| Fictional design | First period: two eligible problems, $1,500 each | Second period: $1,500 for the same first problem |
|---|---|---|
| A: $250 annual deductible | 80% × ($3,000 − $250) = $2,200 paid | 80% × ($1,500 − $250) = $1,000 paid |
| B: $500 once per condition | 80% × ($3,000 − $1,000) = $1,600 paid | 80% × $1,500 = $1,200 paid |
Illustrative contract rules, not real insurer quotes: both examples assume the same eligible bills, no caps reached and reimbursement after deductibles. Design A pays $3,200 over the two periods; B pays $2,800. If A costs $10 more each month, its extra premium over 24 months is $240, less than its $400 extra reimbursement in this particular sequence. The more expensive monthly policy would leave the owner $160 better off in this invented case.
If only the first condition recurs for additional periods, the comparison changes because A’s annual deductible resets while B’s assumed same-condition deductible does not. With no eligible claims, the additional premium buys no reimbursement. This is a stress test of the coverage design, not an estimate of your dog’s future health or a claim that one structure always wins.
Use the actual offers to replace every fictional rule, including the insurer’s grouping of conditions and payment order. The result you want is a cheaper sustainable arrangement over plausible care patterns, not merely the smallest deductible or the lowest first bill.