SIMERPU RESEARCH · SOURCE RECAP
The CHAMP Plan™: Too Good To Be True?
SIMERPU recap and commentary: Mardy Gould
Opened — main text retrieved
Quick recap
Markets CHAMP and argues that after-tax Health Population Management premiums distinguish it from noncompliant double-dip plans. Presents compliance and financial advantages as vendor claims.
SIMERPU’s viewpoint
The CHAMP marketing explanation argues that after-tax funding of a separate component changes the analysis. SIMERPU would examine the identity and purpose of each component, who funds it and the entitlement attached to it. A two-component design warrants an explanation of how the components function both separately and together.
What this source contributes
The marketing page identifies separate components and an after-tax funding distinction that can be examined.
What remains unanswered
The identity, funding and payment entitlement of each component must be verified in the actual documents.
Mardy Gould’s take
I would ask for a two-column explanation: what each component does, who pays for it and what benefit it can pay. Then show how the components interact. That would let an employer evaluate the claimed distinction with a clear understanding of the product instead of relying on the phrase dual premium.
Questions I would bring to the conversation
1. Which component is funded after tax?
2. Which component creates each benefit entitlement?
3. How do the actual payroll entries match the policy documents?
Mardy Gould · Co-Founder, SIMERPU →
What would change our assessment?
Verified component-level funding and benefit terms, supported by the applicable analysis, could strengthen or weaken the claimed distinction.
Read the original source
The original author and publisher are credited below. Continue to their article, document or source page for the complete context.
Original Author: santoine
Publisher: The Policy Shop
Original Publication Date: 2025-02-24
Read this alongside…
Each connection has a specific purpose. Compare the sources’ facts, positions and publication dates as you read.
CCA 201703013 — Tax Treatment of Benefits Paid by Fixed-Indemnity Health Plans
IRS Office of Chief Counsel
Source position: Neutral / explanatory
Compare the funding distinction with the primary memorandum’s scenarios.
Read the SIMERPU recap →
5 Facts About "Double Dip" That Change Everything
IRSDoubleDip.com (private website; not IRS)
Source position: Supportive
Read a separate advocacy argument about dual-premium designs.
Read the SIMERPU recap →
The CHAMP Plan: Too Good to Be True?
AffordaCare
Source position: Supportive
Compare the sales page with the more developed vendor-hosted legal analysis.
Read the SIMERPU recap →
Keep learning with SIMERPU
Build your understanding with learning resources, the free Professional Roadmap and our approach to reviewing sources.
About this source
Original Updated Date: 2025-06-03 (page metadata)
Source Type: Vendor / adviser marketing or advocacy
Model Discussed: CHAMP: separate pre-tax coverage and after-tax health population management
Position: Promotional
Period: Recent — 2023–2026
Retrieved: October 31, 2026
Research and date notes
No additional retrieval note.
Each record identifies the material retrieved. SIMERPU’s viewpoint and Mardy Gould’s take are editorial commentary; the source-position label describes the original source’s stance. Read the original and its qualifications when evaluating a particular arrangement.
SIMERP
U
™
Understand the details. Lead with confidence.
© 2026 SIMERPU.