IBNR for Healthcare Payers: Data Flow & Calculation Guide

‍

Healthcare payers face a constant challenge: medical services are delivered but claims arrive weeks or months later. This gap creates a financial blind spot that can derail budgets, distort medical loss ratios, and trigger compliance violations.

‍

IBNR (Incurred But Not Reported) represents the liability for services already delivered but not yet reported through claims. It's one of the largest liabilities on a health plan's balance sheet. Getting IBNR wrong means flying blind on cash flow forecasting and Medicare Advantage bids.

‍

This article covers the data flows that make IBNR calculations possible, from claims processing architecture to actuarial modeling. Leading payers integrate IBNR across enterprise data systems, avoid common pitfalls, and leverage advanced analytics for competitive advantage in value-based care.

‍

What is IBNR and Why Data Flow Matters in Healthcare Finance

‍

Defining IBNR in Payer Operations

‍

IBNR stands for Incurred But Not Reported. According to NAIC accounting standards, IBNR represents expected payments for insured events that have occurred but not been reported to the insurer as of the statement date. When a patient visits a doctor or has surgery, the healthcare provider doesn't immediately send the claim. Administrative processing, coding review, and billing cycles all introduce delays.

‍

During this lag period, the payer's financial statements would show artificially low expenses if they only counted received claims. IBNR reserves fill that gap by estimating what's coming down the pipeline. This estimate becomes a liability on the balance sheet and directly impacts financial planning, regulatory reporting, and strategic decision-making.

‍

The Reality of Claims Lag

‍

Claims lag typically runs 30 to 60 days in most payer operations, though industry analysis indicates the standard lag averages around 90 days. A member might have surgery on January 15th, but the claim doesn't hit the payer's system until March. Many complex hospital bills are not fully accounted for until three to five months after the service date.

‍

Different claim types experience vastly different lag patterns. Pharmacy claims typically arrive faster because they're adjudicated in real time at the point of sale. Hospital inpatient claims often arrive more slowly due to complex billing processes. Some provider contracts allow 365 days or longer to file claims, meaning services might not enter the data pipeline until many months after care was delivered.

‍

Financial Impact on MLR and Compliance

‍

The Medical Loss Ratio measures the percentage of premium revenue spent on medical claims. Under the Affordable Care Act, most plans must maintain an MLR at or above 85 percent for large group and Medicare Advantage plans. If a plan understates IBNR, it could appear to have an MLR below the required threshold, triggering rebates or penalties.

‍

In 2020, insurers paid out a record $2.5 billion in MLR rebates due to lower-than-expected claim costs during the pandemic. Medicare Advantage plans face even stricter consequences. An MA plan below 85 percent MLR must rebate the shortfall to CMS, and if it remains non-compliant for three consecutive years, new enrollments can be suspended. Five consecutive years can lead to contract termination.

‍

Data Infrastructure Requirements

‍

IBNR calculations require sophisticated data integration across multiple payer systems. Claims processing platforms, eligibility systems, and enterprise data warehouses must work in concert to provide the historical patterns and real-time feeds that actuaries need for accurate reserve estimates. Without proper data architecture connecting these systems, IBNR becomes a manual, error-prone process that can't scale with modern payer operations.

‍

IBNR Data Flow Architecture in Healthcare Payers

‍

Primary Data Inputs for IBNR Calculations

‍

Accurate IBNR calculations require rich historical data and real-time feeds from multiple systems. The primary input is historical claims experience, essentially claims completion patterns over time. Actuaries analyze how claims emerge over months for each incurred period.

‍

Key variables include 

‍

• Service date versus paid date patterns
• Seasonality of claims (higher utilization in Q4 or during flu season) 
• Provider billing speed
• Claim type mix 
• External events 

‍

If historically only 30 percent of a month's claims are paid within that same month, the remaining 70 percent will trickle in later and must be estimated.

‍

Additional inputs include membership data to calculate per member trends, provider contracts (capitated versus fee-for-service arrangements), and benefit factors like deductible resets that cause lower claims in early months and higher claims in later months.

‍

Claims Processing System Integration

‍

According to the 2022 CAQH Index, about 97% of all healthcare claims are sent via the HIPAA standard X12 837 transaction. These inbound 837 claim files feed the claims adjudication system and generate 835 remittance files for payments. With the CAQH Index also indicating that over 9 billion healthcare claims exchanged annually in the U.S., the data pipelines must be robust.

