nonprofit member-led health-insurance plan

Community Health Options

A Maine-based nonprofit member-led health plan serving individuals, families, and businesses. Community Health Options scores high for the insurance sector because member governance and nonprofit structure directly counter shareholder health-insurance incentives.

Why this matters: Community Health Options is one of the strongest available health-insurance alternatives in its region.

Letter grade B Qualified High confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Last reviewed May 12, 2026

Final Score 47* B - Qualified

BQUALIFIED47 pts

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material47

Bonus+5

Cap66No structure cap

After Cap52

Penalties-5

!Not Verified

Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Evaluation Overview

B - Qualified

The score turns mainly on Ownership, with the largest penalty coming from Accountability Opacity.

Strengths

Ownership8/10
Governance7/10
Extraction7/10

Penalties

Accountability Opacity-2
Policy Capture-1
Subscription Capture-1
Surveillance Capture-1

Evidence state

ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
Linked claims17
Direct axis claims17
Coverage17/17

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	8 / 10	Community Health Options's public materials identify its ownership form, parent relationship, nonprofit status, mutual structure, or shareholder-controlled insurance model. Community Health Options's public materials identify its ownership form, parent relationship, nonprofit status, mutual structure, or shareholder-controlled insurance model. On Ownership, Community Health Options sits high for the insurance sector because member, mutual, nonprofit, or cooperative structure moves control and surplus closer to insured people. It stays below the strongest non-insurance institutions where claims gatekeeping, underwriting, or network constraints still mediate access. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Insurance expansion batch calibrated across health, life, mutual, public, pet, renters, and member-governed alternatives. Linked evidence Community Health Options's public materials identify its ownership form, parent relationship, nonprofit status, mutual structure, or shareholder-controlled insurance model. [1] context Community Health Options's public record shows whether binding control sits with policyholders, members, nonprofit boards, parent companies, public shareholders, or executives. [2] context Community Health Options's insurance model collects premiums or dues and controls how much value returns as claims, benefits, reserves, dividends, surplus, or shareholder/investor return. [3] context Community Health Options's public structure does not show ordinary workers holding binding democratic control over insurance operations. [4] context Community Health Options's coverage model affects people during job loss, disability, illness, accidents, housing instability, or other periods when insurance access and continuity matter. [5] context Community Health Options's product is built around bearing covered losses, but the public record also shows policy terms, eligibility, exclusions, or managed-care constraints that determine how much loss the insurer actually absorbs. [6] context Community Health Options competes in insurance markets where pricing, underwriting, networks, formularies, claims handling, cancellation, and renewal practices determine ordinary consumer power. [7] context Community Health Options's core product can protect against catastrophic financial loss, but coverage integrity depends on claim payment, network adequacy, exclusions, and transparent policy terms. [8] context Community Health Options's scale and category make its underwriting, care-management, claims, or investment decisions consequential for households, workers, patients, pets, or public programs. [9]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	7 / 10	Community Health Options's public record gives limited direct evidence about whether binding control sits with policyholders, members, nonprofit boards, parent companies, public shareholders, or executives. Community Health Options's public record gives limited direct evidence about whether binding control sits with policyholders, members, nonprofit boards, parent companies, public shareholders, or executives. On Governance, Community Health Options sits high for the insurance sector because member, mutual, nonprofit, or cooperative structure moves control and surplus closer to insured people. It stays below the strongest non-insurance institutions where claims gatekeeping, underwriting, or network constraints still mediate access. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Insurance expansion batch calibrated across health, life, mutual, public, pet, renters, and member-governed alternatives. Linked evidence context Community Health Options's public materials identify its ownership form, parent relationship, nonprofit status, mutual structure, or shareholder-controlled insurance model. [1] Community Health Options's public record shows whether binding control sits with policyholders, members, nonprofit boards, parent companies, public shareholders, or executives. [2] context Community Health Options's insurance model collects premiums or dues and controls how much value returns as claims, benefits, reserves, dividends, surplus, or shareholder/investor return. [3] context Community Health Options's public structure does not show ordinary workers holding binding democratic control over insurance operations. [4] context Community Health Options's coverage model affects people during job loss, disability, illness, accidents, housing instability, or other periods when insurance access and continuity matter. [5] context Community Health Options's product is built around bearing covered losses, but