Fiscal-cliff deal axes future health co-op funding

Undercutting MT efforts to expand to ID, WY
2013-01-04T19:06:00Z 2013-01-04T19:08:43Z Fiscal-cliff deal axes future health co-op fundingBy MIKE DENNISON IR State Bureau Helena Independent Record
January 04, 2013 7:06 pm  • 

Deep within the “fiscal cliff” deal approved by Congress this week was a cut few people expected or knew of: Axing federal funds for new, nonprofit health insurance cooperatives.

The cut won’t affect Montana’s co-op, which is farther along than any other health co-op in the nation, as it plans to start offering health insurance to Montanans later this year.

But it did torpedo the Montana co-op’s application to expand into Wyoming and Idaho – where no co-op has been formed.

“It kind of caught us by surprise,” said Jerry Dworak, CEO of the Montana Health Cooperative. “We thought (our application) was rock-solid and probably the most efficient way to bring a cooperative into those other two states.”

Co-ops have been approved in 24 states. Yet congressional negotiators stuck language in the fiscal-cliff bill this week that eliminated all funding for any future co-ops, halting efforts to form co-ops in 26 states.

John Morrison, a Helena attorney and president of the National Alliance of State Health Co-ops, said this week that the cut doesn’t save that much federal money, because the co-ops are expected to repay their start-up loans.

“It was done quietly and quickly in the dark, by someone who wanted to do in the co-ops,” he said. “The only conclusion you can draw is that this part of the deal … was about capitulating to certain big insurance companies that want to stop the progress of the co-ops.”

The co-ops are part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, inserted as a compromise after the elimination of the “public option,” which would have been a government-run health insurer to compete with private insurance.

The member-owned co-ops are supposed to offer a health-insurance alternative in states dominated by one or a few private insurers.

The federal government last year awarded $58 million in loans to Montana’s co-op for start-up costs.

U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., played a key role in getting the co-op language into the bill and has opposed attempts to cut funding for the co-ops.

On Friday, Baucus said he fought “tooth and nail” to make sure this week’s cut didn’t affect the Montana co-op.

“It’s a shame to see a target painted on a program like co-ops, because they are exactly the types of grassroots solutions we should be investing in now, to help us lower spending over the long term,” he said.

Baucus staffers said Baucus will continue to look for ways to reinvest in the program, but that it would be an uphill battle.

Funding for the co-ops nationwide was sliced last year in budget negotiations.

Dworak said the Montana co-op had done a feasibility study on expanding to Wyoming and Idaho, and found that the costs would be relatively small. The group also had rounded up considerable support in both states.

“(The study) showed that we could break even or even make money in the operations in the other states,” he said.

Copyright 2016 Helena Independent Record. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(2) Comments

  1. JEngdahlJ
    Report Abuse
    JEngdahlJ - January 05, 2013 9:38 pm
    Health reform’s CO-OPs are an endangered species after the fiscal cliff deal.
  2. steeline
    Report Abuse
    steeline - January 05, 2013 10:34 am
    If health co-ops are a good thing, (profit driven or not) for the People , the People will support them with private money. Anytime the socialist thinking boys and girls get involved it will cost the,working tax payer, way more money than the value of good it will provide. The people can take care of themselves given the opportunity and without big government in the middle of things.

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters. If you receive an error after submitting a comment, please contact us.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps:

    1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

    2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

    3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

    4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

    5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

    6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

    7. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

    8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

    9. Don't write a novel. If your comment is longer than the article you're commenting on, you might want to cut it down a bit. Lengthy comments will likely be removed.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick