Non-contributory family insurance rejected

PKV of a spouse prevents family insurance for children

07/15/2011

Married couples with a legally and a privately insured parent, can not accommodate their children through the family insurance in the statutory health insurance, the current decision of the Federal Constitutional Court. Thus, the previous regulation was confirmed by the highest court jurisdiction.

Before the Federal Constitutional Court, a woman from Lower Saxony had filed a constitutional complaint because she wanted to insure her four children on the family insurance of their own public health insurance. Both the wife and her husband are employed, the man as a self-employed lawyer has a higher income and is insured in a private health insurance. However, this did not allow the couple to place their children in the non-contributory family insurance. According to the plaintiff, an unfair ruling which also penalizes married couples, as unmarried parents can have their children insured free of charge at any time through their own statutory health insurance. However, the Federal Constitutional Court saw this differently and rejected the constitutional complaint of the woman.

Non-contributory family insurance continues to be excluded
By the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court children of couples, in which the better earning parent is privately insured, remain excluded from the free family insurance of the statutory health insurance in the future. Although the parents can in principle choose which health insurance they prefer for their children, but in any case, the non-contributory family insurance in the aforementioned constellation is not possible. In four children, as in the case of the applicant, a not inconsiderable financial burden. However, the Federal Constitutional Court stated that this „punctual discrimination“ be accepted by married couples and therefore did not accept the constitutional complaint. The Constitutional Court reaffirmed its 2003 verdict that the difference in the treatment of married and unmarried parents in their children's family insurance is compatible with the general principle of equality and the fundamental right to marriage and family. Although the judges recognized a slight disadvantage in the regulation of family insurance for the married parents, but this will be compensated elsewhere.

Benefits of marital partnerships with health insurance
For example, in marital partnerships, parents can claim contributions to their children's health insurance for income tax return. It is also possible for married couples to place spouses with low incomes into the statutory health insurance without any contribution if the other partner is already insured by law. Such options basically do not have marriage-like communities. In addition, married parents can hardly complain about unfair treatment to illegitimate parents „punctual legal disadvantage“ in family insurance, according to the judges is quite within the legal framework. The verdict of the Federal Constitutional Court from the year 2003, which basically excludes a non-contributory family insurance for children of spouses, in which the better-earning partner private health insurance is excluded, is quite understandable against the background of a possible abuse.

Avoid abuse possibilities with the health insurance companies
Because the thought is close, that well-earning spouse would otherwise insure as cost-effective as possible in the private health insurance, while they would have to pay in the statutory health insurance with your income the maximum rate. The lower-earning spouses would instead insure themselves in the statutory health insurance and also accommodate their children here through the non-contributory family insurance. While this would allow the already well-off couples to further optimize their income, justice or equal treatment would also have little in common with such acts. The fact that the non-marital partnerships the non-contributory family insurance of children is still possible, said the Federal Constitutional Court, that simply the implementation of similar rules as the couple would not handle. Because for the health insurance companies „It would be an almost impossible task to continuously check whether such a partnership exists, still or exists again“, so the statement of the constitutional judge. (Fp)

(Az .: Federal Constitutional Court 1 BvR 429/11)

Also read:
Supplementary contribution to Krankenkasse Vereinigte-IKK?
96 Euro additional contribution to Vereinigte IKK
New health insurance health insurance Southwest
If worth the change in the PKV?

Picture credits: Stephanie Hofschlaeger