the public record also shows policy terms, eligibility, exclusions, or managed-care constraints that determine how much loss the insurer actually absorbs. [6] context Community Health Options competes in insurance markets where pricing, underwriting, networks, formularies, claims handling, cancellation, and renewal practices determine ordinary consumer power. [7] context Community Health Options's core product can protect against catastrophic financial loss, but coverage integrity depends on claim payment, network adequacy, exclusions, and transparent policy terms. [8] context Community Health Options's scale and category make its underwriting, care-management, claims, or investment decisions consequential for households, workers, patients, pets, or public programs. [9]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	7 / 10	Community Health Options's insurance model collects premiums or dues and controls how much value returns as claims, benefits, reserves, dividends, surplus, or shareholder/investor return. Community Health Options's insurance model collects premiums or dues and controls how much value returns as claims, benefits, reserves, dividends, surplus, or shareholder/investor return. On Extraction, Community Health Options sits high for the insurance sector because member, mutual, nonprofit, or cooperative structure moves control and surplus closer to insured people. It stays below the strongest non-insurance institutions where claims gatekeeping, underwriting, or network constraints still mediate access. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Insurance expansion batch calibrated across health, life, mutual, public, pet, renters, and member-governed alternatives. Linked evidence context Community Health Options's public materials identify its ownership form, parent relationship, nonprofit status, mutual structure, or shareholder-controlled insurance model. [1] context Community Health Options's public record shows whether binding control sits with policyholders, members, nonprofit boards, parent companies, public shareholders, or executives. [2] Community Health Options's insurance model collects premiums or dues and controls how much value returns as claims, benefits, reserves, dividends, surplus, or shareholder/investor return. [3] context Community Health Options's public structure does not show ordinary workers holding binding democratic control over insurance operations. [4] context Community Health Options's coverage model affects people during job loss, disability, illness, accidents, housing instability, or other periods when insurance access and continuity matter. [5] context Community Health Options's product is built around bearing covered losses, but the public record also shows policy terms, eligibility, exclusions, or managed-care constraints that determine how much loss the insurer actually absorbs. [6] context Community Health Options competes in insurance markets where pricing, underwriting, networks, formularies, claims handling, cancellation, and renewal practices determine ordinary consumer power. [7] context Community Health Options's core product can protect against catastrophic financial loss, but coverage integrity depends on claim payment, network adequacy, exclusions, and transparent policy terms. [8] context Community Health Options's scale and category make its underwriting, care-management, claims, or investment decisions consequential for households, workers, patients, pets, or public programs. [9]
Labor Sovereignty ? Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.	4 / 7	Community Health Options's public structure does not show ordinary workers holding binding democratic control over insurance operations. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Insurance expansion batch calibrated across health, life, mutual, public, pet, renters, and member-governed alternatives. Linked evidence context Community Health Options's public materials identify its ownership form, parent relationship, nonprofit status, mutual structure, or shareholder-controlled insurance model. [1] context Community Health Options's public record shows whether binding control sits with policyholders, members, nonprofit boards, parent companies, public shareholders, or executives. [2] context Community Health Options's insurance model collects premiums or dues and controls how much value returns as claims, benefits, reserves, dividends, surplus, or shareholder/investor return. [3] Community Health Options's public structure does not show ordinary workers holding binding democratic control over insurance operations. [4] context Community Health Options's coverage model affects people during job loss, disability, illness, accidents, housing instability, or other periods when insurance access and continuity matter. [5] context Community Health Options's product is built around bearing covered losses, but the public record also shows policy terms, eligibility, exclusions, or managed-care constraints that determine how much loss the insurer actually absorbs. [6] context Community Health Options competes in insurance markets where pricing, underwriting, networks, formularies, claims handling, cancellation, and renewal practices determine ordinary consumer power. [7] context Community Health Options's core product can protect against catastrophic financial loss, but coverage integrity depends on claim payment, network adequacy, exclusions, and transparent policy terms. [8] context Community Health Options's scale and category make its underwriting, care-management, claims, or investment decisions consequential for households, workers, patients, pets, or public programs. [9]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	5 / 7	Community Health Options's coverage model affects people during job loss, disability, illness, accidents, housing instability, or other periods when insurance access and continuity matter. Community Health Options's coverage model affects people during job loss, disability, illness, accidents, housing instability, or other periods when insurance access and continuity matter. On Solidarity with the Unemployed, Community Health Options belongs in the middle: the structure is materially better than shareholder insurance, but insured people still lack full democratic control over coverage rules, claims, pricing, or networks. