PPO outweighs the $699,418 saved by those who switch, so the carrier's migration quote decides the choice.