Health Sharing Plans Ranked by Member Satisfaction — All 15 Plans

Full Ranking — All 15 Plans

Ranked by editorial rating, highest to lowest. Member counts and founding years are as published by each plan. "Note" flags plans with a documented regulatory, payment, or complaint issue — see each plan's review for the full write-up before you rule it in or out.

Methodology — How We Rate Member Satisfaction

Our star ratings are independent editorial assessments — not paid placements, and never influenced by referral commissions. We don't run or cite a member satisfaction survey; instead, we score each plan on verified data across six factors: coverage breadth, financial protection (sharing cap and payment reliability), track record and trust, cost and value, pre-existing condition policies, and transparency. Coverage, financial protection, and track record are weighted most heavily.

"Track record and trust" draws on each plan's BBB accreditation status, how long it has operated, and — where it exists — a documented history of regulatory action, slow claims payment, or unresolved member complaints. 4 plans in this index carry that kind of caution flag; we still include them for completeness, but the flag means we can't recommend the plan without reservations. We verify all pricing and coverage directly from each plan's official materials, not from marketing copy.

Why Zion HealthShare Leads the Index

Zion HealthShare rates 4.8/5 — the highest in our index — because it does the two things that drive satisfaction most: it publishes its sharing guidelines transparently before you enroll, and it actually covers what most people need, including high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and type 2 diabetes from month one.

Most member complaints in health sharing trace back to surprise denials — coverage the member assumed was included but wasn't. Zion HealthShare reduces this by making every sharing guideline publicly readable before signup, with no network restriction, so there's no "out-of-network" complaint either. CrowdHealth (4.6/5) and Medi-Share (4.5/5) follow close behind, each strong on a different factor — CrowdHealth on claims transparency and flexibility, Medi-Share on established track record and community size.

Plans With a Caution Flag

These 4 plans appear in our full index for completeness, but each carries a documented issue — a regulatory action, a weak claims-payment record, or unresolved member complaints — that keeps its rating low. Read the specific concern on each plan's review page before considering it.

• Liberty HealthShare (3/5) — Liberty's track record — read this first
• Altrua HealthShare (2.8/5) — Altrua's fine print — read this first
• Solidarity HealthShare (2.5/5) — Before you join Solidarity, know this
• netWell HealthShare (1.8/5) — netWell's claim-payment problems — read this first

What Lowers Member Satisfaction

Across all 15 plans, the drivers of member dissatisfaction are predictable:

• Surprise denials: a claim submitted for something not explicitly listed as shareable. The fix is reading the guidelines before enrolling.
• Slow processing: health sharing claims often take 30–90 days vs. 10–14 days for insurance. Nearly every plan has this issue to some degree.
• Balance billing from providers: providers unfamiliar with health sharing may bill the full amount and expect the member to handle the sharing process.
• Pre-existing condition waiting periods: most plans require 6–36 months before sharing pre-existing conditions. This is standard, not a defect — but members who don't read the terms carefully are surprised.
• Documented payment or regulatory problems: the 4 caution-flagged plans above have the lowest ratings in the index for exactly this reason.

Related Pages