High-deductible health plan (HDHP) availability among private-sector workers doubled over the past decade, reaching 50% in 2024, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. That shift puts benefits brokers in a position where supplemental coverage is no longer a secondary product. It's a direct response to a gap the employer's medical plan has created.
John Feeney (pictured), vice president of group sales and market development at Renaissance, works with brokers on exactly this challenge. Here, he shares how to raise supplemental options in a way that supports the employer's existing cost strategy rather than competing with it.
An employer who has locked in an HDHP is not shopping for another product. Feeney argues the most common default for benefits brokers in that situation is to lead with product features, and that's the wrong move.
"The most common mistake is leading with product features instead of the employer's problem," he said. "In a cost-constrained environment, employers want to know whether the recommendation supports their cost strategy, helps employees, and is easy to implement."
The better approach, Feeney explains, is to anchor the conversation in what the employer has already decided and ask what logically comes next. He recommends treating the premium savings from the HDHP as the starting point. From there, the conversation turns to what those savings leave unresolved for employees.
"Now that we've created savings through the medical plan, how do we help employees manage the out-of-pocket exposure that comes with it?" he said. "That positions supplemental benefits as a solution to a known gap, not an add-on."
The language brokers choose carries as much weight as the framing. Feeney said describing supplemental coverage as "extra coverage" reinforces the idea that it sits outside the employer's plan strategy. The more effective approach, he notes, is to connect the recommendation directly to the financial exposure the HDHP creates, and to present it as part of a broader financial health protection strategy.
Not every supplemental product belongs alongside an HDHP. Feeney says the recommendation should start with what the plan design actually exposes employees to, rather than with which products a broker knows best.
The traditional starting point, he adds, includes accident, critical illness, and hospital indemnity coverage. These products have historically fit well alongside high-deductible structures because they respond to the medical events most likely to generate significant out-of-pocket costs.
"The most practical supplemental products are those that help employees manage unexpected medical costs and financial exposure tied to care," Feeney said.
The criteria Feeney applies to narrow the field are simplicity, relevance, and ease of use. He says the strongest candidates tie coverage to actual medical events rather than abstract benefit schedules. Products that are straightforward for employers to administer and easy for members to understand tend to perform best in that role.
That also gives brokers a more direct case to make with cost-focused employers. Feeney adds that supplemental coverage can protect the employee experience without requiring any change to the underlying medical plan strategy.
"For employees, the value is simple: an HDHP may reduce payroll deductions, but it can increase out-of-pocket risk when care is needed," he said. "The employer can continue managing costs while giving employees access to additional financial health protection."
Timing is one of the variables brokers most often get wrong with supplemental benefits. Raise the options too late in the cycle and the conversation changes character entirely.
"Brokers should raise supplemental options early in the benefits review cycle, ideally when medical strategy and plan design decisions are being discussed," Feeney said. "If the conversation happens after the medical plan is finalized, it can feel like a last-minute add-on."
Timing affects receptivity, Feeney adds. Supplemental options introduced alongside the HDHP discussion become part of the overall benefits design rather than a follow-up recommendation. That shift in sequencing changes how employers respond. The recommendation reads as consultative and aligned with the employer's cost goals. It no longer looks like an attempt to add spend after the budget conversation is closed.
For brokers who typically address supplemental coverage at the end of the renewal review, the adjustment Feeney describes is straightforward. The substance of the conversation is the same. The timing is the only change.
