Left warns urgently against GKV reform

The left is harsh criticism of the new health insurance law

04/29/2014

The federal government's planned reform of cash contributions is met with great skepticism on the left. As the party formulated in a small question to the Bundestag, that is the cause „Law for the further development of the financial structure and quality in the statutory health insurance“, the risk that the financial position of the statutory health insurance will be significantly weakened. The consequence of lowering the contribution rates to 14.6 per cent was additional contributions, which in the end would have to be paid by the insured person alone - without the participation of the employer or the pension insurance institution.

New law is expected to enter into force on 1 January 2015
The "Law for the further development of the financial structure and quality in the legal health insurance" (GKV-FQWG), which is to enter into force on 1 January 2015, triggers harsh criticism on the left. At the end of March, the government passed the draft law, which among other things stipulates that the general parity-financed contribution rate should be reduced from the current level of 15.5 percent to 14.6 percent. If the reform is actually implemented, in the view of the party, this would mean, above all, negative consequences for the workers. For example, as the members Harald Weinberg, Sabine Zimmermann, Katja Kipping and Birgit Wöllert currently clearly formulated in a small question to the German Bundestag, the reduction of the general contribution rate weakens the financial position of the statutory health insurance - which already by other political measures such as the lowering of the federal subsidy or the elimination of the benefit assessment for pharmaceuticals of the existing market had been strained to a great extent.

Contribution rate should fall from the current 15.5 to 14.6 percent
According to the party, the increase in contributions, which only came into force in January 2011, increased from 14.9% to 15.5% („SHI Financing Act“) led to a „more than sufficient funding of the health fund and subsequently also the health insurance funds achieved“ could be. As a result, on the one hand, no additional contributions would have become necessary, and on the other hand „even reserves for health funds and funds are built up, as they have never been at this level“, so continue the left. But if the new law came as planned, this situation would change.

Constant pressure on contribution rates
The reason: to the financial weakening of the coffers would come, according to the left, the long-standing trend that wages and pensions grow more slowly than the expenses - which leads to a steady pressure on the contribution rate. In order to fill the financial gap, the party can be assumed that all or almost all funds from next year would have to make additional contributions from their members. At the same time, however, a gradual increase in additional contributions could be assumed, since the CDU, CSU and SPD had agreed in the coalition agreement that they would have to be borne exclusively by the insured - without the involvement of employers or pension insurance institutions. Accordingly, the proposed law envisages limiting the employer's share to 7.3 percent, while the health insurance funds should be able to gradually increase the insured's contributions in the future.

Leftists ask 18 questions about law reform to the Bundestag
In its question to the Bundestag, the Left now formulates 18 questions on the further development of the financial structure and the quality of statutory health insurance - among other things, how high the average additional contributions in the years 2015 to 2018 will be and how many funds are expected to make additional contributions. In addition, the party also wants to be informed whether „contrary to the draft of the GKV-FQWG, a limit for the maximum amount or the maximum share of additional contributions to the SHI financing“ planned, „as demanded by parts of the SPD coalition partner and it supposedly provides a memorandum to the coalition agreement.“ (No)