Oral History of Aubrey Davis

8/13/2019 Oral History of Aubrey Davis

1/21

Home About Us Contact Us Education Bookstore Tourism Advanced Search

HistoryLink.org is the first onlineencyclopedia of local and state historycreated expressly for the Internet. (SM)HistoryLink.org is a free public andeducational resource produced byHistory Ink, a 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt

corporation. Contact us by phone at 206.447.8140, by mail at Historylink, 1411 4th Ave. Suite803, Seattle WA 98101 or email [email protected]

Printer Friendly Version Sponsored by: King County Library

This file made possible by: Group Health Cooperative

People's Histories include memoirs, reminiscences, contemporary accounts, commentaries, andexpressions of personal opinion, many of which have been submitted by our visitors. Unlessnoted otherwise, these essays have not been verified by HistoryLink.org and do not necessarilyrepresent its views.

HistoryLink File #7573

Oral History of Aubrey Davis, 38-year

member of Group Health Cooperative's

Board of Trustees

This is an oral history of Aubrey Davis, a member of Group Health Cooperative's Board of

Trustees for 38 years, President of the Cooperative for seven terms (1953, 1963, 1964, 1968,1969, 1984, 1985), Chair of the Cooperative for one term (1986), president and CEO for threeyears (1988-1991). The interview was conducted by Karen Lynn Maher in Kirkland, Washington,on February 15, 2002.

Maher: How did you become involved with Group Health?

Davis: My wife and I had belonged to Group Health Cooperative in Washington, D.C. beforeWorld War II and our first child was born in a hospital in D.C. I remember that she [my wife]was in a ward with twelve people in it. The first day we went in, the baby wasn't ready to comeand she went home. We had to come back that night and at that time, there was no bed available

in a ward; she was in a hospital bed in a corridor. Our daughter Judy was born successfully.When I came back from the war and we moved to Seattle, we learned there was talk aboutforming one [a health care cooperative] here. So, we watched it and joined in the second month -- February 1947. Our membership number is 239. The dues at that time were $3 for an adult permonth.

We were just members and there were different kinds of meetings that were held by the youngorganization. The first meetings were held at the Broadway High School at which some of the

http://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/index.cfmhttp://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/index.cfmhttp://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/Index.cfm?DisplayPage=about/index.cfmhttp://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/Index.cfm?DisplayPage=about/index.cfmhttp://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/Index.cfm?DisplayPage=feedback/index.cfmhttp://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/Index.cfm?DisplayPage=feedback/index.cfmhttp://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/Index.cfm?DisplayPage=education/index.cfmhttp://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/Index.cfm?DisplayPage=bookpage/book.cfmhttp://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/Index.cfm?DisplayPage=bookpage/book.cfmhttp://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/Index.cfm?DisplayPage=fun_and_travel/index.cfmhttp://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/Index.cfm?DisplayPage=search.cfmhttp://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/Index.cfm?DisplayPage=search.cfmmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.historylink.org/index.cfmmailto:[email protected]://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/Index.cfm?DisplayPage=search.cfmhttp://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/Index.cfm?DisplayPage=fun_and_travel/index.cfmhttp://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/Index.cfm?DisplayPage=bookpage/book.cfmhttp://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/Index.cfm?DisplayPage=education/index.cfmhttp://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/Index.cfm?DisplayPage=feedback/index.cfmhttp://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/Index.cfm?DisplayPage=about/index.cfmhttp://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/index.cfm


2/21

basic issues were argued about, like whether or not to sign a contract with the medical staff. Atthe time, we found that the external medical profession did not view us favorably. They wouldquestion, "Why are consumers here trying to get involved in this kind of thing [health care]?"They believed health care was only a matter between individual patients and their doctors.

That was the point of view of the old fee-for-service doctors, even though there were alreadydoctors in our community who were experimenting with providing service on a prepaid basis. Dr.Mason, who later founded Virginia Mason, was one of those doctors. For a while, they weresome of the leading doctors who were going off to logging camps, mills, and mines signing people up for $1 a month per employee. What they were doing most was treating cuts and bruises, essentially. It was a very early form of prepaid medicine in this frontier area back in thelate nineteenth century, early part of the twentieth century. It was a unique part of this country'sdevelopment. In the twenties, the medical society [King County Medical Society, the localchapter of the American Medical Association] decided that that kind of medical practice wasimmoral and illegal. Already, they were speaking out against it and organizing against it andostracizing doctors who practiced that way. Little by little, that sort of died out.

Maher: What died out -- doctors practicing in that prepaid manner?

Davis: Yes, it was discouraged. ... There is a long interesting history behind Group Health,which was viewed very early by organized medicine as a dangerous, bad idea. But, the war wasover and here in Seattle a medical group, which had existed primarily to take care of shipyardworkers and other non-military employees, had lost all its business because the war ended. Whatwere they going do? Our predecessors (the founders) heard about it and began talking to themedical group and a deal was finally struck that we would buy their medical practice.

Jack Cluck, our attorney, was an important founder. In the beginning, there were about 6,000

people already in the group contract. Group Health did not start offering an individual plan. Wewere kind of additional business for that group of doctors. They needed to survive. They owned alittle hospital and we needed access to a hospital. So, we came together.

Maher: Was that the original St. Luke's Hospital up on Central campus [on Capitol Hill]?

Davis: Yes, the old building. It was merely a run down place, but it was their hospital and ouroriginal Board financed that deal by mortgaging their own homes to raise the money to make thedown payment. There was a real commitment to make Group Health Cooperative go. There weretensions early on about what it meant to be a co-op and there was resistance to buying a medical practice and having a medical staff that seemed to be in charge of everything. That was all therewas -- a medical staff. Originally, one Co-op employee had a desk in the hall of the medicalclinic. Rudy Molson, who had been employed by the medical group, became manager of theclinic and a Cooperative employee. Little by little, a co-op structure was formed. But there wereidealists who thought it wasn't quite pure enough. The first revolution occurred when a group ofthem decided to resign and protest.

