A majority in the House of Representatives wants to abolish the deductible in healthcare. The PVV suddenly doesn’t care. Although the party was always in favor, Wilders is now shying away from the costs. The question is also whether this abolition makes much sense.
One of the most defining moments in the recent election campaign for the House of Representatives was the fierce exchange between figurehead Frans Timmersmans of GroenLinks-PvdA and Geert Wilders of the PVV about the deductible. A chronically ill woman said she could not pay the contribution. Timmermans gave her a nuanced answer. Wilders seized his opportunity and hissed that the woman needed the money immediately. According to him, it was a shame that the progressive politician did not immediately abolish the deductible. You have lost touch with reality, Wilders sneered.
This week, Wilders’ confidante Fleur Agema did not respond in the House of Representatives when other parties pointed out to her that there is now a majority in favor of the abolition of the deductible and asked for butter with the fish. Although the amount of 385 euros has not been increased since 2016, they find the deductible problematic for a large group of Dutch people. Moreover, the contribution would lead to avoidance of care. Agema is probably mainly concerned with the costs of abolition, 3.5 to 6 billion euros, and the fact that two of Wilders’ interlocutors, NSC and VVD, are not interested in this.
The deductible was introduced in 2008 and was 150 euros at the time. The idea was that the scheme would slow down the use of healthcare and that by having citizens pay part of the bill themselves, they would become more aware of the costs of healthcare. Moreover, the insurance premium does not have to increase as much. It is not clear whether these objectives have been achieved. However, healthcare costs have continued to rise steadily, as has the premium that must be paid for basic insurance. The Dutch population is aging rapidly and that comes at a price.
Canceling the deductible only leads to a shift in costs. Healthcare premiums will rise sharply. The question is whether it also leads to less avoidance of care, as proponents argue. Except for a few politicians in the House, no one seems to be any wiser. The issue also distracts from the real bottlenecks in our healthcare. Namely: how do we keep it affordable in the future? And where can we find enough hands?