General alert!
Mutuals, health insurance and provident institute have been firing on all cylinders for a few weeks to defend their backyard.
In question, the report of the High Council on the future of Health Insurance (Hcaam), requested by the Minister of Health Olivier Véran, which gives pride of place to the hypothesis of a Great Security.
Partly unveiled by our colleagues from Les Échos last week, it provides for the extension of the scope of health insurance which would cover the co-payment.
By broadening the principle of long-term illnesses (ALD), which is 100% covered, complementary health insurance would thus be sidelined.
According to the Hcaam, the cost for Social Security would be 22.4 billion euros per year.
With in particular 8.9 billion euros for city care, 3.3 billion for the hospital, 4.6 billion for drugs and some 2 billion for "100% health".
Relieved of complementary contributions, the French, who would save 5.4 billion euros in management costs, would have to face an increase in compulsory levies to finance the reform.
"This does not mean that there is a government project"
In this system, the insured would only be responsible for excess fees, optical, dental and hearing equipment beyond 100% health, supplements for individual rooms in hospitals, etc. Many French people would then judge that they do not need additional health, which would drop the turnover of these organizations by around 70% according to Hcaam forecasts.
Attractive on paper, but the complementary ones explain that this system would be detrimental to innovation and to the control of expenditure.
Above all, they point to a drift towards the Spanish or English model with a split between the insured: those who would have the means to pay the excess fees and the others who should remain in the public system with its waiting times.
Read also Health supplements: what awaits us in 2022
The complementary health see in this reflection the leg of the Minister of Health Olivier Véran.
"He's been on this project for years," the boss of a mutual fund recently told us.
It's ideological.
The person concerned put things on the points Wednesday in the Senate during questions to the government estimating that the mission of reflection entrusted to Hcaam “does not mean that there is an underlying government project”.
"A switch from complementary health to health insurance would result in a switch from indirect contributions to an increase in social contributions or taxes," he added.
However […] this government will not increase taxes under any circumstances.
"