Maher: Did Cooperative members decide to resign and protest?


3/21

Davis: Yes, very early on Co-op members protested. They were unhappy about the direction it(Group Health) was taking in buying the medical plan and giving them (the doctors) too much prominence. I do remember the passion and the heat in those meetings -- the screaming andshouting, the noise and the vigor of debate. It was interesting.

When we started out, we had a group of doctors and a hospital. We were selling individualmemberships in the Co-op. I had to pay $100 to join to help provide capital to pay for things likehospitals. People bought their way in and provided their own capital, which is a valid co-op principle. I remember that after we had been going for seven years, our net margin was $7,000. Now that was really non-profit. We redefined the term "non-profit." I was struck by thecoincidence of those numbers -- seven years old with a margin of $7,000 in the middle 1950s.Little by little, we agreed that $100 was not a high enough membership fee to buy hospitals andclinics. We raised the fee to $200 and it eventually became clear that it (the $200 fee) wasn'tenough. We had to begin making margins. We knew that we had to produce our capital out ofour revenue. We tried for a long time to get 5 percent (that was our first target). We didn't get 5 percent very often but we nearly always had a margin of some kind ... . That was a lesson we

learned the hard way, and we got better and better at budgeting and watching our competition.

The fact is, the competition between Group Health, King County Medical, and Blue Cross wasvery much alive then. Blue Cross was basically a hospital-oriented organization and KingCounty Medical was basically doctor-oriented. In this state, they never ever got together as theyhave in most states. Blue Cross, in most states, includes both. In this state, the two Blue Crossagencies never joined, fortunately. Now, both provide hospital and medical care, but they'recompetitors. The competition among the three of us has driven down costs in this area comparedto national numbers, enormously. It's sort of an accident of history that Seattle has much lowercosts than most other urbanized areas.

In 1992, when I was engaged in discussions with a group in Washington, D.C. on a health carereform plan, one of the fellows in the group said, "Aubrey, if we had your costs, we wouldn'thave a national health care problem." The fact is, there are only a few cities with strong HMOsor medical plans -- sister plans to Group Health -- Kaiser Permanente in Honolulu and Portland,Group Health Cooperative in Seattle, and what became Health Partners in Minneapolis. All ofthose four cities have much lower costs -- about 40 percent lower -- than the costs in other bigAmerican cities. The competition that we all provided in our communities has driven down thecosts compared to other places that didn't have strong HMOs.

Our rulebook from the first was that you should be in the hospital only when you really had to bethere. That was a reaction to the Blue Cross plan, which didn't pay benefits unless you were inthe hospital. So, what happened was doctors had to put people in the hospital in order to haveservices covered, which is clearly an inefficient idea. We were a reaction to that way of operating.We would cover medical costs for people who were in the hospital and for those who were not inthe hospital, but we wanted to minimize unnecessary hospitalizations. So, our hospital days perthousand enrollees was always much lower than the city's because of that historical fact. That'show we kept our costs down. Now other people [our competitors] have learned that, so we'velost that competitive edge we had for a long time.


4/21

Other interesting meetings were district meetings. I remember attending one at a union hall in theRainier Valley, where we lived at that time. There was a Rainier Valley food cooperative, whichhad a very active leadership group -- some very interesting characters -- and they were also thecore of the Group Health membership there. We had membership meetings of 30, 40, 50 people.I was puzzled because here we had a Board we elected, and at those meetings the reports were

always given by the Group Health manager, Don Northrup, and not by the Board of Trusteesmember present at the meeting.

Maher: Who was the board member?

Davis: The Board member was Bob Wells who was a member of the Rainier Valley food co-op.He sat in the audience while Don Northrup explained what the Board was doing, what it wastalking about and what it was worried about. It seemed to me that Bob Wells ought to be givingthe report. So, when Bob said he didn't want to serve as a trustee any longer, I decided to run forhis Board position because I thought that reporting to the members should be changed.

Maher: What year did you run for the Board?

Davis: That was 1951. I had been on a committee or two, including a bylaw committee at one point, so I had a little more interest than just being a member. I was elected and then served for21 years -- seven terms. I went off the Board in 1972. I attended my district meeting everyquarter for that 21 years except once when I was out of town.

After I joined the Board, some trustees -- including me --began to be uncomfortable with thequality of our management. We thought that our budgeting and purchasing processes were notvery good.

Maher: At what point in time was your dissatisfaction?

Davis: That would have been about 1954 or 1955, something like that. We commissioned studies by Co-op members who had professional experience in these fields and made reports to theBoard on budgeting and purchasing. We decided that we ought to make a change in management.It occurred to me that we faced a tough challenge because the doctors had supported ourmanagers and the doctors would clearly be uncomfortable with any change. So, I organized acommittee of members in my district and met with them for quite a few months to keep them up-to-date on what was happening.

The rule we adopted was that both husband and wife were members of these committees and

both could attend meetings. We met in members' homes, sometimes in the Holly Park or RainierVista housing projects and sometimes in other places in the area. So, when the time came whenwe had the big explosion, I had a constituency that knew what was going on and supported me.That was the beginning of the District Executive Committee meetings, which later becameMCCs [Medical Center Councils]. That was the beginning of the core group of half a dozen people plus spouses who went through a lot of turmoil. I took reports to them, as the reports wereavailable. We talked about the information and identified changes we wanted to make and howto make those changes happen. Finally, the board voted four to three to replace the manager.


5/21

Maher: Were you the Chair of the Cooperative at the time? Actually, what was the title of thehighest-ranking consumer position at that time?

