Tired of premium increases every year, with the suspense of knowing whether they will be very strong increases, like some years, or more moderate, as is more rarely the case? We could soon only suffer this fate every three years. This is the wish of national councilor Philippe Nantermod (PLR/VS). And this is not so that the anger of the people is less frequent, but to realize the advantages that he has listed in a postulate which will be debated at the parliamentary session in December.
First, he said, “the increases would be spread over a longer period, reducing fluctuations and limiting the yo-yo effect linked to short-term reserve constitutions”. In addition, an insurer who has a client for three years would have every interest in ensuring that he or she is in the best possible health and would focus more on prevention. And then, what about the administrative and marketing costs of the hundreds of thousands of patients who change funds each year? “The three-year model would finally make it possible to attenuate the incentive to overconsume care once the deductible has been reached, by spreading the financial responsibility over several years,” concludes the Valaisan.
The Federal Council has always opposed moving from an annual to a multi-annual model (read box) and it did so again this week by giving its opinion on Philippe Nantermod’s text. Contracts for three years “would be a restriction of freedom of choice and a deterioration of conditions”, he believes. Savings on marketing and administrative costs? Peanuts in the vast ocean of health costs, he adds, it is on average 15 francs per person per year. “Insured people with a high deductible who fall ill and require numerous expensive services would have to assume the costs of this deductible for three years,” he finally fears.
Philippe Nantermod’s text, if it passes, would require the Federal Council to produce a report on the effects of a move to a three-year system.
The Federal Council recalls that Parliament has already recently voted for a parliamentary initiative which wants to allow multi-year contracts, without setting a duration. In the Council of States, against the advice of the government, the text passed unanimously. The left, initially worried, accepted because guarantees had been added precisely to respond to the fears of the Federal Council. Even with a contract lasting several years, it would be possible to change model along the way, or even find “a way out” if the insurer increased the premium during the contract – as long as the law allows it to do so. The construction site is in progress.