‍

IBNR calculations often run on a monthly cycle for financial closing, so the completeness of claims data as of the cutoff date is crucial. Any claims that have been incurred but not yet captured in the system represent the very gap IBNR aims to fill.

‍

Real-Time vs. Batch Processing

‍

Traditionally, health plans calculate reserves once a month using data through a certain date. However, with newer data infrastructure, some payers are moving toward more frequent or even continuous IBNR updates. A data pipeline might flag high-cost inpatient admissions immediately through admission notifications, allowing actuaries to anticipate large claims before the bills arrive.

‍

Most organizations still do a formal IBNR refresh monthly or quarterly, aligning with reporting cycles. The balance involves computational resources and data architecture. Real-time systems require streaming data pipelines, in-memory processing, and robust enterprise data warehouses.

‍

Medicare Advantage RAF Scoring Connection

‍

MA plans receive capitated payments adjusted for enrollee health status based on diagnoses reported in claims. If claims are delayed, diagnosis codes won't be submitted in time for risk score calculation cutoffs. CMS mitigates this by allowing a long runout. For example, final risk scores for MA 2019 payments were calculated using all 2018 dates of service claims with runout through January 31, 2020, giving plans 13 months.

‍

This means an MA plan's IBNR estimates aren't just about financial reserves. They also inform revenue projections. The claims data feeding IBNR models also feeds the plan's risk adjustment submission process through an Encounter Data Processing System feed to CMS.

‍

The transition from V24 to V28 HCC coding models compounds IBNR risks for Medicare Advantage plans. As RAF revenue tightens under the more restrictive V28 rules, the margin for error in IBNR estimation shrinks significantly, making reserve accuracy even more critical for financial stability.

Calculation Methodologies and Actuarial Modeling

‍

Triangle Development Methods

‍

The traditional actuarial approach to estimating IBNR is based on claims development triangles. Actuaries organize historical claims by incurred month and track how those claims accumulate over subsequent reporting months. For example, a triangle might show that for services incurred in January, 50 percent of claims were paid by end of January, 85 percent by end of February, 95 percent by end of March.

‍

The standard formula is: 

IBNR = Estimated Ultimate Incurred Claims − Claims Paid to Date

‍

If prior data shows only 30 percent of a month's claims are paid within that same month, and December has $30,000 of claims actually paid, the actuary would estimate total incurred claims for December to be $100,000. The difference, $70,000, would be booked as IBNR.

‍

Frequency vs. Severity Modeling

‍

While triangle methods model aggregate development over time, many payers now apply frequency-severity frameworks to increase precision.

• Frequency models predict how many claims are expected for a given population segment based on historical utilization patterns.
  
  
• Severity models estimate the average cost per claim, accounting for service mix, provider contracts, and benefit design.

‍

Combining both enables actuaries to separate utilization-driven fluctuations (frequency) from cost-driven variability (severity). This dual approach is particularly valuable when claim mix changes due to benefit redesigns or provider network shifts, where historical completion factors alone may not hold.

‍

Statistical Approaches to IBNR

‍

Accurate IBNR estimation can make or break a payer's quarterly financials, especially in volatile periods where claims patterns shift unexpectedly. While basic actuarial methods provide a starting point, they often struggle with modern healthcare claims complexity. 

‍

Beyond the traditional chain ladder method, several advanced statistical methods are used to improve reserve accuracy:

‍

Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method

‍

Blends expected ultimate claims with observed development to date, reducing sensitivity to volatility in recent months.

‍

Loss Ratio Method

‍

Projects incurred claims based on expected per member per month (PMPM) costs. For example, if a plan historically incurs $500 PMPM across 1,000 members, the expected incurred claims total $500,000. If only $100,000 is reported, $400,000 is booked as IBNR.

‍

Generalized Linear Models (GLM) & Machine Learning Models

‍

GLM and machine learning models now represent the cutting edge. Member-level predictive models, such as gradient boosting decision trees, have been shown to reduce average reserve error by roughly 40–50% compared to standard chain ladder techniques (based on recent actuarial case studies published in CAS Forum and ASTIN Bulletin).

‍

Data Quality Requirements

‍

Data quality is paramount in IBNR modeling. Even small data issues can lead to large reserve errors. Actuaries implement reasonableness checks and adjustments. 