Davis: The title was president. [Ed. note: Paul Goodin was president; David was vice president.]

Davis: The medical staff was furious. There was a special meeting called and the medical staffcalled for recalling the Board. We had a real war, but finally settled by a compromise. We hiredSandy MacColl to be interim executive director. Sandy was a medical staff leader but not anofficial officer of the medical staff, so we had both sides together.

Maher: So that's how Dr. MacColl got into the executive responsibilities of the Cooperative.

Davis: That's right. We brought in a guy who was trained as a hospital administrator, who was to be the manager under Sandy MacColl. That relationship didn't work too well. but it did bring peace for a while.

There was another big fight at that time between the Board and the medical staff, which was perhaps even more serious. The medical staff had a doctor who was not very collaborative withthem and they thought they should let him go. His name was Dr. Alan Sachs, Bea Sachs'shusband, and he was the only board-certified surgeon we had. The surgeon that was going toreplace him was not board certified. We insisted that they go through a different kind of a process to make the decision and they rebelled. That conflict almost broke up the organization.

Maher: When you say "they" do you mean the medical staff?

Davis: Yes, the medical staff said that the Board had no role in the decision. The Board wasangry that the medical staff had not followed proper procedures in firing the only board-certified

surgeon in the Cooperative.

Maher: What was the date of this conflict?

Davis: That was about '54 or so; it was in those early days. That conflict led to the creation of theJoint Conference Committee. We (the Board) brought in experts from other places in the countryto advise us about how to deal with this (our relationship with the medical staff). It wasrecommended that we pay more attention to quality and stop taking their (the medical staff's)word for it.

Maher: What is the purpose of the Joint Conference Committee?

Davis: The rule was anything either side wanted to talk about was germane. Anything theywanted to complain about or talk about to us, and vice versa, was discussed in JointConference. ... the Board and the medical staff.

It turned out that the Joint Conference Committee was an institution in other hospitals; we wereadvised that was one way to go. We had one doctor who came and surveyed us and said ourquality wasn't very good in some places. The medical staff didn't like that and questioned what to


6/21

do about it. We had trouble hiring, although the doctors we started out with were all welleducated and were respected in the community. But, they were still "sinning" by working withGroup Health and not in a private fee-for-service practice, which was the "God-given" way itshould be.

Maher: Why did doctors at that time work for Group Health? What was the attraction?

Davis: The first doctors had belonged to the original group practice (that was purchased by thefounders). So, they were interested in group practice, as we were. We thought that was the bestthing to have.

The attractions were such things as predictable hours (i.e. one doctor would be available for theweekend for the whole group instead of everybody being on-call). They had more definablehours and we were committed to a retirement plan, which we didn't fund very well for a longtime but the concept was there. They had regular salaries -- predictable income. They didn't haveto worry about collections and going after patients to get paid. They could let the business be

done by somebody else. They could just practice medicine. There were doctors who thought thatwas the way they wanted to go, even though the medical community considered them pariahs.Actually, some thought that it was actually immoral (to be associated with Group Health). So, toattract good doctors, we had to keep reasserting that our doctors were independent.

We had a contract with the medical group that gave them a great deal of authority to operatethemselves. We spent a lot of our early years working out the relationship with our doctors. Iremember meetings going all the way past midnight lots of times -- long negotiations and longarguments. They (physicians) were relying on us. We (the Cooperative as a whole) had tosucceed for them to have a job and they knew that. But we had to be willing to keep them, or wedidn't have doctors.

As we grew, we had to be able to get new doctors. We only wanted good doctors, so we had toget doctors who had choices. Our message was "You're an independent doctor. We don't tell youhow to practice medicine. You're not our employee." Technically, they were [employees], but welearned very early that it did not profit us at all to make that point because that cut off the basiccultural thing that was necessary for their existence. They had to have that professionalindependence or the relationship didn't work, as we learned later by watching the troubles ofGroup Health in Washington, D.C. That organization thought their doctors had to be employees,which didn't work and they finally crashed and burned. So, we have spent 50 years learning howto build the relationship between an elected governing board and the medical staff.

Most non-profit boards are "owned" by somebody who is in charge and selects the board ofdirectors. Typically, the CEO/president/top manager goes around and picks people to be on"his/her" board. That's a known institution; if you know the leader then you know the board. Thatis the kind of board we have seen all over the country. We have seen another example of itrecently in the Blue Cross board. That company almost collapsed because the board was owned by the CEO, who was making some bad choices. Blue Cross lost $50 million in one year andalmost died. We watched our major bank be bought by a California bank because its officers and board didn't do their duty in overseeing management. They made a bunch of bad investments and


7/21

the bank crashed and burned. Say what you will about our [Group Health's] Board beingamateurs and civilians instead of professionals, but somehow we've managed through the yearsto keep this organization growing and surviving. We weren't owned by anybody except ourmembership -- a very strange idea.

Maher: .... Why does consumer involvement matter?

Davis: Well, it goes to the heart of the organization. What kind of organization is it? I'mchairman of two businesses and in both businesses the board hires a CEO, but the CEO prettywell runs things and we let him. We expect him to. He tells us what he's going to do and we askquestions and make suggestions. We represent the shareholders. One is a family company so ourfamily is involved. The other is a broader company. As long as the company is successful, the board lets it pretty well function. It's kind of a partnership between the board and the managers, but the managers are really in charge. The managers are the one who tend to decide what boardmembers there are.

We [Group Health] are different. Our management doesn't select our Board. The membershipdoes, or at least the core leadership in the membership does -- quite a few thousand people, notanything like a majority of the members. If they're interested, anybody can participate. It makes alot of difference in the long term. It means that when the managers are dealing with a difficultissue, they always know that they're going to be asked questions by this person or that person[Board members] and they do not want to be embarrassed.