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Insurance expansion batch calibrated across health, life, mutual, public, pet, renters, and member-governed alternatives. Linked evidence context Community Health Options's public materials identify its ownership form, parent relationship, nonprofit status, mutual structure, or shareholder-controlled insurance model. [1] context Community Health Options's public record shows whether binding control sits with policyholders, members, nonprofit boards, parent companies, public shareholders, or executives. [2] context Community Health Options's insurance model collects premiums or dues and controls how much value returns as claims, benefits, reserves, dividends, surplus, or shareholder/investor return. [3] context Community Health Options's public structure does not show ordinary workers holding binding democratic control over insurance operations. [4] Community Health Options's coverage model affects people during job loss, disability, illness, accidents, housing instability, or other periods when insurance access and continuity matter. [5] context Community Health Options's product is built around bearing covered losses, but the public record also shows policy terms, eligibility, exclusions, or managed-care constraints that determine how much loss the insurer actually absorbs. [6] context Community Health Options competes in insurance markets where pricing, underwriting, networks, formularies, claims handling, cancellation, and renewal practices determine ordinary consumer power. [7] context Community Health Options's core product can protect against catastrophic financial loss, but coverage integrity depends on claim payment, network adequacy, exclusions, and transparent policy terms. [8] context Community Health Options's scale and category make its underwriting, care-management, claims, or investment decisions consequential for households, workers, patients, pets, or public programs. [9]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	5 / 7	Community Health Options's product is built around bearing covered losses, but the public record also shows policy terms, eligibility, exclusions, or managed-care constraints that determine how much loss the insurer actually absorbs. Community Health Options's product is built around bearing covered losses, but the public record also shows policy terms, eligibility, exclusions, or managed-care constraints that determine how much loss the insurer actually absorbs. On Loss-Bearing Fidelity, Community Health Options belongs in the middle: the structure is materially better than shareholder insurance, but insured people still lack full democratic control over coverage rules, claims, pricing, or networks. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Insurance expansion batch calibrated across health, life, mutual, public, pet, renters, and member-governed alternatives. Linked evidence context Community Health Options's public materials identify its ownership form, parent relationship, nonprofit status, mutual structure, or shareholder-controlled insurance model. [1] context Community Health Options's public record shows whether binding control sits with policyholders, members, nonprofit boards, parent companies, public shareholders, or executives. [2] context Community Health Options's insurance model collects premiums or dues and controls how much value returns as claims, benefits, reserves, dividends, surplus, or shareholder/investor return. [3] context Community Health Options's public structure does not show ordinary workers holding binding democratic control over insurance operations. [4] context Community Health Options's coverage model affects people during job loss, disability, illness, accidents, housing instability, or other periods when insurance access and continuity matter. [5] Community Health Options's product is built around bearing covered losses, but the public record also shows policy terms, eligibility, exclusions, or managed-care constraints that determine how much loss the insurer actually absorbs. [6] context Community Health Options competes in insurance markets where pricing, underwriting, networks, formularies, claims handling, cancellation, and renewal practices determine ordinary consumer power. [7] context Community Health Options's core product can protect against catastrophic financial loss, but coverage integrity depends on claim payment, network adequacy, exclusions, and transparent policy terms. [8] context Community Health Options's scale and category make its underwriting, care-management, claims, or investment decisions consequential for households, workers, patients, pets, or public programs. [9]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	4 / 5	Community Health Options competes in insurance markets where pricing, underwriting, networks, formularies, claims handling, cancellation, and renewal practices determine ordinary consumer power. Community Health Options competes in insurance markets where pricing, underwriting, networks, formularies, claims handling, cancellation, and renewal practices determine ordinary consumer power. On Market Conduct, Community Health Options belongs in the middle: the structure is materially better than shareholder insurance, but insured people still lack full democratic control over coverage rules, claims, pricing, or networks. