|Health Policy in Germany after the election|
|Implemented in this survey?|
The German coalition government has implemented major changes in the funding of the statutory health insurance. In 2011, the uniform contribution rate will be raised to 15.5% of the contributory income: 8.2% are paid by the insured and 7.3% by the employer. Future increases of contributions will be collected as income-independent surcharges paid by the insured; the employers? contributions will be capped at the current level. For low-income individuals, there will be subsidies financed by taxes.
Current statutory health insurance (SHI) contributions and the role of surcharges
The nationwide uniform SHI contribution rate is paid in almost equal parts by the insured and his/her employer. The individual amount depends on the individual income. These contributions are collected by the health fund (c.f. Ognyanova, Diana and Reinhard Busse. "Health Fund now operational". Health Policy Monitor, May 2009) and allocated to the sickness funds based on individual demographic characteristics of the insured and supplements for certain well-defined diseases. In 2010, the contribution rate was set at 14.9%, of which 7.9% were paid by employees and 7.0% by the employers. After the introduction of the health fund in 2009, the contribution rate was initially at 15.5% but was lowered within the framework of the government's deficit spending program. In addition, if sickness funds have not been able to cover their costs, they could raise a surcharge limited to €8 per month or 1% of the insured's wage and salary. This payment has been collected directly by the respective sickness fund. In case allocations from the health fund are higher than expenditures of sickness funds, the sickness funds may reimburse money to their insured. However up to now, only a small number of sickness funds has claimed surcharges or paid back money.
Changes in SHI funding by the Health Financing Act (FinG)
As announced after the election, the governing conservatives (CDU/CSU) and the liberal democrats (FDP) intended to strengthen the role of these surcharges by implementing the Health Financing Act (FinG) in order to separate labour costs from increasing health expenditures. Since costs for health care are expected to increase, the contribution rates will be raised back to 15.5% in 2011: insured pay 8.2% of their income, 7.3% are paid by employers. Income-related contributions will be legally capped at this level of 15.5% in the future. To fund further future capital needs of sickness funds, they can individually increase their surcharges. Depending on each sickness fund's financial power, substantial differences between these surcharges can be expected. This way competitive elements will be re-introduced into the market for SHI sickness funds implying significant price signals and encouraging the insured persons to choose efficient sickness funds indicated by low surcharges.
In contrast to the old system of surcharges, they are not limited to a fixed sum or a certain percentage of the contributory income which will potentially lead to substantial financial burden for low-income insured. To overcome this burden, accompanying compensation mechanisms will be introduced: The Federal Insurance Authority (Bundesversicherungsamt), up to now in charge of calculating the national uniform contribution rates of the SHI, will be in charge of calculating a "nationwide average surcharge", reflecting the nationwide average gap between payments of the health fund to the sickness funds and the sickness funds' expenditures. In case the average surcharge would exceed 2% of an insureds' contributory income, the individual's income-dependent contributions will be decreased, i.e. will on average be limited to a total of 10.2% of the contributory income. However, as individuals might be members of sickness funds with either lower or higher surcharges, the actual additional financial burden of the insured will highly differ, implying a substantial price competition. Financial resources needed for individual subsidies, i.e. the decreased contribution rates, will be funded by taxes. The governing parties claim this compensation mechanism to be more equitable, as all tax payers (including those individuals within the private health insurance) will contribute instead of SHI members only.
The role of private health insurance after 2011
In addition, the governing parties have strengthened the role of the private health insurance in Germany. Up to 2010, employed individuals only have had the chance to opt out of the SHI and become a member of a private health insurance if their annual income has exceeded €48,500 for three consecutive years. The FinG will allow individuals to opt out of the SHI already after the income has exceeded €48,500 for one year. Both of these plans are in line with the announcements made after the coaliton treaty had been presented in 2009 (c.f. Zander, Britta et al. "Health Policy in Germany after the election". Health Policy Monitor, November 2009).
Further changes implemented by the Health Financing Act (FinG)
Apart from these changes, the Health Financing Act contains additional cost-containment measures and minor changes. As this paper puts an emphasis on the changes in SHI contributions, further changes due to the Act as well as the major changes in the pricing of pharmaceuticals were not announced after the election and are not the subject of this paper.
|Medienpräsenz||sehr gering||sehr hoch|
By strengthening the role of income-independent surcharges, this reform pushes futher a major change in the funding system of the German SHI which was first introduced in 2009. This is highly controversial. The opposition parties and a large share of the population including unions, social associations and the media critizise the new plans for potentially increasing inequalities in health and the provision of services. They also argue that the reform is not well-conceived and bureaucratic. Although some health economists agree with strengthening the role of flat-rate fees, they argue the new system of combined income-related and income-independent contributions will be a bureacratic system which won't improve the future sitatuon of the SHI's funding.
|Implemented in this survey?|
The coalition parties are the initiators of the health reform. The reform is indeed in line with the plans announced shortly after the election. However, the CSU opposed the introduction of income-independent SHI contributions in the beginning of the debate. As a part of the 2009 election program, the FDP opted for income-independent instead of income-related contributions. Although income-related contributions have not been completely abandoned, the current reform is a milestone for the introduction of capitation fees within the German SHI. Increasing expenditures will increase the importance of these premiums in the future. Although leaders of the German Society for Health Economics as well favor income-independent flat-rate fees instead of income-related contributions, they do not support the current reform. In line with the former FDP election program, they opted for using flat-rate fees as the only instrument for SHI contribution.
In contrast, the opposition parties, the unions, a large share of the population as well as a large share of the media criticize the growing importance of income-independent contributions within the SHI because of the potentially increasing inequity within the system. The opposition claims that these new regulations threaten the fundamental elements of the SHI by abandoning the established principle of solidary financing.
