Post navigation

Prev: (12/04/15) | Next: (12/04/15)

Kaiser Permanente to swallow Group Health, Capitol Hill campus included

(Image: CHS)

A medical insurance giant that already serves more than 10 million Americans is poised to grow even larger as Kaiser Permanente announced its bid Friday to acquire Group Health. While it’s likely a puny line item mixed in with Group Health’s $3.5 billion per year in revenue, and 590,000 Washington customers, the deal will include the cooperative’s medical campus on 15th Ave at John and will make Kaiser Permanente one of the largest employers on Capitol Hill. 1,200 employees currently work at Group Health’s facility, according to a company spokesperson.

“As a decades-long member of Group Health, and Chair of the Board of Trustees, I have a great deal of pride in this organization. Since our founding, Group Health has relentlessly pursued, and boldly taken, the steps required to ensure that our members get the care and experience they want and deserve. Today we are a highly sought after financially strong and nationally recognized health care organization,” Susan Byington, chair of Group Health Cooperative’s Board of Trustees, said in an announcement of the deal.

The acquisition must be approved by Group Health voting membership and regulators.

Company officials said “changes in the care model, and with doctors and care teams won’t occur immediately” and that “other redundancies” following the winnowing of management “may be eliminated” in coming years.

In 2015, Group Health’s Capitol Hill campus transitioned from a focus on maternity services after forging a partnership with Swedish. Previously, around 1,700 babies a year took their first breaths of fresh Capitol Hill air at 15th and John.

The acquisition proposal isn’t the only M&A activity underway for cooperatives operating in the neighborhood. Central Co-op announced in November it is seeking member approval for a merger with the Tacoma Food Co-op. Central’s merger could come with some more changes, by the way. As part of a required reincorporation should the combination be approved, Central Co-op is also considering transitioning its cooperative structure to include employees as owners. Central is currently a “consumer co-op, 100% owned by consumers,” a spokesperson said. “As a solidarity co-op, Central Co-op would be owned by consumers and employees. This means they would split the dividends and have equal representation of elected trustees to the board.” Member voting ends online and in-store later this month.

 

Subscribe and support CHS Contributors -- $1/$5/$10 per month

16 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
harvey
harvey
8 years ago

Good grief, if I was a GH member I would vote NO. Kaiser is horrible and this is really bad news but it is what Obama & Co. want..centralized healthcare and far fewer choices. Good luck GH members. Vote this down if you care about your health care and local flavor.

Brian D
Brian D
8 years ago
Reply to  harvey

I am a voting member and I will advocate and vote NO.

Argh, my health
Argh, my health
8 years ago

Ugh, why did they do this after open enrollment ended? Kaiser is a nightmare to work with.

Wonder
Wonder
8 years ago

I wonder if Kaiser, a larger company with greater economies of scale, will be able to offer the same services at lower prices to GHC members.

Victor
Victor
8 years ago
Reply to  Wonder

I can fill you in my current experience. Service and prices have both been better in my experience at KP as a current GHC/KP dual member. I split time between Seattle and the Bay Area. My wife is Preggo at this moment, and quality of care from KP, from equipment, to scheduling procedures, to obgyn, access has been significantly better at KP than GHC.

Some minor complications 3 weeks ago from pregnancy got teams of KP doctors and nurses on our case immediately at Kaiser Oakland, and they followed up comprehensively with GHC doctors (yes multiple, because we can’t ever get the same obgyn at GHC due to “availability”) to make sure my wife was getting the follow up exams they thought was necessary.

Regardless, I’d rather take a Kaiser experience over a GHC experience any day.

Victor
Victor
8 years ago
Reply to  Wonder

One more note to add, we actually thought about switching insurance mid-pregnancy (risky) this last open enrollment to blue cross or something like that because GHC feels amateur hour vs KP, what kept us was the reciprocal roaming agreements that they have. Plus, our coordination of benefits go pretty seamlessly

L
L
8 years ago

I’m a Group Health member and evidently in order to vote on this issue, you had to register as a voting member prior to December 1. Gee, so nice of them to make these *confidential* negotiations public on December 4.