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Insurance expansion batch calibrated across health, life, mutual, public, pet, renters, and member-governed alternatives. Linked evidence context Community Health Options's public materials identify its ownership form, parent relationship, nonprofit status, mutual structure, or shareholder-controlled insurance model. [1] context Community Health Options's public record shows whether binding control sits with policyholders, members, nonprofit boards, parent companies, public shareholders, or executives. [2] context Community Health Options's insurance model collects premiums or dues and controls how much value returns as claims, benefits, reserves, dividends, surplus, or shareholder/investor return. [3] context Community Health Options's public structure does not show ordinary workers holding binding democratic control over insurance operations. [4] context Community Health Options's coverage model affects people during job loss, disability, illness, accidents, housing instability, or other periods when insurance access and continuity matter. [5] context Community Health Options's product is built around bearing covered losses, but the public record also shows policy terms, eligibility, exclusions, or managed-care constraints that determine how much loss the insurer actually absorbs. [6] Community Health Options competes in insurance markets where pricing, underwriting, networks, formularies, claims handling, cancellation, and renewal practices determine ordinary consumer power. [7] context Community Health Options's core product can protect against catastrophic financial loss, but coverage integrity depends on claim payment, network adequacy, exclusions, and transparent policy terms. [8] context Community Health Options's scale and category make its underwriting, care-management, claims, or investment decisions consequential for households, workers, patients, pets, or public programs. [9]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	4 / 5	Community Health Options's core product can protect against catastrophic financial loss, but coverage integrity depends on claim payment, network adequacy, exclusions, and transparent policy terms. Community Health Options's core product can protect against catastrophic financial loss, but coverage integrity depends on claim payment, network adequacy, exclusions, and transparent policy terms. On Product Integrity, Community Health Options belongs in the middle: the structure is materially better than shareholder insurance, but insured people still lack full democratic control over coverage rules, claims, pricing, or networks. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Insurance expansion batch calibrated across health, life, mutual, public, pet, renters, and member-governed alternatives. Linked evidence context Community Health Options's public materials identify its ownership form, parent relationship, nonprofit status, mutual structure, or shareholder-controlled insurance model. [1] context Community Health Options's public record shows whether binding control sits with policyholders, members, nonprofit boards, parent companies, public shareholders, or executives. [2] context Community Health Options's insurance model collects premiums or dues and controls how much value returns as claims, benefits, reserves, dividends, surplus, or shareholder/investor return. [3] context Community Health Options's public structure does not show ordinary workers holding binding democratic control over insurance operations. [4] context Community Health Options's coverage model affects people during job loss, disability, illness, accidents, housing instability, or other periods when insurance access and continuity matter. [5] context Community Health Options's product is built around bearing covered losses, but the public record also shows policy terms, eligibility, exclusions, or managed-care constraints that determine how much loss the insurer actually absorbs. [6] context Community Health Options competes in insurance markets where pricing, underwriting, networks, formularies, claims handling, cancellation, and renewal practices determine ordinary consumer power. [7] Community Health Options's core product can protect against catastrophic financial loss, but coverage integrity depends on claim payment, network adequacy, exclusions, and transparent policy terms. [8] context Community Health Options's scale and category make its underwriting, care-management, claims, or investment decisions consequential for households, workers, patients, pets, or public programs. [9]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	3 / 5	Community Health Options's scale and category make its underwriting, care-management, claims, or investment decisions consequential for households, workers, patients, pets, or public programs. Community Health Options's scale and category make its underwriting, care-management, claims, or investment decisions consequential for households, workers, patients, pets, or public programs. On Scale Integrity, Community Health Options belongs low because insurance power is controlled mainly by shareholders, executives, parent companies, or ordinary corporate boards rather than policyholders, patients, workers, or affected communities. