USS: legislative brake on premiums at 3% (cross-border guide)

Context

In brief

• The USS calls for a legislative brake on basic health insurance premiums.
• The motion sets a 3% limit on growth.
• Above 3%, the USS proposes social or income taxes.
• In Ticino, an increase of 3,7% is indicated in 2027.

Key facts

• Who → Swiss Trade Union Federation (USS)
• Where → Bern
• Proposal → Growth limited to 3%
• Consideration → Tomorrow by the Council of States
• Ticino → Increase of 3,7% in 2027

In Bern, the Swiss Trade Union Federation (USS) is calling for a legislative brake on the growth of basic health insurance premiums. According to the organization, for many households the burden has reached the limit of what is tolerable. The unions describe the current system as detrimental to citizens, conducive to waste and inequality, with effects also on the national economy.

In today's statement, the USS acknowledges that high-quality healthcare accessible to all comes at a cost. However, it challenges the way that cost is financed. In its view, hundreds of millions of francs from premiums are squandered for profit and dissipated in inefficient processes.

«However, it is certainly not a law of nature that it should be financed in such an antisocial way, with hundreds of millions of francs from premiums being squandered for profit and dissipated in inefficient processes».

The motion and the proposed limit

The central point is the motion by USS President Pierre-Yves Maillard, which will be considered tomorrow by the Council of States. According to the federation, Parliament could amend the law and limit the growth of premiums, for example to 3%. The source therefore presents 3% as a limit to be introduced through a legislative decision.

For increases exceeding the threshold, the USS points to a different financing channel: social or income-based taxes, instead of per-capita premiums deemed antisocial. The related material also indicates that in Ticino the increase in premiums for 2027 will be 3,7%. The union describes the current situation as harmful to health policy, unsustainable for social policy and absurd for economic policy. If people are forced to save on premiums at the expense of their livelihood, the USS argues, the national economy also suffers. The postponement of care due to the share borne by insured persons, the organization concludes, may ultimately increase costs for everyone.

Operational details

For households, the issue is not only how much an expense grows, but how it is distributed. The basic health insurance premium is per capita, while the union proposal asks that increases beyond the threshold be financed through social or income-linked taxes. The debate therefore touches on the cost of living: it compares an individual outlay with income-linked financing.

Under the LAMal/KVG framework, basic insurance is mandatory for residents; premiums are organized by canton or region and premium reductions are cantonal. Cantons thus enter the practical reading of the topic, even if the political source explicitly cites mainly Bern and Ticino. To follow the perimeter of health spending one can consult LAMal/cassa malati, while the broader picture is that of cost of living in Switzerland.

Three scenarios for the budget

The proposed cap would not eliminate the cost of healthcare, which the USS itself acknowledges. Instead, it would change the way the increase is distributed. For a family, the possible effect would be a more contained growth of the individual premium, accompanied however by a different financing channel for the excess part. The source does not indicate additional amounts nor an already approved measure: the comparison therefore concerns an existing setup and a political scenario.

The health repercussion is equally concrete. If the weight of premiums pushes to reduce necessary expenses for subsistence, the pressure shifts to daily life. If it leads to postponing care, the cost can increase for everyone. This is the link that leads the USS to consider the issue not only social, but also economic and health.

Recommended tools

For an updated estimate, use the net salary calculator and the CHF-EUR exchange comparator.

Key points

Anyone who wants to turn the news into a personal check can follow a simple sequence, without confusing the premium paid, the USS's request and any potential new financing criterion.

Checklist for reading the updates

1. Start with the individual figure. Note the basic health insurance premium that affects the household budget. The comparison must start from the actual expenditure, not from a generic figure referring to Switzerland.

2. Check the parliamentary stage. The motion by USS president Pierre-Yves Maillard will be considered tomorrow by the Council of States. The 3% should therefore be read as the limit requested by the proposal, not as a threshold presented by the source as already applied.

3. Separate out the regional figure. The 3,7% indicated for 2027 concerns the increase in premiums in Ticino. It should not automatically be turned into a value valid for all cantons or for every household.

4. Assess the possible financing channel. In the model supported by the USS, increases above 3% should be financed with social or income-related taxes. This is the scenario indicated by the federation, not a new procedure already described as being in force.

This distinction makes it possible to follow the debate without confusing three levels: the expenditure that currently weighs on the budget, the threshold proposed by Parliament and the possible transfer of the excess portion. It also helps to correctly understand the relationship between livelihood and health described by the USS. If the premium leads people to forgo care or to turn to health services too late, the consequence indicated by the source concerns society as a whole.

To measure the effect of the expenditure on disposable income, use the calcolatore stipendio.

Source: tio.ch