As a second result of the reform, more individuals will be able to opt out of the SHI and join the private health insurance. This will increase the market share of the private health insurance and decrease the number of healthy and wealthy in the SHI. As the FDP favors the role of the private sector in the German economy, critics argued that the private health insurance sector heavily influenced the decision making in the reform process.
The seperation of labor costs from increasing health expenditures was one of the major policy requests from the employers. It was a central goal in the decision-making process. They were however, opposed to the increase in their share of the income-dependent contribution by 0.3% points.
|The Liberal Democratic Party (FDP)||sehr unterstützend||stark dagegen|
|The Christian Democratic Party (CDU)||sehr unterstützend||stark dagegen|
|The Christian Social Party (CSU)||sehr unterstützend||stark dagegen|
|SHI sickness funds||sehr unterstützend||stark dagegen|
|Private Health Insurance Companies||sehr unterstützend||stark dagegen|
|The Unions||sehr unterstützend||stark dagegen|
|Social Associations||sehr unterstützend||stark dagegen|
|Employers||sehr unterstützend||stark dagegen|
|German Society for Health Economics||sehr unterstützend||stark dagegen|
|The media||sehr unterstützend||stark dagegen|
|The Social Democratic Party (SPD)||sehr unterstützend||stark dagegen|
|The Green Party (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)||sehr unterstützend||stark dagegen|
|The Left Party (Die Linke)||sehr unterstützend||stark dagegen|
Although the smallest governmental party CSU obviously opposed the FDP's idea to strengthen income-independent surcharges after the presenation of the coalition treaty in 2009, major ideas of the FDP were implemented by the Health Financing Act. However, the original FDP's plan to replace income-related contributions completely by income-independent fees was not feasible following heavy resistance of the opposing and as well governing parties. Due to the governing coalitions' majority in the Bundestag the opposition parties did not have a strong vote in this legislative act.
|The Liberal Democratic Party (FDP)||sehr groß||kein|
|The Christian Democratic Party (CDU)||sehr groß||kein|
|The Christian Social Party (CSU)||sehr groß||kein|
|SHI sickness funds||sehr groß||kein|
|Private Health Insurance Companies||sehr groß||kein|
|The Unions||sehr groß||kein|
|Social Associations||sehr groß||kein|
|German Society for Health Economics||sehr groß||kein|
|The media||sehr groß||kein|
|The Social Democratic Party (SPD)||sehr groß||kein|
|The Green Party (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)||sehr groß||kein|
|The Left Party (Die Linke)||sehr groß||kein|
Insured, employers, SHI sickness funds and the private health insurance will be affected by the Health Financing Act. According to their position towards these plans, one could distinguish 'winners and losers' of this reform.
Due to the new surcharges regulation, employed people are likely to face further financial burden because all future contribution increases in the SHI-system will have to be financed by them only. Further, they will only be covered by the compensation scheme if average surcharges exceed 2% of the contributory income. This will affect low-income people in particular. So far, these surcharges could not exceed 1% of the gross income or €8 per month. However insured may avoid paying surcharges by choosing a sickness fund charging lower or even no surcharges. However certain social groups might not be able to change their sickness funds, e.g. very aged or individuals suffering from dementia or mental disorders.
The employers' contribution rate will be capped at a new level of 7.3%. This implies a financially better position of the employers in the future. They won't have to bear future increases. Sickness funds with additional financing demand will have to raise or increase their surcharges. This is likely to decrease the sickness fund's attractivity. In contrast, efficient sickness funds or those with a good risk structure and/or high allocations from the health fund will benefit from this reform and be winners of the reform.
Following a decrease of the minimum time a person has to earn a certain wage level before being eligible to change from the SHI to the private health insurance, the SHI will most likely lose well-off and healthy payers to the private insurance. Thus, the private health insurance will benefit from this reform.
There is no evaluation procedure foreseen for this reform.
This reform was to be expected after the presentation of the coalition treaty in 2009. Thus, there were no major changes in reform plans. However, in contrast to announcements of the FDP before the elections, current amendments are not entirely substituting income-related contributions to SHI by flat-rate fees.
As this reform is predominantly a reform of fundraising, effects on quality have not been subject of the debate. However, the reform in 2008 intended to focus on quality competition rather than price competition by equalizing contribution rates to all sickness funds. After this reform, focus will be on prices instead of quality.
It is obvious that the governing coalition parties are in favour of strengthening the private health insurance sector by simplyfying the process by which individuals are allowed to opt out the SHI. In case the private insurance sector becomes more important, this might result in incentives for health care provider to focus on privately insured implying a potential decrease in treatment quality of SHI patients and less equity between SHI members and privately insured.
Due to the increase in income-related contribution rates, additional contributions of € 6.3 billion are expected for the sickness funds. In addition, accompanying cost-containment measures might only be effective in the short run. Moreover, due to those individuals opting out of the SHI sytem towards private health insurance, a substantial part of contributions might be lost in the future.
|Qualität||kaum Einfluss||starker Einfluss|
|Gerechtigkeit||System weniger gerecht||System gerechter|
|Kosteneffizienz||sehr gering||sehr hoch|
The aim of the reform was to implement major changes in the funding of the SHI and to separate future health costs from labour costs. Some cost-containment measures were as well implemented within the reform. However the German governmental parties did not adress concerns of efficiency in health care delivery.
The reform potentially imposes new financial burdens on low-income individuals and advantages individuals with high incomes. This could imply increasing health disparities in the German population.
|Health Policy in Germany after the election|
Process Stages: Strategiepapier, Idee
Michael Bäumler, Leonie Sundmacher and Britta Zander