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Insurance expansion batch calibrated across health, life, mutual, public, pet, renters, and member-governed alternatives. Linked evidence context Community Health Options's public materials identify its ownership form, parent relationship, nonprofit status, mutual structure, or shareholder-controlled insurance model. [1] context Community Health Options's public record shows whether binding control sits with policyholders, members, nonprofit boards, parent companies, public shareholders, or executives. [2] context Community Health Options's insurance model collects premiums or dues and controls how much value returns as claims, benefits, reserves, dividends, surplus, or shareholder/investor return. [3] context Community Health Options's public structure does not show ordinary workers holding binding democratic control over insurance operations. [4] context Community Health Options's coverage model affects people during job loss, disability, illness, accidents, housing instability, or other periods when insurance access and continuity matter. [5] context Community Health Options's product is built around bearing covered losses, but the public record also shows policy terms, eligibility, exclusions, or managed-care constraints that determine how much loss the insurer actually absorbs. [6] context Community Health Options competes in insurance markets where pricing, underwriting, networks, formularies, claims handling, cancellation, and renewal practices determine ordinary consumer power. [7] context Community Health Options's core product can protect against catastrophic financial loss, but coverage integrity depends on claim payment, network adequacy, exclusions, and transparent policy terms. [8] Community Health Options's scale and category make its underwriting, care-management, claims, or investment decisions consequential for households, workers, patients, pets, or public programs. [9]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
Policy Capture ? Private-interest attempts to bend law, regulation, subsidies, taxes, enforcement, trade, labor, safety, competition, environmental, healthcare, housing, surveillance, civil-liberties, or consumer policy against workers, customers, citizens, affected communities, or ecological life. Public-interest advocacy is not penalized merely because it is lobbying. Range: -15 to 0.	-1	Community Health Options's public record makes Policy Capture relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums,… Community Health Options's public record makes Policy Capture relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping. This warrants a Policy Capture penalty because the insurance model exposes customers or members to recurring-payment inertia, opaque policy terms, care or claims gatekeeping, policy influence, data use, or identity-based trust transfer. The penalty is calibrated to the evidence for this entity rather than assumed for the whole sector. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Insurance expansion batch calibrated across health, life, mutual, public, pet, renters, and member-governed alternatives. Linked evidence Community Health Options's public record makes Policy Capture relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping. [14]
Subscription Capture ? Manipulative recurring-payment, automatic-renewal, cancellation-friction, bundling, trial-conversion, or refund designs that profit from inertia or confusion. Range: -5 to 0.	-1	Community Health Options's public record makes Subscription Capture relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring… Community Health Options's public record makes Subscription Capture relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping. This warrants a Subscription Capture penalty because the insurance model exposes customers or members to recurring-payment inertia, opaque policy terms, care or claims gatekeeping, policy influence, data use, or identity-based trust transfer. The penalty is calibrated to the evidence for this entity rather than assumed for the whole sector. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Insurance expansion batch calibrated across health, life, mutual, public, pet, renters, and member-governed alternatives. Linked evidence Community Health Options's public record makes Subscription Capture relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping. [15]
Accountability Opacity ? Material opacity, reputation laundering, or hidden accountability structures that prevent public accountability. Range: -2 to 0.	-2	Community Health Options's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring… Community Health Options's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping. This warrants a Accountability Opacity penalty because the insurance model exposes customers or members to recurring-payment inertia, opaque policy terms, care or claims gatekeeping, policy influence, data use, or identity-based trust transfer. The penalty is calibrated to the evidence for this entity rather than assumed for the whole sector. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Insurance expansion batch calibrated across health, life, mutual, public, pet, renters, and member-governed alternatives. Linked evidence Community Health Options's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping. [16]
Surveillance Capture ? Invasive surveillance, unreasonably non-optional tracking, facial recognition, biometric identification, or AI behavior scanning of customers, workers, bystanders, or the public. Range: -5 to 0.	-1	Community Health Options's public record makes Surveillance Capture relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring… Community Health Options's public record makes Surveillance Capture relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping. This warrants a Surveillance Capture penalty because the insurance model exposes customers or members to recurring-payment inertia, opaque policy terms, care or claims gatekeeping, policy influence, data use, or identity-based trust transfer. The penalty is calibrated to the evidence for this entity rather than assumed for the whole sector. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Insurance expansion batch calibrated across health, life, mutual, public, pet, renters, and member-governed alternatives. Linked evidence Community Health Options's public record makes Surveillance Capture relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping. [17]

