On June 9, the Swiss will have to vote on two initiatives aimed at reducing the weight of premiums on our wallets. There is that of the PS which wants to cap their amount at 10% of income. And there is that of the Center which wants to introduce a brake on health costs in basic insurance. Explanations on this latest initiative are not easy to understand.
Health costs are increasing much more than the standard of living, notes the Center. In 10 years, they have increased by 31%, while salaries have only increased by 6%. We can no longer continue like this, believes the party which concocted its miracle cure: a mechanism which links the evolution of health costs to salaries. If costs increase each year by more than 20% compared to salaries, the Federal Council will have to intervene to reduce them with the cantons and health stakeholders. In short: if wages increase by 1%, medical expenses cannot increase by more than 1.2%. It is up to Parliament to find measures to avoid exceeding this objective.
Already today, six billion francs per year could be saved, notes the Center. But reforms fail because no one wants to save money. According to the party, “our system is sick”, which is causing bonuses to explode. And remember that in Switzerland we sometimes pay five times more for medicines than abroad. Furthermore, many procedures are performed in the hospital instead of on an outpatient basis. As a result, curbing costs would be the only way to reduce premiums by making all players in the health system face their responsibilities.
Both recommend rejecting the initiative. According to the Federal Council, the proposed mechanism is too rigid and does not take into account factors such as demographics or medical progress. He therefore developed an indirect counter-project which will come into force in the event of refusal of the initiative. Instead of introducing a brake on costs, he proposes defining objectives for controlling the costs of compulsory healthcare insurance. Concretely, the Confederation and the cantons should set the maximum growth in expenditure each year. But the Center rejects this text, on the grounds that it would be ineffective in curbing costs since it does not provide for anything if the objective is not achieved.
They are up in arms against the text deemed “absurd” and “dangerous”. All (except the evangelical party which said yes) warned of the risk of two-tier medicine in the event of a yes vote. “If wages fall, the coverage of costs by basic insurance should also decrease,” they emphasize. In addition, to continue to benefit from adequate care, policyholders would have to take out expensive additional insurance. Those who could not afford it would be left behind, they criticize.
Several health sector organizations, including the powerful Federation of Swiss Doctors (FMH) as well as PharmaSuisse, have formed a coalition to oppose the initiative. “The guarantee of care would no longer exist, and access to care would be rationed,” they say. On the other hand, SantéSuisse, one of the umbrella groups of insurers (Groupe Mutuel, Concordia, SWICA, etc.), supports the text “so that something finally happens in favor of policyholders”. But Curafutura, another umbrella organization (CSS, Helsana, Sanitas, KPT), rejects the text.
If at the beginning of March, a poll showed 72% favorable opinions, the yes camp fell significantly, falling to 54%, according to a 20 minutes/Tamedia poll published on April 24. French-speaking and German-speaking people are very close but the number of undecided people (10%) is still high.