‍

Common practices include: 

• Comparing per-member-per-month costs of recent months to prior periods
• Monitoring claim counts
• Reconciling paid claims totals to financial statements

‍

Handling Different Claim Types in IBNR Models

‍

IBNR calculations must account for the distinct characteristics of different claim types, each requiring tailored modeling approaches:

‍

Medical claims 

‍

Professional and facility services typically follow standard 30-90 day lag patterns but vary significantly by service type. Inpatient hospital claims often require 60-120 days due to complex billing processes, while primary care visits may arrive within 15-30 days.

‍

Pharmacy claims 

‍

These claims arrive much faster, often adjudicated in real-time at point of sale. Many payers calculate separate, minimal IBNR for pharmacy given the short lag times, though specialty pharmacy and mail-order prescriptions may follow longer patterns.

‍

Capitated versus fee-for-service arrangements 

‍

These require different IBNR approaches. Capitated services generate predictable monthly payments with minimal IBNR, while FFS claims follow traditional lag patterns. Mixed contracts require segmented modeling to avoid over-reserving for capitated portions.

‍

Prior authorization delays 

‍

These delays can extend medical claim lags significantly. Claims requiring prior auth approval may sit in pending status for weeks, requiring actuaries to incorporate utilization management data into their lag assumptions.

‍

Technical Implementation in Enterprise Data Warehouses

‍

ETL Processes for IBNR Pipelines

‍

Implementing IBNR calculation in an enterprise data warehouse involves Extraction, Transformation, and Load steps. At month end, the data team extracts all claims data through the cutoff date, including the incurred date, paid date, claim amount, and claim type. This data is aggregated into an incurred versus paid matrix.

‍

Transformation steps add derived fields like member months to compute PMPM, indicators for large claims, and merge in reference data such as membership counts and premiums earned. Some payers have developed parameter driven IBNR tools within their data warehouse that generate completion factors and reserve estimates automatically.

‍

Snowflake vs. Databricks Considerations

‍

Snowflake has gained popularity in healthcare data warehousing for its separation of storage and compute. IBNR calculations require scanning large volumes of historical claims data, then running complex actuarial models. Snowflake allows scaling compute resources up for monthly close processes while scaling down during lighter periods.

‍

Databricks appeals to organizations investing in machine learning for IBNR prediction. The unified analytics platform supports both SQL queries for traditional reporting and Python or R for advanced statistical modeling. Many sophisticated payers implement both platforms in complementary roles.

‍

Real-Time Monitoring and Alerts

‍

Real-time dashboards display current reserve levels, trends in claims lag patterns, and variance from expected ranges. When actual claims arrival deviates significantly from historical patterns, automated alerts notify stakeholders. One actuarial software solution advertises real time comparison of various IBNR methodologies and automated identification of anomalies.

‍

Health Information Exchange powered ADT alert systems provide another data source. A Medicaid plan in Minnesota implemented an HIE-powered ADT alert system achieving 100 percent notification of member hospital admissions and discharges in real time, supporting IBNR by indicating that costly inpatient claims are forthcoming.

‍

IBNR Impact on Key Payer Financial Metrics

‍

Medical Loss Ratio Calculations

‍

For ACA compliance reporting, regulators specify exact methodologies. IBNR changes must be included to reflect economic reality rather than just cash transactions. A plan that received $100 million in premiums and paid $80 million in claims might look compliant at 80 percent MLR. But if IBNR reserves increased by $10 million, the true MLR is 90 percent.

‍

Cash Flow Forecasting and Profitability

‍

IBNR estimates drive cash reserve requirements and short-term investment strategies. When IBNR reserves increase significantly, it signals higher upcoming cash outflows. From a broader finance view, IBNR impacts operating expenses, underwriting margin, and net income.

‍

If an actuary determines that prior reserves were too high, they will release reserves, which appears as a reduction in current period claim expense. This favorable reserve development boosts earnings. For example, UnitedHealth Group's Q4 2022 results included $620 million of favorable medical reserve development, representing a substantial portion of quarterly operating profit.

‍

Medicare Advantage Bid Submissions

‍

Medicare Advantage plans must submit bids annually to CMS projecting their costs for the coming year. The starting point is the plan's recent experience, which includes incurred claims estimates for the latest months. If IBNR is off, the bid could be mispriced.