We were having one of our big annual meetings when we were dealing with the abortion issue back in the '80s. The meeting was so big that we had to go to the Tacoma Dome to find a place big enough. Twenty-five hundred people came. I kidded Gail Warden, our CEO, "You knowGail, if this were an ordinary board, the meeting would be over. It would've lasted a few minutes

and you would run and play golf for the rest of the afternoon." We were there to argue about a basic fundamental issue -- whether or not to cover abortions, a very tough issue in our society.We decided by the membership voting on it. It took a while to go through the argument. No onesat down in a small room and said, "This is how we're going to do it, folks, and that is it."

Management behaves a lot differently when big decisions are made by members or by Boardmembers. It makes some things go slower, but most of the slowness is management preparingitself so it doesn't become foolish or do something that can't be explained to other people.

Consumer involvement also means other kinds of differences. We started out in the very beginning covering the cost of prescription drugs in our plan. The experts said, "That won't work; people will rob you blind. They will get prescriptions they don't need and waste them." Iremember meeting with a union group in St. Louis once and explaining what our drug policy wasand how we did it. One person said, "That is so obviously wrong that you must be misinformed."I should have been affronted I guess, but I thought it was so amusing that he was so sure that itwouldn't work and that I was either lying or didn't know any better. I explained our structure,membership numbers, and cost per month; he didn't believe me. I explained that patients get a prescription only if a doctor orders one and generally the doctor only orders what he thinks is


8/21

necessary. That was long before we had all this advertising pushing people to buy things thatthey don't even know about.

Our doctors decide which drugs they think are useful and safe and that is what they prescribe.We buy collectively; we are becoming the largest purchaser of drugs in the state. We buy them

by the barrel and put them in little bottles. It's a very efficient way of doing it. It's interesting tome that people outside say that it (our way) can't be successful.

Now that (covering the cost of prescriptions) happened because the membership thought it wasimportant and the Board listened. Our contract is that the Board decides economic issues, likewhat our plan covers and the services provided. The doctors select their physician colleagues andmake medical decisions. Sometimes, the doctors would tell us we shouldn't be providing drugs;we should make people go out and buy them. There was never a big push, but there areindividuals who say, "That doesn't make any sense; that doesn't work in this world." Covering prescriptions was one of the results of our being a membership-focused organization. I don'tknow if it we would have been successful otherwise.

Maher: So, consumer involvement matters because it makes for a better organization.

Davis: It makes for an organization with policies focused on the interest of the user and not justthe interest of the people providing the service. There's always a balance there because you'vegot to keep your providers happy enough to stay and be comfortable in their workingrelationships, but you also want consumers to get what they need. A lot of things happened inour organization as a result of that balance.

Now, when we went into mental health, it was members pushing for it with doctors saying wecan't afford it. Bea Sachs had been with them [the medical staff] for a long time and was doing

some of that [providing mental health care], which was all right. She was an internist, not a psychiatrist, but it took quite a while before they would hire a psychiatrist. They did finally; because even they didn't think mental health care was a necessary part of medical care, especiallysince the Cooperative was marginal economically. There was push back by the medical staff.There have been a number of issues where that kind of debate came up.

Maher: Do you feel that consumer involvement leads to better decisions?

Davis: They are better decisions in terms of meeting the interests of our members. Mostsuccessful companies try to serve their customers effectively. What we have is a more efficientway of knowing what customers want and need. We do surveys like other companies, but we arealso in touch with the people who are experiencing our service. They are the ones who aredealing with management and doctors on a daily basis.

Maher: There's a conversation going on.

Davis: That's right. Now, obviously it works both ways. The doctors are constantly looking atchanges in practice that they desire. Fortunately, they're usually relatively conservative; theydon't pick up the new things quickly, which means that they are reluctant to go to things that


9/21

aren't proven. The medical staff has spared us some pretty bad times. There have been fads thathave swept through the medical community that we missed because our doctors said, "We don't believe in that." They were right. So this is not any one-way street.

What we've developed here is a very unique -- I think it's unfortunate how unique it is --

relationship between medical staff and the organization. The big change that has happened overthe years is that we have developed a more and more professional management. We start outwith one or two physicians and now how many are there ... hundreds? Our medical staff has allkinds of skills and subsets of skills. I think what is really unique about Group Health is arelationship that does not exist in any other organization. .... The relationship between the providers and the users. That relationship is unique to Group Health Cooperative.

Our mission has been to make that relationship work. It is a strain on both sides. Professionalsare not used to having non-professionals tell them what to do and customers are not used to being told what they can and can't get. So, both sides have to temper their behavior to make itwork. We've been lucky over the years. We've had some broad-minded, very successful people

who have been on the Board. We've had some doctors who really believed the relationship had towork who worked hard at making it work on their other side. There have been times when thingsgot kind of scary when the relationship broke down but it is the unique thing about Group Health.

We're different from Kaiser in that respect. Kaiser has developed a relationship betweenmanagement and professionals that is different, but they don't have consumer input at that point.There are very few organizations that parallel what we have -- a successful working relationshipamong members, management, and the medical staff.

Maher: When you think of your own personal experience with Group Health governance, what's been your most significant experience?

Davis: I don't know how to answer that question. I am really proud of having had some foundingideas about how to organize consumers to participate at the local level. They were ideas Ithought of accidentally. Sometimes, good ideas are accidental. I think that was a relativelyimportant one.

I have thought that our focus on making the relationship among members, management, and themedical staff work has been an important thing for us. I have worked hard at that all during theyears. I was chairman of the Joint Conference Committee for a long time when I wasn't chair ofthe Board. We had wonderful people -- Hilde Birnbaum and Chuck Strother to name twooutstanding people -- who played key roles in shaping this organization. They all understood theimportance of our basic cultural difference. We've been surviving as a success partly becausewe're able to strike the balance between the principles of our system and the economics of it.

