When I first heard about the idea of health insurance co-ops as an alternative to a public plan, I thought, "This is good -- lawmakers are being creative about solving the coverage issue so that a bill can actually get through Congress." But as is often the case with such ideas, the details are a little murky.
Co-ops could be a great way to expand insurance choices, particularly in markets that lack options. But when it comes to catalyzing competition in insurance markets (a goal of those on the left) and reducing stifling bureaucracy (a goal of those on the right), I'm not sure co-ops will really do either.
That's not to say co-ops are a bad idea. Puget Sound's "Group Health" operates like a co-op and is successful -- and has been for more than 60 years. My question is, what's preventing such co-ops from forming in any given market, and do we really need government to fund their creation? Do you see a role for health insurance co-ops in health care reform?
Comments
Rest assured if any bill short of a public option comes forward it will be so watered down that it will be nothing more then a subsidy to phrma and health insurance because the only thing left will be a mandate. Not for employers, but me and you will now be forced to buy from the private health insurance industry.
A co-op does very little to make more competition.The insurance companies would love this ideal because it does little to curb their profits or anything for that matter. Like many said already co-ops have been around for a while and you don't see them actively competing with any of these giant companies.This just breaks up the pools of people making our bargaining power much less and puts us back to where we were.
a co-op is nothing but a shed for those being bought off by the health industry and those w/o a spine to hide behind
Wonderful remarks, as I remember the formation of Group Hospitalization insurance back in about1947-48(?), and it was absolutely affordable and paid everything. The basic idea was many could have enough money to afford an individual sickness. When I moved from Washington DC to Long Island City NY, the only thing they said they had was BC/BS.... which was and has been horrible for me as an independent subscriber. (We only got a break in NJ when the Farm Bureau allowed us to sign up to BC/BS through their organization.) And BC/BS decided to get rid of independent subscribers-- hired a "thug" type to phone and harass me and raise fees beyond anything I could pay, so that I finally had to quit. Am not sure, was Group Hospitalization a co-op?
I think it's great that they are trying to improve our health care system, but it is still best if they are serious in solving the problems of our health care system.
Group Health Cooperative, like most other cooperative health care systems formed in America in the past half century, is a consumer cooperative. It is governed by a board of directors composed of its members. Aside from the fact that GHC is a non-profit system driven to fulfill a social vision of providing high quality, cost effective health care, this is what I love about Group Health. The doctors work for their patients.
Stakeholders in the American health care system include employers, insurance companies, doctors and other providers of health care products and services, individual “consumers,” and, of course, government agencies. We have health plans owned and controlled by insurance companies, plans owned and controlled by doctors, even programs owned and controlled by employers and the government. Only consumer cooperatives are owned and controlled by the people they serve.
Group Health Cooperative puts the needs of its members first. It exists to keep them healthy and care for them when they are ill. It measures its success by the quality of care it provides and the service it renders. As one option among many in the market place, it also strives to be efficient and keep its costs down. As a non-profit it is constantly attentive to living within its budget.
Unfortunately, as a non-profit, Group Health does not have access to capital markets for expansion. Though its vision is to serve as many people as possible, its financial resources for growth are very limited. With the support of public funding, however, Group Health and cooperative systems like it can grow and fulfill their potential for bringing high quality, cost effective health care to more Americans.
My family has been covered by Group Health Co-op for many years and the health care we've experienced has been excellent. The co-op's focus on improving one's health through lifestyle changes that one can control (food choices, daily exercise,lowering risky behaviors, etc) is a crucial part of the co-op care model that needs to be carried forward if health care reform is to succeed.
Health care co-ops have formed in many markets, and not just rural areas. Most of them have converted to other forms, merged, or shut down; but the same is true of all businesses formed decades ago, as well as many government plans and even governments. If one or many co-ops are launched, it will be essential for us to learn from the experiences of the past.
The existing cooperative providers seem to have had a positive impact in lowering costs and improving care in their markets, although this seems to be primarily because of their nature as integrated providers. A simple cooperative insurance company is less likely to make a dramatic impact.
There are lots of issues to consider, but ultimately, I think that co-ops are at least as good an idea as the public plan.
I have to admit I've never heard of health insurance co-ops. Health insurance premiums have just about doubled in the last ten years. So if they've been around for at least 60 years, and they're not a bad idea, I wonder why there aren't more of them? While they may not be a bad idea, maybe they're not such a good idea either.
There are problems with our entire health insurance system, from the individual user, to the employers providing the coverage, to the doctors, to the hospitals, to the insurance carriers, to the drug companies. Rather than the democrats rushing into some kind of "see, we did it" program, wouldn't it make more sense to take their time and try to fix the entire system?