Initiatives against the premium burden are the wrong recipe, according to the Federal Council
Published: Friday, Apr 5th 2024, 12:50
Back to Live Feed
The Federal Council and cantons share the population's growing concerns about rising health insurance premiums. However, the SP's premium relief initiative and the centrist party's cost brake initiative are the wrong recipe.
Both Health Minister Elisabeth Baume-Schneider and the cantonal health director Lukas Engelberger made it clear to the media in Bern on Friday that curbing rising healthcare costs and reducing the population's premium burden were top priorities. "The healthcare system must remain affordable," said the Federal Councillor. Engelberger was convinced that the ongoing reform projects in the healthcare system would have an effect.
However, further measures must follow, said those responsible at federal and cantonal level in unison. More coordinated care is needed in the healthcare system in order to avoid duplication. Studies have shown that up to twenty percent of costs could be saved in all areas through more efficient processes. "We are working on this," said the Federal Councillor.
"A pure pain therapy"
The popular initiative "Maximum ten percent of income for health insurance premiums (premium relief initiative)", on the other hand, only combats the symptoms, but not the causes of rising healthcare costs, said Baume-Schneider. In Engelberger's words, the initiative is "pure pain therapy".
In the Federal Council's view, the referendum should also be rejected because two thirds of the premium reductions would have to be covered by the federal government in future, rather than half as is the case today. "This would give the cantons less incentive to reduce costs," Baume-Schneider pointed out.
According to Engelberger, the initiative could even be counterproductive because the individual savings incentives of premium payers would also be "numbed". The initiative also violates the division of tasks between the federal government and the cantons, because the latter can no longer determine the level of premium reductions in their area. The current system works well.
Tax increases probably unavoidable
Instead, the Confederation and the cantons prefer the indirect counter-proposal of Parliament. This links the amount of premium reductions to be paid by a canton to its healthcare costs. "There will be more money available for premium reductions than there is today," said Baume-Schneider.
The initiative, on the other hand, would result in billions in additional costs. "Cuts would have to be made in other areas," says Baume-Schneider. If parliament is unable to reach an agreement, tax increases would be unavoidable. These would in turn affect large sections of the population.
For the cantons, the implementation of the initiative would result in an estimated one billion francs in additional costs. Engelberger described this as "too expensive a painkiller".
Cost brake too rigid
The popular initiative "For lower premiums - cost brake in the healthcare system (cost brake initiative)" was also rejected by the federal government and cantons. Engelberger spoke of a "placebo", Baume-Schneider criticized the mechanism behind the initiative as "too rigid". The cost brake does not take into account factors such as the ageing population and medical progress.
Here, too, a law passed by parliament is to take effect instead of a new article in the constitution. This stipulates that the Federal Council must determine every four years how much the costs of compulsory health insurance (OKP) may rise at most. If costs rise more than agreed without justification, the Federal Council and cantons must examine measures.
"The counter-proposal creates the necessary transparency and brings the medical players to the table," said Baume-Schneider. The service providers would have to offer their hand to take measures. If the initiative were to be implemented with automatic measures, there would be a threat of rationing healthcare services. "Patients would no longer have access to the best care as they do today."
©Keystone/SDA
English 
German 
French 
Spanish 
Arabic