Maher: You lead me to another question. There have been many periods in Group Health'shistory where they've had difficult years. The past five years have been very hard. What is thesource of Group Health's ability to weather the difficult times?


10/21

Davis: This last one we weathered because we -- all of us in leadership -- had the sense torecognize in the early '90s that it was going to be hard later. Knowing that, we piled up somereserves. We knew that the health care reform we thought was coming was going to lead to acertain kind of competition, which would be rough. We needed to store chestnuts for that time. Iknew it. Phil Nudelman knew it. Cheryl Scott knew it. We were able to gather the reserves and

weather the storm. It was rougher than we thought it was going to be and lasted longer, but wehad a pretty substantial net asset when we started out and dug into that. We couldn't keep onlosing money, though, and we turned it around.

When I became CEO, one of the things that seemed to me ought to be made clear was that wehave to plan to make money; we just can't let it be what's left at the end of the year. We had tostructure ourselves to make sure it happened, not just hope it would happen. We had to produce amargin -- what we call our profit -- because we don't have other sources of capital. X-rayequipment bought in 1980 costs a lot more to replace in 1990, so the depreciation would beenough to replace it. If we didn't have a margin, we would have no way of updating ourequipment and our plant, much less build clinics and stuff like that. We had to produce a margin

so we had to budget it and make it happen, not budget it and hope it would happen. We had tomake it a claim on our revenues. A lot of folks didn't understand that approach.

Maher: Is that kind of financial planning one of your significant contributions?

Davis: Well, I'm not alone on this but I certainly was one who pushed it and articulated it. Iwanted to make it [financial planning] more centered than it had been.

Maher: You became CEO when Gail Warden left Group Health. What year was it?

Davis: I became CEO in February of 1988 [with a tenure of three years].

Maher: When you left, Phil Nudelman was hired as CEO.

Davis: Yes, I didn't know how long I wanted to stay as CEO so I only signed a year-by-yearcontract.

It really was time to make a permanent change and I didn't want to keep on doing the jobindefinitely. We did a national search and decided quite properly to hire Phil, although it was notat all clear in the beginning how it was going to come out. We didn't know what kind of peoplemight be available to us. After we did see who was available, we interviewed the most likelycandidates. We made the right decision that Phil was the person we should hire. It was time to

get ready for more changes and Phil was the one to make that happen.

I had an understanding with the Board that I would stay on in a much narrower role concernedonly with health care policy and my contract said explicitly that I would not be involved inadministration.

Maher: This was when Phil was hired and you became "President Emeritus"?


11/21

Davis: Yes. That was worked out before we began the CEO search; everybody knew that. It wasthought by some to be a potential problem, but it didn't turn out to be. I made it very clear that Iknew how to leave the job (as CEO). People sometimes came to me and said, "Gee, this has gonewrong. You need to ..." I responded, "No, I don't, it is not my job." If I started doing that, I couldnot have stayed because you can't have two people in charge. I encouraged people to deal

directly with Phil.

--Break in the Interview--

Davis: I want to talk some more about the membership.

Maher: Go!

Davis: As I look back, I think there have been quite a few times when the membership has madea major difference.

I remember in the '50s and '60s, several times the Board considered, "Should we start charging people for things or should we keep dues covering everything?" At that time, we were prettymuch community-rated and we were covering a relatively comprehensive set of things all withinthe dues/premium structure. We kept testing that idea partly in our district meetings and partlythrough surveys. The membership was decisive two or three times. What struck me was it wasalmost an immutable law because the vote was always about the same percentage -- about 77 percent, I think -- of members saying, "Raise the dues; don't start nickel and diming us forthings." We asked again several years later and got the same response, several thousand peopleresponded and got the same percentage breakdown. Our membership was very cohesive on itssense of what we should be doing about that [comprehensive coverage].

The big decision on covering abortions I mentioned earlier was done in a way which reallyreflected the values of our membership. It was such a big deal that it was being talked of bymembership groups. The national press covered it. The New York Times and a national TVstation were there because it was unique for an organization to be talking about that kind ofsubject as a public issue to be voted on. I was really proud of our membership then. Not only do Ithink the membership did the right thing, but the process was appropriate. We structured verycarefully the way those meetings were operated. We kept the people with signs -- which were alot of them -- outside. The people were welcome, but they could not bring in their signs. Wedidn't want sticks becoming weapons and so forth. We organized the meeting well. Thediscussion was orderly with no name-calling or bad rhetoric, which occurs sometimes in thosekinds of discussion. The arguments were made and a vote was taken, which was decisive. I thinkit was 3:1, maybe 2:1, but it was decisive to cover abortion services. It got revisited a year laterwith a little different twist.

Historically, members felt differently about Group Health than they would about Aetna, NewYork Life, Cigna or some other insurance plan. I don't know how long this will last. But,members feel that Group Health is theirs. It's important to them and they need to protect it andact responsibly toward it, which is what surprises people. We do not get bled by people abusingour delivery system. That was very strong in the early years. I remember being at meetings


12/21

talking about how to deal with the budget. People got up and said, "We have to charge more?We'll pay more, tell us what it is." The membership has been very responsible and has pretty wellfollowed its leaders' recommendations on critical issues. The whole system has worked.

The membership has been asked to participate in important decisions quite a few times. When

we thought we were going to need the relationship with Kaiser-Permanente, we held lots and lotsof meetings with the membership and then had a big vote. There were uncertainties in question but the Board thought it knew where it was going and where it should go and the membershipagreed. It didn't work out the way we thought it was going to work out and we backed out ofsome parts of the plan. The vision Phil Nudelman and David Lawrence [Kaiser CEO] had turnedout to be somewhat different from how the organizations were actually working at a manageriallevel. Things didn't come out the way we thought they would come out. We drifted apartsomewhat. Both organizations decided not to go forward. Partly, both came on bad times. Theywere losing scads of money. We were losing more money than we could afford to keep losing.We didn't want to be a colony; they didn't want to be a colonizer, but it sort of felt that way. Wedrifted away from the first ideas.

