In the midst of an economic crisis, with purchasing power at half mast, the pill can be difficult to swallow. French households will have to pay the contribution to their complementary health 4.3% more expensive than last year, according to a study published on Thursday by UFC-What to choose. For this study, the association screened 623 individual contracts, sent by its members after a call for testimony. “We have received at least 10 contracts, and up to 79, from 17 complementary organizations”, specifies UFC-Que Choisir.
Muta Santé, Pro BTP, Mutuelle Générale and MNH have increased their prices by less than 3%. When Adrea Mutuelle, Klesia, Swiss Life and Malakoff Humanis approach or exceed 7% inflation. “Not everyone is in the same boat,” emphasizes Alain Bazot, president of UFC-Que Choisir. The actors act in the most total opacity! “
Professionals judge the study “insincere”
This increase on individual contracts corresponds to a median annual additional cost of € 79 ( Editor’s note: median means that 50% of the increases are less than 79 € and 50% higher ), and up to € 200 for some of them. “In 2019 and 2020, the increase was already 4 and 5%, strangles Alain Bazot, president of the UFC. This increase is illegitimate. Nothing, economically, justifies it. Even if we must recognize a diversity of behavior among professionals. “
The study provokes the ire of professionals in the sector, who deem it “insincere”, “biased” or even “ridiculous”. “The contracts assessed correspond to shipments made by clients, which undermines the representativeness of the sample and does not reflect reality at all, contests a spokesperson for Swiss Life. The median increase is 3% – excluding aging – across our entire dedicated portfolio, ie 267,376 contracts. “
Contracts scrutinized “not representative”
“The 10 to 70 contracts studied by UFC-Que Choisir are not representative of our portfolio which covers 10 million policyholders. The average indexation rate of our collective and individual health portfolio is 2.3% for the year 2021 ”, retorts at Malakoff Humanis.
The general manager of Mutualité Française, Albert Lautman, also denounces the “lack of seriousness” of the study. “Every year, they give us data, every year they are contested and questionable,” he says. We ourselves published a study on Wednesday, analyzing 14 million contracts, with 32 different mutuals. The average increase is 2.6%! This is the trend of the last ten years. At the same time, refunds increased by 29%. Everything is logical and coherent. “
But even if these increases are less strong than those denounced by the UFC, they are no less surprising when in 2020, professionals in the sector have saved 2.2 billion euros. Many treatments and operations have in fact been canceled due to the health crisis. In view of these gains, the State has also imposed a “Covid tax” on complementary health insurance within the framework of the Social Security financing law (LFSS) for 2021. “Complementaries are catching up on the backs of consumers . It is unacceptable ! »Exclaims Alain Bazot.
The “100% Health” put forward
Albert Lautman refutes this interpretation. “Without tax, we could have considered lowering contributions to redistribute our earnings. But the question did not arise, since the State has chosen to be the recipient, he underlines. The increase responds to the aging of the population, the increase in chronic diseases and the new benefits covered. “Professionals highlight in particular 100% health, which has been extended since January 1. Baskets of healthcare services and identified equipment in audiology (hearing aids), optics (eyeglasses) and dental (dental prostheses) are now 100% reimbursed for French people with responsible complementary health care – i.e. 95% contracts.
The UFC-Que Choisir, which welcomes this “great advance for the consumer”, now wants to fight on “the comparability of offers which must be improved”. “We got to be able to change complementary at any time. But customers are put off to do it, ”regrets the president of the association. In question, the presentation of reimbursements of certain contracts in the form of “incomprehensible percentages”. The association advocates “standardization in the presentation of offers”.