When I was researching which of the Blue Cross Blue Shield plans are nonprofits I noticed some of them were co-ops, but I didn’t take note of it. But I feel it’s OK to lump co-ops and nonprofits together, since the end result is the same- money gets returned to the people that have policies in some way (if a nonprofit health insurer collects money it’ll lower the premium, or more likely reduce the increase of the premiums, for next year rather than cut checks), rather than the money going to investors and stockholders.
Yes, but the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan (and the OP was asking about health insurance companies) is non-profit. According to the same Wikipedia entry: * The health plans are not-for-profit*.
There’s been something of a move away from non-profits, as non-profits have certain extra rules attached, and in addition, for-profits can issue stock, which can lower the cost of capital.
Of possible note: in 2018 the excise tax on high cost health plans goes into effect. It’s though that virtually all employer plans will be subject to this tax. One quirk of the tax is that it’s a tax on the health plans (or administrators, for self-insured employer plans) but it’s expected that plans will pass the cost along to employer groups - but the law specifies that reimbursements by the employers to the plans are not tax-free, meaning that the health insurers will have to pay income tax on the excise tax - which they will in turn pass along to the employers. This will give a big edge to non-profit insurers who will not be subject to that additional tax.
My question - what is the difference between a “non-profit”, and a “not-for-profit” health insurance company? You may sometimes see one or the other term used in their marketing materials.
But the point is that if you read the thread, you would know that there are some in the US, not “none” as you so flippantly said.