Why a patient-run cooperative makes sense

I wish Florida had its own version of Seattle's Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound. When I traveled around the country on a fellowship 14 years ago, studying different types of health coverage and delivery, Group Health had by far the best model of any I found. Patients and doctors were the happiest of any place I went.

Doctors said they were happy because they were part of an integrated system, with colleagues and specialty consultants backing them up, as at the Mayo Clinic. They had good administrative staff to handle paperwork (whether electronic or real paper), and they didn't have to take call often. They had a good salary plus financial incentives for providing quality care.

Patients said they were happy because they run Group Health. They elect members to the co-op board and that board decides the priorities for coverage. When there are disputes, they go to the board.

Group Health gets great scores on quality measurement while at the same time offering moderate costs.

As medical costs go ever higher, we will -- as a society -- have to make choices about priorities.  Right now, the argument in Washington is over whether to leave those choices up to insurance executives or public officials. Neither doctors nor patients really have much say-so today, and it could become an even bigger problem in the future

A patient cooperative making decisions, with physician-advisers, makes a lot of sense.

Here is a case study on Group Health and an article about it in the New York Times. 

--Carol Gentry, Editor, can be reached at 727-410-3266 or by e-mail.