> How often do self-insuranced companies run out of their set-aside?
I don't have any figures at my fingertips, but I know it's more often than insurance corporations, which are highly controlled by governmental oversight to prevent that very thing.
> When that occurs, do their employees simply go without health care?
Yes, that's exactly what happens. Sometimes instead, a company will stop offering in-house insurance and require employees to seek insurance elsewhere.
It sounds like working for a self-insured company is strictly worse for employees than working for a company that offers insurance through an insurance company, risk-wise.
Not "strictly worse", because if one cares about maximizing profits for the company and wages for the employees, the self-insurance route might be better overall. Formal insurance arrangements can be a real drain on resources. On the other hand, some companies choose to self-insure without fully appreciating the risks.
How serious are the risks to the company's other assets? Can a company limit the damage to its other assets if the money it set aside for insurance gets used up?
> Can a company limit the damage to its other assets if the money it set aside for insurance gets used up?
Yes, but at risk of civil lawsuits from the insured, who might have a different perception of their coverage. This kind of thing actually happens, often based on an implied contract between the employer and the staff that may have never been fully committed to paper.
I don't have any figures at my fingertips, but I know it's more often than insurance corporations, which are highly controlled by governmental oversight to prevent that very thing.
> When that occurs, do their employees simply go without health care?
Yes, that's exactly what happens. Sometimes instead, a company will stop offering in-house insurance and require employees to seek insurance elsewhere.