The only difference between the health care coops and a public option under this administration is the name. "The fact that not many exist now shows us there's not a viable model to compete with private insurers," said Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University who has written on health care policy. "It's effectively a diversion, as far as I'm concerned."
Health policy experts say the cost of joining a cooperative may be no cheaper than private insurance plans like Blue Cross Blue Shield or United Health Care. A central aim of the co-op, they say, is to create a competitive market that will offer better quality care at a lower cost -- and force private insurers to be more efficient and fair.This is really an effort to make the private market work more efficiently and to change the rules of the private market so that insurance serves people's needs better," said Elliot Wicks, a health economist with Health Management Associates in Washington, D.C. "Insurers compete on the basis of price, and so if a health cooperative lowers its price, it will bring down the prices for everyone in the market."
Still, Wicks said, the term cooperative is a "vague notion" and the success rate among them has not been high.
Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, said the alternative being thrown out by the administration raises many questions.
"How is it going to be structured? What are the rules? And will there by competition?" he asked. "Would this entity have the full backing of the U.S. government? If so, then you're not going to have an equal playing field. There won't be fair competition.
"And would the government ever allow this entity to fail? If so, then you'd have the health care version of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Zirkelbach said.
If the government refuses to allow a co-op to fail does it not then become a public option?