Maher: But, initially the membership supported the idea and the vision to move towarddeveloping a partnership.

Davis: That's right. They supported it after very thoughtful discussion and very thoughtful voting.They ratified what we proposed and it didn't work out ... We backed out to some extent. I think alot of folks have been surprised about how smart the membership seems to be on these criticalissues. There have been some wild folks from time to time but they never have captured themembership's imagination or control. They rise up like a hot spot in Yellowstone -- the steamcomes up, but doesn't become Old Faithful. The issue just dies back down again. I won't mentionany names but I can think of people through the years who've played roles or tried to make some

change they thought was critical and most of the Board didn't agree and the membership stayedwith the Board every time that happened.

We've been lucky in our leadership and lucky that we had some ideas from the first that werevalid. Being able to find a balance is critical -- the balance between our founding idealism andeconomic necessities. In the '80s, we had to finally recognize that we couldn't keep on loadingeverything into the premium costs because we were being eaten alive by our competition's lower premiums. We had to recognize that we had to adjust premiums in terms of age. Our rates weretoo high for young people who could get them cheaper elsewhere, and we were such a good buyfor older people that we got more than our share. We had to accommodate the marketplace,which is true of any business. Hilde Birnbaum always led the way by saying, "We have tosucceed as a business if we are going to survive as a cooperative." We managed to do that butwe've done it with membership support.

Maher: Was there a turning point when the membership understood that concept?

Davis: A turning point. (Pause) I don't think the membership necessarily understood the concept, but the membership produced leaders who understood it and they [the members] were willing torely on the leaders. That's what's happened. What members have done is be satisfied enough with


13/21

their health care and let their elected leaders do what they thought was best. Members acceptedand followed the leaders. That is really what's happened. Nobody understands all this stuff; it'snot possible unless you focus on it for a long time. That's been our good luck and our success.

Maher: As you are aware, Cheryl Scott has led an effort to create a new purpose and vision for

Group Health. That purpose is to transform health care. How do you see that the Cooperative isactively transforming health care?

Davis: I had the pleasure Wednesday night this week of making the motion and introducing thenew business plan. I pointed out to the Board that our aspirations are the right ones for acooperative to have. They are aspirations in terms of satisfying and providing the best possibleservice to our people. When I talked about specifics, the focus was on becoming seen astrustworthy by our members -- patients -- and being seen as the best place to get health care. Thefocus is on the right things for our culture and our organization, with a very special focus on theway in which our members experience their visit -- the way it looks, the way it feels, the waythey are treated. We have to succeed in improving our members' experience, which currently is

not bad. It just needs to be better. That's the focus of the business plan.

We're trying not only to produce quality health care, but to do it in a way people accept and feelgood about. Here is one of the unique things we do at Group Health in that direction. Annually,as a retired federal employee, I get a booklet on health plan choices and that booklet has begun to provide information about what the quality of services are for various plans. Group Healthreports its numbers on service quality. There is not a single competitor in this area that can dothat because data is not available, mainly because they don't collect it. Apparently, they not doknow their results; they just don't track the data.

Quarterly, we publish in our employee newsletters the results of our quality goals. No one else

has the guts to do that. We expect to have a certain number of immunizations or accomplishcertain things in diabetic or heart care. We have goals related to quality of care. We don't alwaysreach those goals, but we say so. It is a brave thing for an organization to indicate that it isstriving and is not perfect. We're trying to improve these things and we are partly succeeding. Toreport that to employees and to the membership would be scary for most people. Usually thosethings get covered up, not shared. Sharing our results is unique to Group Health. It is part of our basic orientation of who we are and what we are about. So, this transformation that you referredto is trying to improve our accountability to our members, including improving the satisfactionof our members and working on the right things to make that happen. It is more and more afocused effort in that direction. I feel very good about it and was very happy to go through someof those details with the Board the other night.

I just didn't make the motion and say, "We ought to approve this ... here it is folks." I went in andsaid, "Here is what it [he business plan] says. If you haven't read the whole thing, at least readthe summary -- pages 1-10." It's a document that is 50 pages or so. I did not know if everybodyread the whole thing, but at least there were things in there that needed to be recognized. I toldthe Board, "One of our most important things we do is approve this plan. It's been worked on forsome time in several committees and it is important for us to remember that this is what we'reabout."


14/21


15/21

keeping current on science and medicine. Group Health does this by knowing how to balanceeconomics with its founding principles." That's what it is. There are a lot of illusions about it,especially about choosing a doctor. People have a lot of choice of doctors, but they don't knowthat. You can change doctors, if you want.

Maher: What's been the barrier for people's lack of understanding that they have choice atGroup Health?

Davis: Well, for one thing, our competitors keep saying that people don't have choice. Theirsales pitch is that they offer choice and Group Health doesn't. People hear a lot that GroupHealth doesn't have choice. Then, there are a certain number of people who think that the higher paid doctors in private practice -- the real expensive ones -- must be better. How else do theymake more money? People have that illusion.

I believe that our doctors are as good and better than most. I'm not sure they're as good at TLC[tender loving care] as doctors in private practice, which is unfortunate. One of the things we're

talking about in our current business plan is improving that relationship -- the feelings patientshave about their doctor. It means our doctors and nurses will have to sharpen up their behavior toimprove that. But, in terms of end product, our quality of care is actually better than thecommunity average.

Maher: When I say "Group Health," what immediately comes to mind?