‍

If a plan underestimates IBNR for the current year, it will think its medical costs are lower than they actually will be and might bid too low for next year's premium, locking in a loss. Conversely, too high an IBNR could lead to a higher bid or lower benefit offering than necessary, hurting competitiveness.

‍

Connection to Risk-Based Contracts and Provider Settlements

‍

For payers with value-based care or shared-risk arrangements, IBNR affects how revenue and expenses are recognized for settlements. If incurred claims are understated, providers may be overpaid in shared-savings models. Overstated IBNR, meanwhile, delays the release of funds owed to provider groups.

‍

Integrating IBNR estimates into contract settlement analytics ensures fair, timely reconciliation and prevents disputes between payers and provider networks.

‍

Quarterly and Annual Financial Statement Considerations

‍

Each reporting period, actuaries and finance teams evaluate reserve adequacy as part of the close process. Changes in IBNR affect:

• Claims payable and incurred-but-not-reported liabilities on the balance sheet
• Medical claim expense on the income statement
• Operating cash flow projections in financial disclosures

‍

Auditors require detailed support for IBNR methodologies, including completion factor assumptions, lag triangles, and sensitivity analyses. Proper documentation strengthens audit trail integrity and regulatory compliance.

‍

Common Data Flow Challenges and Solutions

‍

Claims Lag Variability

‍

Different providers submit claims at different speeds. Large hospital systems might have complex billing processes leading to slower claims compared to urgent care clinics that file electronically the same day. Rural providers might batch claims weekly, whereas urban providers may submit daily.

‍

Actuaries segment completion factors by provider category or network. Monitoring the composition of claims over time helps interpret changes in lag. Payer data warehouses can tag claims with provider IDs and locations, enabling analysis of lag by provider group.

‍

Prior Authorization Delays

‍

Prior authorization requirements or claim edits can introduce delays in claim processing. If a service wasn't pre-approved, the claim may go into pending status or denial and then be resubmitted after an appeal.

‍

Payers should incorporate knowledge of pended or suspended claims into the IBNR process. Many claims systems produce reports of pended claims with reason codes. Actuaries can use these to anticipate that incurred services exist even though a claim isn't yet paid.

‍

‍Managing IBNR During System Migrations

Converting to a new claims adjudication system can disrupt data continuity. Often during a system migration, claim processing slows as staff adapt to new software, or there may be a one-time backlog followed by a catch-up.

‍

During system transitions, actuaries apply extra caution and often manually adjust reserves. They might shorten the look-back period for completion factors, focusing on post-migration data, or use industry benchmarks until enough new data accumulates.

‍

Addressing Data Quality Issues in Historical Claims Patterns

‍

Poor data quality in historical claims can severely distort IBNR estimates, creating false patterns that mislead actuarial models. 

‍

Common issues include: 

• Duplicate claims from system errors
• Retroactive eligibility changes that affect months-old claims
• Provider resubmissions that appear as new incurred services

‍

Data quality problems compound over time. If a claims system had processing delays in a particular month, that month's completion factors will appear abnormally low, skewing future projections. Similarly, mass provider reprocessing events can create artificial spikes in historical lag patterns.

‍

Successful payers implement systematic data cleansing protocols before feeding claims into IBNR models. This includes identifying and removing duplicate claims, adjusting for known processing anomalies, and excluding outlier months from completion factor calculations. Many organizations maintain separate "clean" claims datasets specifically for actuarial modeling, with documented adjustments for known data quality events.

‍

Coordination Between Actuarial, Finance, and IT Teams

‍

IBNR accuracy depends on seamless collaboration between traditionally siloed departments. Actuaries need clean, timely data but may not understand technical constraints. IT teams build data pipelines but may not grasp actuarial requirements. Finance needs results that tie to general ledger reconciliation.

‍

Communication breakdowns typically occur around month-end close processes. Actuaries may request data extracts without understanding database performance impacts, while IT teams may deliver data that doesn't match actuarial specifications. Meanwhile, finance teams need results by specific deadlines that don't align with technical processing times.

‍

Leading payers establish cross-functional IBNR committees with representatives from each department. 

