Health Care

Health Co-Ops Yield Modest Improvements... After 60 Years or So

by Tim Foley

categories: Obama And Congress, Public Plan

Published July 06, 2009 @ 10:46PM PT

Somehow, the Senate Finance Committee is still talking about Sen. Kent Conrad’s largely useless “compromise” of creating a health co-op with federal seed money instead of creating a Medicare-like public health insurance option to compete with private insurers.  It’s not clear who they’re talking to.  The Republicans on the committee have been underwhelming in their faint praise of the idea, and the more progressive Democrats on the committee say straight up that it’s no substitute.  But it’s clear the focus is on compromise, and not the effectiveness of the policy to actually address the problems of rising costs, mediocre quality and a system that leaves too many – both with and without insurance – behind.

Clue number one, of course, is that we already have co-ops.  Almost by definition, if your solution is something we already have, then it won’t change the game.

Kaiser Health News summarizes the recent Bloomberg article on how the most effective health co-ops have developed:  “Washington State's insurance commissioner, Michael Kreidler, praised Washington's existing co-op, Group Health Cooperative, a 600,000 member plan that employs 922 doctors and 1,700 nurses, but noted that it took 60 years to develop, the paper says, adding: ‘While Group Health's premiums are generally no cheaper than competitors', the plan has been less aggressive than private companies at trying to purge sicker, costlier patients.’”

So the Senate Finance Committee is prepared to punt on expanding public coverage and breaking the monopoly of for-profit insurance that, as Wendell Potter said, “has proven itself an untrustworthy partner to its customers, to the doctors and hospitals who deliver care, and to the state and federal governments that attempt to regulate it.”  They’re willing to ignore the 72% of Americans who say they favor giving people the choice between public and private coverage (including 50% of Republicans).  In its place, they want to give us a “compromise” ill-defined co-op that won’t provide any more affordable coverage than regular insurance, will still seek to cherry-pick healthy patients and avoid sicker ones, but will just be nicer about it?  Gosh, that sounds empowering.

Oh, and it will take at least a generation – maybe up to 60 years – to yield that level of unspectacular results?

Would that we had that long to wait.  But America isn't Rip Van Winkle.  Our families, our businesses and your state and federal budgets need help now.

They need more prodding – tell the Senate Finance Committee a health co-op is no subsitute for a public health insurance option.

(Photo credit:  Archie McPhee on Flickr).