Bonus Credits

Bonus	Credit	Why this credit
Openness to Dissent ? Credit for tolerating internal, user, customer, worker, and public dissent without retaliation, capture, or viewpoint laundering.	1 / 3	Community Health Options's public record makes Openness to Dissent relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums,… Community Health Options's public record makes Openness to Dissent relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping. This supports limited Openness to Dissent credit because the record shows a rare insurance-sector practice that improves member voice, public value, affordability, or transparency. The credit is limited because insurance still works through contracts, underwriting, claims administration, or managed-care authority. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Insurance expansion batch calibrated across health, life, mutual, public, pet, renters, and member-governed alternatives. Linked evidence Community Health Options's public record makes Openness to Dissent relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping. [10]
Constitutional Spirit ? Credit for respecting constitutional rights and civil-liberties norms even where private law does not strictly require it.	1 / 3	Community Health Options's public record makes Constitutional Spirit relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring… Community Health Options's public record makes Constitutional Spirit relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping. This supports limited Constitutional Spirit credit because the record shows a rare insurance-sector practice that improves member voice, public value, affordability, or transparency. The credit is limited because insurance still works through contracts, underwriting, claims administration, or managed-care authority. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Insurance expansion batch calibrated across health, life, mutual, public, pet, renters, and member-governed alternatives. Linked evidence Community Health Options's public record makes Constitutional Spirit relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping. [11]
Good Deal ? Credit for unusually fair value: durable quality, fair pricing, low lock-in, and clear customer surplus.	2 / 3	Community Health Options's public record makes Good Deal relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy… Community Health Options's public record makes Good Deal relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping. This supports limited Good Deal credit because the record shows a rare insurance-sector practice that improves member voice, public value, affordability, or transparency. The credit is limited because insurance still works through contracts, underwriting, claims administration, or managed-care authority. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Insurance expansion batch calibrated across health, life, mutual, public, pet, renters, and member-governed alternatives. Linked evidence Community Health Options's public record makes Good Deal relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping. [12]
Cost Transparency ? Credit for clear posted prices, all-in fees, unit costs, public rate cards, margin/cost visibility, or surplus-allocation transparency, especially in markets where opaque quotes, hidden fees, or individualized pricing are normal.	1 / 3	Community Health Options's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums,… Community Health Options's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping. This supports limited Cost Transparency credit because the record shows a rare insurance-sector practice that improves member voice, public value, affordability, or transparency. The credit is limited because insurance still works through contracts, underwriting, claims administration, or managed-care authority. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Insurance expansion batch calibrated across health, life, mutual, public, pet, renters, and member-governed alternatives. Linked evidence Community Health Options's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping. [13]

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

High 84/100

17 verified linked claims 17 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 17/17 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 16/20

17 verified linked claims

Source quality 15/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 14/18

17 direct claims across 17 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 10/10

17/17 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending

VerificationUnverified

ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)

ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)

Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.

Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

1Community Health Options's public materials identify its ownership form, parent relationship, nonprofit status, mutual structure, or shareholder-controlled insurance model.