‍

These groups do tasks such as: 

• Define data specifications
• Establish month-end timelines
• Create escalation procedures for data quality issues 

‍

Regular meetings ensure all teams understand dependencies and can proactively address potential problems before they impact financial close processes.

‍

Advanced IBNR Strategies for Modern Payers

‍

Predictive Analytics and Machine Learning

‍

Modern payers are increasingly employing predictive models to refine IBNR. Machine learning models can use member-level data, provider data, and even external data like flu trends to predict what incurred claims are still unreported.

‍

Some insurers have developed in-house machine learning models to forecast IBNR and compare results to actuarial estimates as a form of triangulation. While adoption of fully machine learned IBNR is still in early stages, these tools are increasingly part of the reserving arsenal.

‍

Real-Time Claims Monitoring

‍

Some payers are pushing toward real-time monitoring of claims as they come in to adjust reserves for the current financial period more quickly. By mid-month, a plan might have a good idea of that month's incurred claims by combining what's already reported plus an estimate for what's outstanding.

‍

Tools and dashboards can show claims versus expected on a daily or weekly basis. If 100 members were known to be hospitalized this week through case management intake but only 50 hospital claims have come in, they know there are more to come and can accrue accordingly.

‍

Integration with Utilization Management

‍

Utilization Management systems, which handle prior authorizations and hospital admission notifications, contain rich forward-looking information. A prior authorization for an elective surgery means with high likelihood, a claim will hit in the coming weeks.

‍

Some payers systematically use UM data to feed IBNR models. They cross-check outstanding prior auths and see if corresponding claims have arrived. Health Information Exchange data or direct ADT feeds from hospitals provide immediate notification of admissions, allowing plans to log an incurred event on the day it happens.

‍

Best Practices for IBNR in Value-Based Care Arrangements

‍

In value-based care arrangements, IBNR represents the hidden liability that separates organizations who think they understand their financial position from those who actually do. Claims data only shows what's been reported. But VBC settlements are based on total incurred costs. Organizations with inaccurate IBNR are essentially flying blind, making critical shared-savings and capitation decisions based on incomplete financial pictures.

‍

Value-based care models shift payment risk to providers through shared savings or capitation. Accurate IBNR estimation becomes even more critical because settlements depend on total incurred cost, not just paid claims.

‍

Provider groups accepting risk contracts face identical IBNR challenges. Whether it's an accountable care organization with shared savings arrangements or a medical group under capitation, these providers must estimate their own IBNR for services they've delivered but haven't yet billed.

‍

Payers in value-based contracts should align IBNR assumptions with contract performance windows, ensuring that incurred costs are fully captured before settlement calculations. Combining predictive analytics, UM integration, and real-time data from HIEs allows for more precise accruals, improving fairness and compliance in shared-risk arrangements. Poor IBNR estimates can turn expected shared savings into unexpected losses, making accurate reserve modeling essential for VBC success.

‍

Regulatory and Compliance Considerations

‍

CMS Reporting Requirements

Medicare Advantage organizations must file MLR reports annually. These reports include incurred claims with IBNR and are subject to audit by CMS. Plans must attest to the accuracy of the data. The bid pricing tool that MA plans file annually requires the prior year's per member cost and utilization metrics, which inherently include IBNR for the portion of the year not fully run out.

‍

State Insurance Department Requirements

‍

Every state requires annual financial statements. A central piece is the Statement of Actuarial Opinion on reserves. This opinion, signed by the appointed actuary, explicitly references IBNR, affirming that reserves meet insurance law requirements, are computed properly, and make a good and sufficient provision for unpaid claims.

‍

States can require companies to strengthen reserves if they believe they are inadequate. During financial exams, examiners might perform an independent actuarial analysis and if they conclude IBNR is understated, they will direct the company to increase it.

‍

NAIC Annual Statement Implications

‍

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners requires all health insurers to file standardized Annual Statements using statutory accounting principles. IBNR appears prominently in multiple sections, including the balance sheet as "Unpaid Claims" and supporting schedules that detail reserve development.

‍

Schedule P of the Annual Statement requires a detailed claims development triangle showing how reserves have developed over the past ten years. This public disclosure allows regulators and rating agencies to assess reserve adequacy trends. Significant adverse development can trigger regulatory scrutiny and impact the company's financial strength ratings.