I’m livid and hoping that any of my fellow GH members who were registered to vote, vote no.

Randy
8 years ago
Reply to  L

I agree. The timing of the vote is clearly intended to disenfranchise members who were not already “registered” before the announcement.

And then their FAQ attempts to justify it by saying “Bylaws established over a decade ago require members to register at least 60 days before a Special Meeting is held to be eligible to vote.” Um, excuse me, who set the date of the Special Meeting again?

I was already registered to vote, and intend to vote no. (Kaiser is awful. I lived in California for most of my life, and knew way too many people that were misdiagnosed by Kaiser facilities, so I always avoided them like the plague.)

I’d be interested to hear about any person or group that’s organizing opposition to this deal. Clearly, we’ll have to reach the elusive already-registered voting members to put a stop to it!

RWK
RWK
8 years ago
Reply to  L

Do I understand correctly, that you have to “register” in order to vote? I would think just being a GH member would automatically qualify you to vote. What is the purpose of “registration”?

truth
truth
8 years ago

I am concerned about this. My gut says this isn’t good. I am also angered that my health coverage would do this. I really loved GH. Sickened. I hear nothing but bad things about Kaiser.

Jim98122x
Jim98122x
8 years ago
Reply to  truth

I have friends in Palm Springs who have exactly the opposite experience. One is on dialisys so has a lot of frequent care and monitoring, etc. Their only complaint is apparently KP does t have a large hospital in Palm Springs so they have to drive to Loma Linda for some things, but that doesn’t sound like a problem if the GH hospital will just switch to a Kaiser Permanente hospital. My friends are both are super-satisfied with KP.

RWK
RWK
8 years ago
Reply to  Jim98122x

GH does not have its own in-patient hospital. For some years now, they have contracted with Virginia Mason for these services, but as of 2016 they are switching to Swedish. I wonder what will happen to that if KP takes over?

Dana Olson
Dana Olson
8 years ago

If the all the monthly payments from the unregistered members ( apparently >90% of us ) were just a few weeks late this month, maybe they would find a way to change the rule.

Victor
Victor
8 years ago

I’ll be the contrarian here and say that even as a dual KP/ GHC member right now; I’ve had nothing but good experiences from Kaiser in the SF Bay Area. My experience at GHC, though decent, has paled greatly vs KP. For example, with KP, stuff gets done same day. My wife got knee surgery scheduled in a week of when she decided to go ahead.

GHC Is so resource constrained that I have to wait for stuff. Still better than a HSA PPO, I guess.

Matthew
Matthew
8 years ago
Reply to  Victor

Three separate posts about how good KP is? Seems like you might have some sort of vested interest in the company. No-one loves their insurance company that much.

Adrianne
Adrianne
8 years ago

I’ve followed the recent news of Kaiser Permanente’s agreement to acquire Group Health with interest. As a Group Health physician who has provided care in Seattle for 15 years, I’d like to add some personal perspective on Group Health’s promising future with Kaiser Permanente.

Earlier in my career I worked as a physician for Kaiser Permanente and truly enjoyed my time there. Each day at work I experienced excellent patients, caring staff, and efficient, well-resourced facilities. Like Group Health, Kaiser Permanente has proven success with integrated, preventative care for the most positive patient outcomes. Unfortunately, Group Health is a smaller, regional organization struggling with rapidly increasing costs that threaten this model of care.

Kaiser Permanente has pledged to invest $1 billion over 10 years to upgrade technology, equipment and clinics. This substantial capital investment will bring much-needed resources to help continue delivering quality outcomes. These improvements will help grow Group Health’s successful model of patient-centered, not-for- profit health care throughout Washington.

The upcoming member acquisition vote will determine the future of a legacy of not-for-profit patient centered health care that has endured for more than 70 years. I urge eligible Group Health voting members to choose “yes” for approval of the Kaiser acquisition to assure a promising future ahead.