Ownership Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Community Health OptionsGeneral web source · 58%

2Community Health Options's public record shows whether binding control sits with policyholders, members, nonprofit boards, parent companies, public shareholders, or executives.

Governance Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Community Health OptionsGeneral web source · 58%

3Community Health Options's insurance model collects premiums or dues and controls how much value returns as claims, benefits, reserves, dividends, surplus, or shareholder/investor return.

Extraction Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Community Health OptionsGeneral web source · 58%

4Community Health Options's public structure does not show ordinary workers holding binding democratic control over insurance operations.

Labor Sovereignty Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Community Health OptionsGeneral web source · 58%

5Community Health Options's coverage model affects people during job loss, disability, illness, accidents, housing instability, or other periods when insurance access and continuity matter.

Solidarity Unemployed Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Maine Office of Affordable Health Care testimonyPrimary public record · 100%

6Community Health Options's product is built around bearing covered losses, but the public record also shows policy terms, eligibility, exclusions, or managed-care constraints that determine how much loss the insurer actually absorbs.

Loss Bearing Fidelity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Community Health OptionsGeneral web source · 58%

7Community Health Options competes in insurance markets where pricing, underwriting, networks, formularies, claims handling, cancellation, and renewal practices determine ordinary consumer power.

Market Conduct Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Maine Office of Affordable Health Care testimonyPrimary public record · 100%

8Community Health Options's core product can protect against catastrophic financial loss, but coverage integrity depends on claim payment, network adequacy, exclusions, and transparent policy terms.

Product Integrity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Community Health OptionsGeneral web source · 58%

9Community Health Options's scale and category make its underwriting, care-management, claims, or investment decisions consequential for households, workers, patients, pets, or public programs.

Scale Integrity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Maine Office of Affordable Health Care testimonyPrimary public record · 100%

10Community Health Options's public record makes Openness to Dissent relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping.

Openness To Dissent Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Maine Office of Affordable Health Care testimonyPrimary public record · 100%

11Community Health Options's public record makes Constitutional Spirit relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping.

Constitutional Spirit Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Maine Office of Affordable Health Care testimonyPrimary public record · 100%

12Community Health Options's public record makes Good Deal relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping.

Good Deal Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Maine Office of Affordable Health Care testimonyPrimary public record · 100%

13Community Health Options's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping.

Cost Transparency Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Maine Office of Affordable Health Care testimonyPrimary public record · 100%

14Community Health Options's public record makes Policy Capture relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping.

Policy Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Maine Office of Affordable Health Care testimonyPrimary public record · 100%

15Community Health Options's public record makes Subscription Capture relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping.

Subscription Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Maine Office of Affordable Health Care testimonyPrimary public record · 100%

16Community Health Options's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping.

Accountability Opacity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Maine Office of Affordable Health Care testimonyPrimary public record · 100%

17Community Health Options's public record makes Surveillance Capture relevant to the evaluation through mutual/member governance, nonprofit mission, public-program policy, recurring premiums, policy complexity, healthcare data, marketing identity, or claims/care gatekeeping.

Surveillance Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Maine Office of Affordable Health Care testimonyPrimary public record · 100%

Alternatives

AGOOD51 Co-operative Insurance Companies member-owned regional mutual insurer · same market

Competitors

AGOOD51 Co-operative Insurance Companies member-owned regional mutual insurer · same market BQUALIFIED47 Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative nonprofit member-governed health-insurance cooperative · same market BQUALIFIED47 Mountain Health CO-OP nonprofit member-governed health-insurance cooperative · same market BQUALIFIED45 NJM Insurance Group regional mutual auto, home, renters, and umbrella insurer · same market BQUALIFIED45 PEMCO Insurance regional mutual auto, home, and renters insurer · same market BQUALIFIED42 Amica Mutual mutual insurance company · same market CPERFORMATIVE41 Shelter Insurance regional mutual property, casualty, and life insurer · same market CPERFORMATIVE40 HealthPartners nonprofit integrated health plan and care provider · same market

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for Community Health Options Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

No company-specific audit entries have been published yet.

View Full Audit Log