ALE Strategy Design Worksheet
Help users compare ALE strategy options and identify mandate, affordability, workforce, transition, and funding considerations.
Purpose
Help users compare ALE strategy options and identify mandate, affordability, workforce, transition, and funding considerations.
When to use
Use after ALE/FTE status is estimated and before selecting contribution, class, replacement, or renewal strategy.
Who should use this
Advisor, employer sponsor, finance owner, compliance reviewer, or strategy lead working with ALE design choices.
Review boundary
ALE mandate, affordability, reporting, and penalty exposure issues should be reviewed by qualified professionals.
Resource sections
ALE status reference
- ALE/FTE status source or calculator output is identified.
- Measurement assumptions are retained.
- Open ALE questions are routed.
Full-time employee population
- Full-time population and affected groups are summarized.
- Class or geography considerations are noted.
- Transition risks are identified.
Affordability objective
- Affordability target or safe-harbor approach is described.
- Employee contribution assumptions are captured.
- Review owner is named.
Mandate exposure considerations
- Potential mandate exposure is flagged for review.
- MEC, affordability, and offer strategy questions are separated.
- No penalty conclusion is made in this worksheet.
Current group plan or MEC strategy
- Current offer or MEC strategy is summarized.
- Continuation/replacement assumptions are noted.
- Apples-to-apples comparison need is flagged.
ICHRA strategy option under review
- Options considered include MEC-only comparison, lowest-cost mandate strategy, managed unaffordability, mandate-safe affordable ICHRA, apples-to-apples funding, fully funded replacement, hybrid traditional/ICHRA class strategy, targeted population carveout, geographic replacement, and renewal cap strategy.
- Chosen option or options are documented.
- Rejected options and rationale are retained.
Workforce transition considerations
- Employee disruption, education, marketplace access, and support needs are noted.
- High-risk groups are routed for review.
- Launch or renewal communication needs are identified.
Reporting capacity
- Reporting owner and data source are identified.
- Payroll/vendor handoffs are noted.
- Evidence location is known.
Review owner
- Finance, compliance, reporting, and strategy reviewers are named.
- Escalation path is recorded.
- Review note is retained.
Evidence location
- ALE/FTE test, affordability assumptions, contribution model, class analysis, recommendation, and reviewer notes are stored.
- Export or print is retained.
- Related tool outputs are linked.
Evidence to retain
- ALE/FTE test file - Retain with the audit file, evidence map, or review record as applicable.
- Affordability assumptions - Retain with the audit file, evidence map, or review record as applicable.
- Contribution model - Retain with the audit file, evidence map, or review record as applicable.
- Workforce/class analysis - Retain with the audit file, evidence map, or review record as applicable.
- Strategy recommendation - Retain with the audit file, evidence map, or review record as applicable.
- Reviewer notes - Retain with the audit file, evidence map, or review record as applicable.
Evidence is not saved in this static version. Assign an owner, repeat the process consistently, review exceptions, explain the rationale, and retain copies in the employer file or local project record.
Print, Copy, or Export This Resource
No database records or server-side files are created. Use these browser-only actions to retain a local copy.
ALE mandate, affordability, reporting, and penalty exposure issues should be reviewed by qualified professionals.