How this scorecard works.
Short version: this is a self-assessment tool to help you see where your benefits fiduciary posture may have gaps. It's not legal advice, it's not a compliance audit, and a score doesn't prove anything in a courtroom. Use it to start better conversations.
What this is
A free, anonymous diagnostic for HR leaders, CFOs, and general counsel who oversee employer-sponsored health plans. You answer 14 questions about your plan's governance, pharmacy contract, vendor fees, and documentation. The tool calculates a weighted score from 0 to 100, places you in one of four risk bands, and generates a prioritized list of actions you can take in the next 90 days.
The questions focus on areas where ERISA plan fiduciaries are most often challenged today — especially the issues raised in the Lewandowski v. Johnson & Johnson pharmacy-benefits case and the obligations layered on by the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA).
What this isn't
This scorecard is not legal advice, not a compliance audit, and not individualized fiduciary advice. Two plans with the same score can face very different actual legal exposure depending on their plan documents, their vendor contracts, their participant demographics, and how their committee has actually behaved over time.
If you're worried about your plan's fiduciary exposure, talk to ERISA counsel. The output of this tool is a useful starting document for that conversation — it is not a substitute for it.
Privacy
Nothing you enter leaves this device. There is no backend, no form submission, no analytics capturing your answers, and no account required. Your score is computed entirely in your browser. When you close the page, your answers are gone — they are not saved.
This also means if you refresh the page or navigate away, you'll need to start over. That's by design.
How the score is calculated
Each question has four to five answer options, each mapped to a score from 0 to 100. Questions are weighted by how strongly that topic shows up in current fiduciary litigation and regulatory focus. The heaviest weights are on:
Question 4 — PBM rebate pass-through (weight 1.3x). This is the exact issue at the center of the J&J case.
Questions 5 and 7 — PBM market checks and written broker compensation disclosure (weight 1.2x each). These reflect what courts and regulators are currently treating as fiduciary baselines.
Your overall score is the weighted average across all 14 questions, normalized to a 0–100 scale.
Risk bands
75 or higher — Low Risk. Your plan shows strong fiduciary posture across most areas. The biggest risk here is drift over time.
50 to 74 — Moderate Risk. You have a reasonable foundation, but specific gaps need attention. Most can be addressed in 90 days.
25 to 49 — Elevated Risk. Multiple material gaps relative to today's fiduciary standards. This is where litigation risk starts climbing.
Below 25 — Critical Risk. Your plan appears to lack basic fiduciary infrastructure. Significant gaps, some potentially with immediate compliance exposure.
How actions are ranked
The action list is ranked by two factors. First, legal urgency — actions tied to federal requirements (CAA gag clause attestation, CAA §202 broker disclosure) and actions tied to currently-litigated issues (PBM rebates) are marked Critical. Second, the size of your gap on that question — lower scores surface first within a priority tier.
The list is capped at seven actions. More than that isn't a plan — it's a wish list.
About the "not sure" option
If you pick "not sure" on a question, the tool treats that as a risk signal, not a penalty. Not knowing whether your PBM passes through rebates, for example, is a meaningful fiduciary gap — because prudent process requires monitoring. The score reflects this, but the feedback stays constructive.
What changed recently
This scorecard reflects the fiduciary standards visible as of early 2026 — post-J&J complaint, post-CAA implementation, post-initial gag clause attestation cycles. As case law and regulatory guidance evolve, the weights and questions may change. If you retake the scorecard in a year and your answers haven't changed but your score shifts, that's why.
Who built this
The Dillingham Benefits team built this tool because he thinks most employers have no realistic way to see where their fiduciary posture actually stands — and because most brokers avoid the conversation. Reach out at cpalm@dillinghambenefits.com.
Using the output with others
You're welcome to print your results and share them with your committee, your counsel, your CFO, or your current broker. The tool is built to start productive conversations, not to be the last word on any of them.
Content baseline: April 2026. Reviewed periodically. If regulatory standards shift meaningfully, this page and the scorecard will be updated.