1.

There’s a lesson to be learned from Seattle’s Group Health Cooperative, but it’s not the one Senator Maria Cantwell has been offering.

To hear Cantwell and other moderate Democrats tell it, one of the best ways for Congress to fix the nation’s broken health care system this year would be to create a bunch of Group Health clones all over the country. “I think Group Health has done well in the Pacific Northwest,” Cantwell said on June 22, pushing the idea that all of America should follow the Seattle-based health care provider’s lead. “It’s a tested system.”

The Senator has fuzzed-up her position somewhat since that day, but she still supports the idea that the Group Health model could work nationally—and it’s not hard to guess at the political reason for this.

In promoting the Group Health model, Cantwell is toeing a line laid down by senior members of a powerful Senate committee on which she sits: the Finance Committee. These political heavies, who are going to play an outsized role in the way Congress tackles health care reform this fall, have recently latched on to the so-called “co-op compromise” as a way of gaining enough votes to pass some kind of reform bill. Naturally, a place called Group Health Co-operative is being used to make their case.

When you step back, it’s a bit bizarre. Suddenly the idea of locally-run health care co-operatives, which sounds pretty damn socialist, has come to be seen as less socialist than the idea of a nation-wide health care plan” run by the government?

But that’s politics.

The real question: Is Group Health Co-operative, founded in 1947 and currently the second-largest health insurer in Washington State, really the national model that supporters of the co-op compromise think it is?

The answer, in parts, as the day goes on.

Eli Sanders was The Stranger's associate editor. His book, "While the City Slept," was a finalist for the Washington State Book Award and the Dayton Literary Peace Prize. He once did this and once won...

19 replies on “The Lesson of Group Health, in Parts”

  1. I’ve been with group health for 10 years, and I gotta say that I love them. They’re great about nagging me for the preventive care I’m supposed to get, and they’ve been equally great during unexpected medical crises that have come up with me and my family (including surgeries, and medical problems far from home). I know that hating your HMO is all the rage, but I just don’t.

  3. The lesson to learn is that single payer national health care is what 2/3rds of America wants.

    And demands.

    Accept nothing LESS!

  4. I agree with 1. My wife recently had to switch from GHC to Regence or something – one of those plans where you have the awesome privilege of being able to “choose your own doctor.” Of course this means that you have to troll through lists of hundreds and hundreds of providers without any clue of how to choose one, and when you do choose one, hey, maybe it turns out that they practice in a “hospital,” so you get billed for hospital care you didn’t receive for a quick introductory visit. Yay, patient choice!

    I’ve been with non-profit HMOs my whole life and have never had a problem. Of course, I’ve never had a serious health issue either, so I only know so much.

    All that said, I’m not saying this makes sense as a substitute for the “public option,” I’m just happy with GHC.

  5. please just sum up the answer to the question instead of dragging it out into a multipart feature…..

    and btw what would be of interest is the means of electing the board of directors of these co ops….who gets to vote? do we end up with a parallel “government”

    look at the corporate world, share holder democracy isn’t working too good is it…..

  8. I’ve just switched to Group Health this year, with some ongoing health issues, and it’s by far the cheapest and best health insurance I’ve ever had. Great providers, appointments whenever I want them, tests etc. right away when I need them and not recommended I don’t, good access to my records online, the list goes on and on.

  10. Group Health works because it’s a fully integrated /system/. Labs. Doctors. Pharmacists. Nurses. Physical Plant. Information Technology. Billing. Etc. Etc. Does the co-op option duplicate the integrated nature of Group Health? Or just the insurance portion?

  11. @ 5 – The GH model is that the members of the co-op themselves get to vote, and they elect the Board of Directors from amongst themselves.

    It’s truly member-driven at Group Health. And yep, count me in on the chorus of voices praising GH. The best medical coverage I’ve ever had, some of the finest doctors in the nation, low-cost meds, online medical records, 24-hour telephone nurse service, etc etc etc… And #10 is right, GH works because it is a fully-integrated system. Don’t know how this would apply on a national scale, but the GH system is definitely worth consideration in this discussion.

  12. The answer is no. Group Health does some things right, but it’s no longer a true co-op and is increasingly adopting the practices of other traditional HMOs. Further, the insurance companies cannot be brought to heel by being forced to compete with a bunch of piddly local co-ops. We need a strong public option that can throw its weight around and negotiate prices.

  14. i’ve had three kids with group health, and it was by far the simplest, cheapest system. i’m back on a blue now, and while i like my doctors at vm, the paperwork is a nightmare and the expense outrageous.

  15. I agree with Levislade. And I did have a serious health issue last year (skin cancer), and the Group Health system made the whole thing unbelievably easy. It was quite a contrast from the lymphoma I had twelve years ago; I was still on my parents’ traditional insurance then, so I didn’t deal with it myself, but I remember my dad and his boxes full of paperwork as he tried to navigate the system without going bankrupt.

  16. I like GHC too. I’ve had no problems with them, and get excellent cover at a reasonable price. I do, however, understand that it might not be the ideal option for many people though I can’t say I’m sure I understand WHY.

    I mean this article starts out implying that GHC is bad, because rates have increased, AND rates have increased at other HMOs. Isn’t that logical? If rates go up, isn’t there a reason for it? I’m betting there is, and I’m also betting it’s not “too make tons more cash.”

    It’s not small enough? But the size allows for a variety of options and not being shoehorned into a less than ideal choice/surgery/doctor/whatever the fuck.

    I guess, now, I need someone to explain to me why the smaller co-op is a better option, because it seems much more limited to me. A regional cooperative, like GHC, seems more manageable and more able to manage major health catastrophes.

    Someone tell me why I’m wrong, ’cause I’m just not getting it.

  18. Wow, I don’t think I’ve ever read so many positive Slog comments, and never so many positive comments about an insurance provider. And I have to admit, I also really like the healthcare I get from GHC. So….yay!

Comments are closed.