The flagship
Two questions decide whether a sharing ministry survives scrutiny. Auxilium answers both continuously, from your own ledger, in language a board member can read aloud.
Of every dollar members contributed, how many cents reached their medical bills? It is a simple number and the simplicity is the point — it is the one measure a member, a board, a journalist, and a regulator would all reach for first.
Auxilium computes it monthly and on a trailing three-month window, and benchmarks it against the ACA medical loss ratio: 80.0% for individual and small group, 85.0% for large group. Health care sharing ministries are statutorily exempt from that standard. Measuring against it anyway is the entire point — a ministry that clears a bar it is not held to has said something no marketing page can.
If you choose to, you can publish it. One opt-in endpoint exposes the trailing twelve-month ratio and the benchmark comparison, with no member data in it at all.
No organization goes from healthy to catastrophic in one month. It slides, and every individual month looks defensible in isolation. Auxilium compares your recent window against the one before it and says so when the trend turns.
A month that took contributions and disbursed nothing is the loudest signal the system produces. A single such month is a quiet month; a run of them is the pattern that has ended in federal action.
Pattern this addresses: Federal authorities have alleged an organization collected millions while distributing nothing to members for an extended period.
Payments to owners, their entities, or family are their own category, and Auxilium refuses to record one without a stated relationship. Undisclosed related-party payments are the mechanism in essentially every diversion case on record.
When administration, marketing, and related-party payments together outweigh what reaches members' medical bills, the organization has stopped being a sharing ministry in substance. That comparison is on the dashboard, not in an annual report.
Your sharing guidelines are versioned and dated inside Auxilium, and each provision declares which denial reasons it actually authorizes. That last part is what makes the whole thing work.
A denial must cite both a reason and a provision. Auxilium then checks four things: that the provision exists, that it authorizes the stated reason, that the member joined before it took effect, and that a reason was recorded at all. Anything that fails becomes a finding the same week — with the amount at stake and the member's name — rather than an exhibit in a deposition three years later.
The most consequential of those four is the third. Applying a guideline written after someone joined means holding them to rules they never agreed to, and it is the single clearest pattern in the public record of this category.
Every claim gets a turnaround commitment when it is submitted, and a visible clock. Breaching it escalates automatically to a named person.
Two decisions in that clock matter more than the rest. The clock pauses while you are waiting on the member — but "waiting on information" gets its own two-week ageing rule, because that status is precisely where claims go to die, and excluding it entirely would create an incentive to park them there.
And a claim nobody has opened escalates before its deadline. An unacknowledged claim is worse than a slow one: the member cannot tell "being worked" from "lost", and assumes the former until it is far too late.
The cruelest failure in this category happens in the right order but too late: years of contributions, then a procedure, then the discovery that it will not be shared.
Auxilium can assess a planned procedure against the guideline version that actually binds that member and your own denial history for that category. It is deliberately never promissory — "likely" is the strongest word it is permitted to use about a future claim, and that restraint is enforced in the code, not left to a writer. Every assessment is logged, so a member told one thing and then denied can point at the record.
No. Health care sharing ministries are exempt from state insurance regulation, and no software changes that. Auxilium measures what your ledger says and checks your decisions against your own published guidelines. That is evidence you can show — it is not a compliance certification, and anyone selling you one is overstating.
Then you will see it, with the reasons and the amounts. A ratio can be low for legitimate reasons — a quiet quarter, a reserve build, a lumpy month. Auxilium says which of those the ledger supports and which it does not, and the trailing window exists precisely so one unusual month does not read as a crisis.
No. Publishing is opt-in and off by default. It is a decision, not a setting we make for you.
No. Every score is a sum of named, weighted reasons over your own data, and the full rule set — every code, weight, and the documented failure it was written from — is published inside the app. A score you cannot argue with is one you should not trust with pastoral or financial decisions.
The demo seeds both. Same software, same screens — an 89% share ratio next to a 16% one.