Billion dollar hole in the general local health insurance companies denied
19.10.2009 15:35
Hecken: “There is no explanation for the publicly stated figures”
In a press release, the President of the Federal Insurance Office (BVA) Josef Hecken explains:
1. It is a complete mystery to me how the publicly stated numerical states come about; there is no explanation for them.
2. The fact is that structural adjustments in the health fund regularly take place twice a year.
3. The fact is that the Federal Insurance Office is reacting to the dynamic development of the number of insured persons at the health insurance funds and adapting the payments to the health insurance funds to the changes in the number of insured persons.
4. The fact is that this is a sensible and correct mechanism that prevents large overpayments to some funds or small payments to other funds over the course of a year.
Cash registers, e.g. B. Insured people who have lost money will receive less money as a result of the adjustment, while other funds that have increases in their portfolio will receive more! That's right, because a change in the number of insured people also changes the spending profile.
That's why regular structural adjustments are important for all funds and ensure that advance payments from the fund correspond as closely as possible to the annual balance figures during the year.
5. The fact is that the structural adjustments represent a “service” for the health insurance companies, which in no way makes financial planning more difficult, but rather makes it easier because changes are reflected promptly.
6. The fact is that the health insurance companies can determine the adjustment exactly themselves, so that there are no surprises for anyone, because the BVA naturally provides the health insurance companies with the relevant calculation bases on an ongoing basis.
7. It is also a fact that the structural adjustment means that the AOK system receives a total of €172 million less. Based on the total allocation volume of a good €43 billion to the AOK, this is only 0.4 billion less.
What is interesting, however, is that not all AOKs are equally affected because the number of insured people has developed differently: some AOKs receive higher allocations, others receive lower ones. This proves even within the AOK system how correct these adjustments are in order to reflect changes in a timely manner.
The attempt to scandalize structural adjustment shows little expertise and is an inept attempt to discredit the fund.
The regular structural adjustments in particular show how well and precisely the fund works and how quickly it reacts to changes in the funds. It would be a scandal if this didn't happen and individual funds received too much money for a year, while others were underfinanced.