CHOICE Arrangements Put Health Benefits’ Employee Experience to the Test

CHOICE Arrangements are gaining attention as employers look for ways to manage health benefit costs and give workers more flexibility. But the model’s value will depend on what employees experience after an option is offered: whether they can understand their coverage, make an informed choice and get help when they need it.

That’s the central argument in an open letter from Ray Goforth, Take Command’s senior vice president of marketing and a board member of the HRA Council. Goforth calls on administrators, carriers, brokers and advisers to take responsibility for how the arrangement works in practice. Wider awareness and employer adoption, he argues, won’t by themselves show whether the approach is serving people well.

Rising costs sharpen the question for employers

Goforth points to pressure on both employer coverage and individual plans. Workers now contribute an average of $7,471 a year toward family coverage, an increase of 9% from 2025, while total family premiums have reached $28,303. In the individual market, premiums rose by double digits in 2026, and insurers proposed a median increase of about 14% for 2027. The letter describes that as the steepest run of back-to-back increases since 2018.

These figures shape the choices employers and employees face, but they don’t tell the whole story. For workers, affordability also has to be weighed alongside the coverage available and the help they can get understanding it. Employers, meanwhile, need to consider whether a benefits model meets their team’s needs and whether employees can use it without being left to navigate complex decisions alone.

Goforth’s case is that the industry should discuss those pressures openly. Employers considering a different approach need clear information about its trade-offs, and employees need explanations that help them assess their options. Any conversation about flexibility that leaves out rising costs or the challenges of choosing coverage gives people an incomplete picture.

A new name does not settle the question

In the letter, Goforth says ICHRA is now called CHOICE Arrangement, with the same benefits. He sees the new name and increased attention as signs that the model is entering a wider discussion about employer-sponsored health coverage. The underlying appeal is flexibility: employers have an opportunity to rethink a model that, in his view, has historically constrained individual choice.

That opportunity doesn’t make CHOICE a fit for every employer or employee. Goforth cautions that more options don’t automatically lead to better outcomes. The practical test is whether a particular arrangement improves the experience for the people who depend on it. For employers, that means asking how employees will understand and select coverage, what support they’ll receive after enrolling, and whether administrators can respond when problems arise.

Those questions matter because the arrangement shifts work across several parts of the benefits process. Administrators, carriers, brokers and advisers all help shape how choices are presented and supported. If information is hard to understand or assistance stops at enrollment, the flexibility on offer may be difficult for employees to use.

Four commitments shape Take Command’s approach

Goforth links the letter’s principles to Take Command’s founding mission. Founder Jack Hooper began working on the company around the time he and his wife, Brittany, were expecting twins. Hooper later researched health care cost transparency at Wharton, work that Goforth says helped form the company. Its stated aim is to bring transparency, advocacy and plain common sense to health insurance.

The letter lays out four commitments for putting that aim into practice. First, the company says it will challenge established ways of providing benefits and keep asking whether its own approach meets people’s needs. Second, it pledges to discuss affordability and changing individual-market costs openly, use real numbers in its guidance and tell employers when CHOICE may not be the right fit.

Third, Take Command says it will make information clearer and help employees make informed decisions about coverage that fits their lives. Goforth acknowledges that people still encounter confusing moments; he frames those moments as evidence of where the company needs to improve. Fourth, the company says its responsibility continues after enrollment: it intends to support employees through significant moments, take ownership when something goes wrong and work to fix it.

Goforth says the company hasn’t resolved every challenge and has more work to do to meet people’s needs. That admission is part of the standard he wants the industry to adopt: make the promises behind a benefits model visible, then judge performance by how people are treated when they use it.

Judge the model by what happens after enrollment

For employers weighing CHOICE, the letter offers a practical set of questions rather than a blanket endorsement. Are costs and uncertainty explained plainly? Can workers compare their options with enough support to make informed decisions? Does the administrator remain available after enrollment, and does it take responsibility when service falls short?

Goforth’s message to the broader benefits industry is to lead with transparency, simplify the experience and stay accountable beyond the enrollment period. CHOICE creates an opening to change how employers provide benefits, but the result will depend on the people and services behind each choice. The next measure of progress is whether employees can understand their coverage and get meaningful support when it counts.

Sources cited in the letter: KFF’s employer health benefits survey, the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker analysis of proposed 2027 premiums, and The Commonwealth Fund’s discussion of 2027 premium increases. Goforth’s professional profile and Take Command are also linked in the original letter.