Professor’s Classroom
Subject: Health Care
A health co-op?
Single payer health care is DOA…..public option is on life support…..now the latest idea, but not an original one, is a health co-op.
I know…I know…what the hell is a health co-op? I will answer that in awhile but first let us look at why it is a priority, at least in one Senator’s little mind.
Sen. Conrad threw this out there in the beginning of the health debate, back in June. Here is what Slate.com says about co-ops:
A cooperative is basically a not-for-profit patient-run insurance organization. Instead of executives running it, you’d have people who are themselves enrolled. There would be relatively little overhead compared with a private insurance company—no profit means less advertising and no commissions or underwriting—and every patient would have a say in how it’s run. Many such cooperatives already exist. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound near Seattle and HealthPartners in Minnesota are two of the most successful examples
The co-op idea is being pressed by Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND). “I believe they’re a good idea because they can provide competition to for-profit insurance companies, and one of the things we need in the system is more competition,” he says.
Conrad is trying to deal with objections from the insurance industry, as well as from some health care providers and some Republicans, to something called a public option. This would be a government-run plan designed to nudge private insurers into lowering prices and make health insurance more widely available. Opponents are concerned the government plan would pay too little to doctors and hospitals and would drive private insurers out of business because they couldn’t demand the same kind of deals from doctors and hospitals.
But what does Conrad’s proposal say?
The proposal also says:
* There are no free rides in co-ops. Every person would have to pay dues, whether they have the money on their own or they get a government subsidy (which would have to be worked out). Costs are not spread among paying and non-paying members.
* The feds could pay the start-up costs for a co-op, but could not pay to sustain it.
* Co-ops could be different sizes — local, regional, or national. NYC might have several, while parts of North and South Dakota could team up to offer one.
* Every state would be required to have at least one co-op option.
What would the costs look like to the individual?
The cost for a mid-30s single, self-employed woman runs from $78 per month for a catastrophic plan to $277 per month for full coverage, with big swings in deductibles and cost sharing. A family of four, with no employer support, would pay $244 per month to $862 per month.
NPR is reporting that there are some drawbacks to the co-op idea.
Several co-ops have failed because of tension between the board and health care providers such as doctors and hospitals. The providers wanted more money or autonomy or better facilities than the co-op was willing to provide. The relationship between doctors and HealthPartners appears to be good.
Now with that drawback how would a massive co-op be with massive amounts of cash at their disposal? The failure rate would most likely be huge….greed and power would kill this type of effort….as it does with most other efforts.
Now my question is–what will the co-op regulation look like to make sure that the people are being treated fairly and honestly? Good question and there is NO mention of what regulations will look like. I guess that is for another day.
Personally, I think this idea sucks! It is to keep the insurance companies in the loop and to help protect them from health care losses. Wondering how much cash Sen. Conrad has received from Insurance companies…that should be looked at closely.