TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
: °C Sunday 26 May, 2013

Risk Equalisation Scheme made permanent after EU approval

The scheme came into effect on 1 January 2013.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION today approved the risk equalisation scheme which impacts those with private health insurance in Ireland.

The scheme, which came into effect at the start of 2013, aimed to prevent the scenario where the cost of health insurance would vary significantly between younger, healthier people and those of an advanced age.

The Minister for Health, Dr James Reilly, welcomed the EU’s approval, saying that the scheme had resulted in a “permanent and robust system of Risk Equalisation.”

Reilly said that the scheme was budget neutral and had “no overall impact on the costs in the market”, adding that it supported competition in the marketplace.

John O Dwyer, the Chief Executive of VHI Healthcare, said that today’s decision protected the concept of “intergenerational solidarity”.

He went on to say:

It ensures that the cost of providing healthcare to vulnerable members of society is shared equally by all who are insured and that older and sicker people are protected.

Read: Reilly launches first ‘Early Warning Score’ for patient safety >

Read next:

Comments (24 Comments)

  • I’m sure it will be used as an excuse by insurance companys to drive up the costs for everyone any excuse.

    Reply
  • A case where privatization has contributed to a large increase in price. One state owned operator (modernized) would be far cheaper and simpler. The cost is too high now, pushing young people out and further increasing the price. If its not fixed the market will simply collapse as very few will be able to afford it.

    Reply
    • Eric
      Do we learn nothing. The cost of running a Hospital or Nursing Home under State Management is roughly twice the cost of running it commercially or to use that naughty word “Privately”.

      Reply
    • ‘ One state owned operator (modernized) would be far cheaper and simpler’
      Jesus wept ! Your describing the VHI. The reason why both medical insurance and care is so expensive here is because that is what we had and have. Their admin costs are double the other 3.

      Reply
    • Eric, you should compare the benefits and services offered by VHI in today’s competitive market to those offered by VHI 20 years ago when they were the only insurer on the market. It took the opening up of the market before they started making significant improvements in their benefits and offerings, e.g. student rates, enhanced hospital cover, primary care benefits, and so on. Returning to a monopoly would not be good for innovation or benefit improvements.

      Reply
    • I agree there is more options now, but that’s no good to those who can no longer afford any cover.

      Reply
  • ‘Intergenerational solidarity’ cant wait to use that when I’m trying to get a car insurance quote.

    Reply
  • What have the VHI done with all the premiums they collected from people for the last 50 years? Does that not cover the older people it has as customers. Isn’t that how health insurance works?

    Reply
    • The Mule 20/02/13 #

      No. The money taken in each year is there to cover current payouts. This always relied on a consistent age profile of young and old. The problem now is that young people are leaving in droves when they have no money and after realising they are just funding the health costs of older members.
      They system you are imagining would be more akin to a individually funded insurance scheme where the young person pays for their own future, expensive health costs. The old VHI members are pissing and moaning now thinking that is what they have done all these years and they are completely wrong.

      Reply
    • They pay their CEO half a million euros a year. Before bonuses.

      Reply
  • So can we now move to have alcoholic obese chain smokers pay more for health insurance?

    Reply
  • Blindly assuming private is always better is a mistake. In the privatized market each company needs large reserves to cover contingencies, this is hugely expensive as the cost of holding capital is massive. VHI didn’t need to do this as it was state backed. The economies of scale of one state backed operator is far cheaper and the fact that the price of health insurance has multiplied since privatization is further evidence of this. (Not the only factor but played a large part.)

    Reply
    • I don’t believe that you are so naive. Anything and i mean anything the state touches is more costly and inefficient than anything in the private sector. You must work in the VHI

      Reply
    • Apologies Eric maybe not the VHI. I see you’re a labour part supporter. Enough said !

      Reply
    • Blind ideology doesn’t fit all. The VHI was (and is) in dire need of reform. But the cost of maintaining a multi company market with large reserves and each drawing a profit is more expensive. The market cannot support it and ordinary people are being forced out of cover. The current system isn’t working and requires serious change.

      Reply
    • With all due respects Eric that’s rubbish. At this level the reserve issue is a red herring. The companies involved can easily maintain the reserves. The issue is that the VHI is effectively operating under the protection of the state abd medical costs are benchmarked off them. The EU don’t like it but the state won’t change it until the daily fines start to arrive. Also remember the public health system is dependant on private health insurance . Extrapolate the current situation out 10 years. Private hospitals will take all the lucrative business and the public system will be left with A&E’s. the old and the less well off. And before you say anything Universal health insurance it’s a myth. All that will happen is that instead of the overall standard going up the service will default to the least common denominator which is the sh1t service that we have today but at twice the cost

      Reply
    • So you disagree with me saying that the current system isn’t working, by saying that the current system isn’t working. That’s a strange tactic……

      Reply
  • This is just another tax to fund a bankrupt poorly managed state entity. The correct answer would have been to shut down the VHI and move their customers to the efficient competent operators. Yes this would have increased costs for everyone but not by as much as subsidising the VHI is going to cost.

    Reply
  • The point is really that it gives stability to VHI , as the Insurer most concerned.
    The points made to date are irrelevant to the Article

    Reply
  • In the end, all parties involved are lying. You can rest assured of that.

    Reply
  • The Mule 20/02/13 #

    I have to laugh at young people paying big money for VHI. I might starting paying into it when I’m 62 or so and will actually see some benefit. Will my cover be any different from the people who have paid into it for 40 years? No, not after the first 12 months in any case.

    Reply
    • I considered cancelling this year, but went ahead.
      When you’re 62 you’ll inevitably have had an illness or two, that you’ll need to see out a 5-year waiting period (or whatever the phrase is).
      But by the time you’re 62 you’ll probably have saved €30-40 grand you could have spent on health insurance.
      I’ll prob cancel it next year.

      Reply
    • It’s a 10 year waiting period for pre-existing medical conditions when you’re over 60. So if you happen to be diagnosed with a serious illness when you’re 61, there’s no point in starting a Vhi policy then, your money would be better spent on your funeral arrangements

      Reply
  • MrKnow 20/02/13 #

    Great, another excuse to push more people from the scam that is private healthccare!

    Reply

Add New Comment