Davis: Oh, I think of this institution and its various parts, which mix well together and areworking fundamentally for the interests of 500,000 people who use its services. Also, I think ofhow Group Health has played a misunderstood role in changing the way medical care isdelivered in this area.

Maher: What is the single greatest challenge Group Health faces in the next five years?

Davis: The same one it has always faced -- making this thing work. It's not written in the tabletsthat it will work. No one guarantees it will be here in five years, 10 years or 50 years. It alldepends on our luck and our leadership. There are powerful, powerful things outside that aredangerous for us, particularly as the government gets more and more concerned about its budgetand how much health care costs and its effort to tame that [rising costs]. It's a real push back onorganizations like us to do with less and less while the demands increase. That is beginning to bemore and more true. The national government, in balancing its budget, is deciding it wants tospend less on Medicare than it otherwise was going to spend. Here, we're already a "best buy" tothem because they spend $500 a month for a senior here, instead of the $800 or $900 they spendin many other places. We get no credit for that. I remember desperate times, when I was CEO,when New York would get 12 percent reimbursement and we got 2 or 3 percent. It is crazy.

Maher: Is that a result of Group Health costing less?

Davis: Yes, far less, which means we had less resources to work with. In places that receive ahigher reimbursement, it meant that HMOs could go in there and give away things because they


16/21

would get so much revenue from the government. No premium, zero premiums in areas wherethe costs are high. They should diminish those a little bit, which they could do, where they couldmake money and charge no premium at all. Now, here, we just barely get money for what ourcosts are because we brought our costs down. Other places get hundreds and hundreds of dollarsmore than we get.

Maher: And you're referring to the government reimbursement?

Davis: That's right, and about half of our business is government business. We've been throughthe same thing with HealthyOptions, our Medicaid program. The basic health plans have that problem and the public employee groups also face the issue of driving down their costs to matchhow much they are being paid. So, our biggest threat is the inability of the government and private people to pay what it costs. The government lowered its reimbursement and basicallysaid, "You can either live with it or get out." Many health plans are getting out of government business. We're too deeply into it to do that, although we have gotten out in some places wherewe simply could not afford to remain. We've gotten out of some counties where we couldn't get

the cost that we had to pay down far enough to match the revenue we were paid. So, we had toleave. We left Eastern Washington and Medicare, for instance, on a prepaid basis. We still dosome fee-for-service. That is going to be a rising problem for us.

Maher: Are there other trends in health care to which Group Health should pay special attention?

Davis: Well, we have to do a better job of countering the choice issue. We are approaching thatmore seriously in our current business plans.

Maher: And by the "choice issue" do you mean the perception that people have limited choice in physician selection?

Davis: Yes. What we have found is we have a higher degree of loyalty from people who staywith us than most plans. But with companies coming and going, most of our turnover is out ofour control and is not based on individual choices.

Our record of people leaving voluntarily, deciding they need to leave for whatever reason, isvery good -- about 3-5 percent, which is very low. Our turnover is much higher than that becauseof the offering issue. Companies decide they can buy cheaper health care and more choice -- theythink -- someplace else, so they don't offer us. We have to have very competitive prices to fightthat and we have to do an even better job of making people so satisfied that they insist on GroupHealth being offered. That happens now but we need more of that. So, those threats are out therefor us.

We have a capital problem because we don't have any way of generating capital except out ofour business. Our present competitors in this state, two big ones -- Premera, which used to beBlue Cross, and Regence, which used to be King County Medical, are non-profit and depend ontheir margins also. Outsiders coming in have capital resources we don't have.

Maher: Why should a young family join Group Health Cooperative?


17/21

Davis: Well, it is a great place for health care for kids. It is possible to establish a familyrelationship that will guide them for a long time, just like in the old days. I've only had three orfour personal physicians in all my 50 years at Group Health. That has been very important to me.Where else could you wake up in an ICU some morning -- having been there for some heartdisturbance -- and a cardiologist looks at you and says, "Here's what we ought to do" and then

your family doctor comes by and says, "No, I know this patient and he doesn't need that." Whereelse would a family doctor tell a cardiologist what not to do? Nowhere.

My son-in-law was a minister in Houston and had a church member who was the commander ofa space shuttle. He invited my son-in-law to come to Florida as the chaplain who met with thecrew before take off. He was allowed to bring some family along so my wife and I went too andwatched the space shuttle take off. Well, I got sick and called our consulting nurse and asked fora prescription, which I had to have checked to make sure it was consistent with other things Iwas taking, and to have it faxed to an all-night pharmacy located a mile away. Where else couldyou do that? They did everything I asked. They talked to a pharmacist on duty and verified thatwhat I thought I should get was compatible with other drugs I was taking. They faxed the

prescription and I was able to go down there at two o'clock in the morning to pick it up. Our pharmacy system and our consulting nurse service all worked to deal with me -- a patient whowas 3,000 miles away. At midnight they could look up the records and see what was appropriate.Where else?

Maher: What has been your most significant health care experience at Group Health?

Davis: Well, I have just had one. Last fall, I began to have shortness of breath and started feelingloss of energy. I called my family doctor, he said, "Come in today." He did not say, "Come inthree weeks from now." He might have said, "It's asthma; use your inhaler for it," but he did notsay that. He took an x-ray and found a very small amount of fluid in my lungs and decided I had

a heart weakness and referred me to a cardiologist. They did an angiogram and found that therewere three arteries in my heart that were substantially plugged. I had not had a heart attack, but Icould have.