‍

The Annual Statement also requires disclosure of any changes in reserving methodology. If a payer switches from chain ladder to machine learning models, they must document the impact on reserves and explain the rationale. This transparency requirement ensures consistency and prevents reserve manipulation.

‍

Solvency Monitoring and Regulatory Capital Considerations

‍

IBNR claims reserves directly impact regulatory capital calculations under Risk-Based Capital (RBC) formulas. Understated reserves can create an illusion of financial strength, while overstated reserves unnecessarily tie up capital that could support business growth.

‍

State regulators use the Company Action Level RBC ratio to determine intervention thresholds. If IBNR proves inadequate and requires strengthening, it can push a payer below regulatory minimums, triggering mandatory corrective action plans or even regulatory takeover in extreme cases.

‍

For Medicare Advantage plans, CMS maintains ongoing fiscal soundness monitoring through the review of independently audited annual and quarterly financial statements and compliance with risk-based capital (RBC) requirements. Poor financial performance, especially as reflected in understated IBNR, can directly impact the plan's financial status and trigger enhanced oversight. 

‍

A plan's financial stability ultimately affects its ability to provide quality care, which is reflected in the HEDIS scores that contribute to its Medicare Star Rating and influence future contract renewals and quality bonus payments. Plans with severe financial stability concerns may face enrollment restrictions or termination.

‍

Audit Standards

‍

Both external auditors for GAAP financials and regulators for statutory expect extensive documentation of the IBNR estimation process. Internal controls around IBNR are tested as part of financial audits. An auditor checks that the data used by the actuary was reconciled to the general ledger, that a second actuary reviewed the work, and that management approved the final numbers.

‍

Actuarial standards like ASOP No. 5 and ASOP No. 41 require clear documentation of assumptions and any changes from prior estimates. If an actuary changes methods, they typically must disclose that in the Actuarial Memorandum to regulators.

‍

Final Takeaways

‍

IBNR represents far more than an accounting estimate. It's a critical data flow that touches every aspect of payer operations. The 30 to 90 day claims lag creates a window where payers must operate with incomplete information, and IBNR reserves fill that gap.

‍

Success requires sophisticated data architecture connecting claims processing systems, eligibility platforms, and actuarial modeling tools. Modern payers are moving beyond simple historical triangles toward predictive analytics, real-time monitoring, and integration with utilization management systems. These advanced approaches provide earlier visibility into emerging cost trends and enable proactive responses.

‍

The stakes are high. Underestimate IBNR and you face unexpected losses, MLR compliance issues, and potentially inaccurate Medicare Advantage bids. Overestimate it and you tie up capital unnecessarily while distorting profitability metrics. Healthcare payers that master IBNR data flows gain a competitive advantage through more accurate cash forecasting, better CMS bids, and faster response to changing cost trends.

‍

Frequently Asked Questions

‍

What is the typical IBNR reserve as a percentage of annual claims costs?

‍

IBNR reserves typically range from 8 to 15 percent of annual claims, though this varies significantly by payer type and claims lag patterns. Medicare Advantage plans often carry higher IBNR percentages due to longer lag times. 

‍

How often should payers recalibrate their IBNR calculation models?

‍

Most payers formally recalibrate IBNR models annually, but successful organizations also perform interim reviews quarterly. Major changes like network reconfigurations, benefit design modifications, or provider contract restructuring should trigger immediate recalibration. 

‍

What role does eligibility data play in IBNR accuracy?

‍

Eligibility data serves as the foundation for accurate IBNR calculations. Claims can only be paid for members who had active coverage during the service period, so IBNR estimates must align with eligibility spans.

‍

How do Medicare Advantage risk adjustment scores affect IBNR calculations?

‍

RAF scores determine per-member revenue from CMS but also indicate expected claim costs. Members with higher RAF scores due to chronic conditions typically generate higher claims. IBNR models for Medicare Advantage populations should incorporate risk score distributions to improve accuracy. The connection becomes particularly important during bid preparation, where historical IBNR accuracy affects projected costs.

‍

What's the difference between IBNR and IBNP in healthcare payer finance?

‍

IBNR covers claims incurred but not yet reported to the payer. IBNP represents claims that have been reported but not yet paid. Both appear as liabilities on the balance sheet, but IBNP is based on actual submitted claims, while IBNR requires estimation. IBNP is generally more predictable since you know the actual claim amounts, while IBNR involves greater uncertainty.

‍