Our cardiologists and the Virginia Mason cardiologists meet every Tuesday to determine the besttreatment for patients. They came to me and said, "We can either do a triple bypass orangioplasty." I asked the doctor, "Tell me about these and what are the risks?" My cardiologistsaid, "Well, triple bypass at your age has about a 5 percent chance of serious consequence --death or stroke. The angioplasty has less than 1 percent risk." I said, "Well, that makes it easy,doesn't it? I'll take the odds. Do the angioplasty." Two weeks later, my cardiologist broke hisshoulder so he wasn't able to do the work. He turned me over to a fellow cardiologist and he didtwo stints at Virginia Mason. In a week or so, I was hearty again. They didn't have time to do thethird one so we just did that Tuesday this week [3 days earlier]. I came home Wednesdaymorning. When I went in, I said, "All I really want is another 10 or 15 years, that's all." Verymodest; I'm 84 years old so I didn't want to push my luck. The cardiologist said, "Well, I thinkwe got 20 for you." So, they dealt with the problem without my having had a heart attack. Thesystem worked.


18/21

My wife had both hips replaced in 1989 and recently one of them wore out and she was havingtrouble walking comfortably. So, she was scheduled to have the hip replacement in December. Iwanted her to get back on her feet before I went back in for the second angioplasty. Otherwise,they would have done my work earlier. She couldn't come upstairs; she had to be downstairs fulltime when she came home from the hospital. The kids bought a refrigerator and a microwave for

the basement; I didn't think she was ever going to come upstairs. I did most of the cooking. Agranddaughter who was staying here did some. I did the laundry and the shopping and it all gotdelivered to her down there. She had the New York Times crossword puzzle to work on and a bigeasy chair to relax in.

Maher: She was happy.

Davis: Yes, what could be wrong with that? She had a walker and she could go to the TV or goto the computer. Otherwise, everything was brought to her. It was a very successful operation.

Maher: When you think about your history with Group Health, what has been your most

significant contribution to the Cooperative?

Davis: I think my efforts to refine, preserve, and make this culture work. I think that's reallywhat is most important. The special, unique relationships our consumers have with our medicalstaff and with our managers. That's what is important to me. That's what I tried to make work.Largely it has, so I feel good about that.

Maher: What has been the Cooperative's most significant contribution to you?

Davis: I am 84 years old. I have gotten superb health care. I appreciate the more recent examplesI just talked about.

Maher: How does Group Health's past prepare it to meet the challenges of the present and thefuture?

Davis: That is always pretty tricky. It's possible for your past to become an anchor instead of a propellant. Success depends upon knowing what you can save and what you should not save.We've been able to, so far, sacrifice what had to go while preserving what we thought had to besaved. Whether we'll be able to keep doing that depends on who is doing it and what happens inthe general field of health care, which is a real mess. We have turned health care over to theinsurance system, which supposedly has the idea of sharing/spreading risk. What really happensis it becomes a way of just managing money.

Maher: Who do you mean when you say "we?"

Davis: Society. Society has turned it [health care] over. If we're going to have the insurancesystem be the payer, we have to strike a different bargain with that industry. That bargain wouldsound something like, "Okay, you can be the payer, but you have to accept and manage riskinstead of spending your time avoiding it." We have to cover everybody and we have to use broad principles like community rating and really spread the risk around. There are easy ways of


19/21

doing that, which are unique to the insurance industry. However, the industry wants to "select"risk instead of managing it. And that's been our fundamental problem from the first; theinsurance industry wants to select risk -- avoid bad risk -- instead of spreading the risk bymanaging it. That fundamental issue has never been resolved. So it is, we are in a mess.

Maher: What would it take to resolve it?

Davis: Last fall when I made this statement to a committee of the legislature, someone said,"When are you going to run for governor?" I'm not going to do that. It would take leadershipcalling the insurance industry to task and saying, "Look guys, this isn't working. Our public isnot being served by the way it's working. It's not all your fault, but we've got to change the waywe're doing things or else we'll take it away from the insurance system." I haven't seen any leaderwilling to do that. The President (George W. Bush) could do it. Bill Clinton approached it in avery awkward way, which set us all back. [Governor] Mike Lowry got started down that road. Sodid [Governor] Booth Gardner to some extent. We [Group Health] got started but it all tumbled, partly because of national failures. Our present governor [Gary Locke] has not found it a priority.

Anyway, it would really be hard to do in one state.

Some steps could be taken. It isn't a way of making insurance companies lose money; it's a wayof making them manage themselves differently by spreading the risk through the insurancesystem. This idea has been brought to them. I've done it and so have others. They're notinterested; they don't see that as the way they want to function. They're not comfortable. They'velived all their lives dealing with avoiding risk and managing the money. They use money as aninvestment base to make money on their investment. They use the health care system as a way ofgetting money they can use to invest and make money instead of paying for health care. Theresult is we have a major mess. Here, the most prosperous and successful society that ever livedcan't deal with this issue. It is a shame. It is an affront.

Maher: What's your greatest hope for Group Health?

Davis: Even with all these pressures, that we will be able to become the favored plan, the best plan, the best service. We have the right aspirations, I think, and we're struggling to make themhappen. And that's what life is about -- the struggle.

Sources:

The interview was conducted by Karen Lynn Maher in Kirkland, Washington, on February 15,2002. By Karen Lynn Maher, December 14, 2005


20/21

Aubrey Davis, 2005

Courtesy Group Health Cooperative

Aubrey Davis, 1951

Courtesy Group Health Cooperative


21/21

Group Health Cooperative Medical Director Al Truscott, President/CEO Phil Nudelman, president emeritus Aubrey Davis, Cooperative chair Dorothy Mann, ca. 1995

Photo by Kim Zumwalt, Courtesy Group Health Cooperative

Related Topics:

Health

Licensing: This essay is licensed under a Creative Commons license that

encourages reproduction with attribution. Credit should be given to both

HistoryLink.org and to the author, and sources must be included with any

reproduction. Click the icon for more info. Please note that this Creative

Commons license applies to text only, and not to images. For more

information regarding individual photos or images, please contact the source

noted in the image credit.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Documents

Oral History of Aubrey Davis