As debates intensify over healthcare spending control, the government’s recent announcement to double medical deductibles has sent shockwaves through the medical sector and among policyholders. This measure, presented as a budgetary necessity, raises numerous concerns about its real impact on access to care, particularly for the most vulnerable populations. The Health Insurance Council, a key body in the management of social security, vigorously opposes this reform, fearing it will further widen health inequalities. Despite this strong opposition, the government remains determined, ready to formalize this reform through several decrees that significantly modify patients’ co-payments. The controversy has ignited against a backdrop of social tensions and major ethical questions. The Fundamental Reasons for the Health Insurance Board’s Opposition to Doubling Medical Deductibles
On September 4, 2025, during a meeting marked by lively debate, the Health Insurance Board unanimously rejected the government’s proposal. This proposal calls for doubling medical deductibles for consultations, medications, and medical transportation, a decision justified by the executive as a necessary measure to contain the worrying growth in healthcare spending. However, directors representing employees, families, and mutual insurance companies such as Mutuelle Générale, Harmonie Mutuelle, and MGEN warned of the social consequences of this reform.
This opposition is not limited to mere political disagreement. It is based on a thorough analysis of the available data and a major concern: access to care. By doubling deductibles, the financial burden would be transferred directly from health insurance funds to the insured, which could dissuade some patients from seeking care or purchasing necessary treatments. Unions, notably the CGT and UNSA (Union for the Advancement of Social Security), describe this as an “unfair measure” that risks penalizing the poorest, those who are already facing economic hardship.
In concrete terms, the amounts payable by users, which would increase from €1 to €2 for medications or from €2 to €4-5 for consultations, may seem small at first glance. But for large families or elderly people with multiple monthly consultations, the sum quickly becomes a significant financial burden. This increase therefore represents a potential barrier to access to care, particularly for chronic conditions or for essential but inexpensive treatments. At the same time, Mutuelle Générale, MACIF Santé, MAIF Santé, AG2R La Mondiale, and Humanis are warning of the consequences for their complementary role. Indeed, this reform risks changing the way supplementary health insurance operates, and could therefore lead to an increase in contributions for their members. This upheaval in the healthcare system would compound the social divide already observed in the healthcare sector, particularly among retirees living on modest incomes.
Finally, the President of the Health Insurance Council, Fabrice Gombert, formally asked the government for a moratorium or withdrawal of this project, emphasizing that such decisions should have been part of the broader framework of the Social Security Financing Act, ensuring better consultation among stakeholders. This battle highlights the complexity of budgetary choices in healthcare and the difficulty of reconciling financial rigor with social equity.
Discover the concept of double medical deductibles, its implications for patients and health insurers, as well as its advantages and disadvantages in France.
What are the details of the decrees planned to double medical deductibles and their economic implications?
The first decree concerns the annual ceiling for patient contributions, which would be raised from €50 to €100. This doubling means that each insured person will have to contribute more each year before full coverage is guaranteed. This mechanism, designed to limit certain abuses, takes on a new dimension that directly affects the remaining out-of-pocket costs of insured persons.
The second decree adjusts unit deductibles for several types of services: medications and paramedical procedures would increase from €1 to €2, medical consultations from €2 to €4-5, and medical transport from €4 to €8 per trip. In addition, a third decree establishes a daily cap on medical transport set at €16.
At first glance, these amounts seem modest, but over the course of a year, and for a patient with multiple medical needs, they represent a significant additional bill. Take the example of a patient suffering from a chronic illness with regular care: the increase in medical procedures and medication purchases quickly increases their out-of-pocket costs. This increase can negatively impact treatment adherence, worsening the long-term consequences for their health.
Exemptions are maintained for certain specific groups, including minors, the disabled, as well as beneficiaries of complementary health insurance and State medical aid (AME). However, the majority of the working population and retirees will have to cope with these new costs, increasing the health precarity of some.
These measures are also being closely monitored by supplemental health insurance providers such as La Banque Postale Assurance Santé and Swiss Life Santé, which will have to adapt their offerings to this new context. This reform could lead to an increase in supplemental insurance rates, which will pose a new financial challenge for many families.
As debates multiply over the sustainability of the French healthcare system, these adjustments illustrate the tensions between the need to contain spending and the imperative to ensure equitable access to quality care.
Potential Consequences of Doubling Medical Deductibles on Access to Healthcare and Public Health in 2025
The planned increase in medical deductibles is raising serious concerns about its impact on healthcare utilization in France. Many healthcare professionals, patient associations, and unions warn of the risk that this cost-cutting strategy will lead to a decrease in consultations and treatments, particularly among the most vulnerable populations.
One example is Jeanne, a retiree living alone, who until now regularly consulted her doctor for treatment for hypertension. With the increase in deductibles, her healthcare budget will be significantly impacted, forcing her to limit her visits and space out checkups. This type of widespread behavior can lead to a deterioration in health, avoidable complications, and ultimately higher costs for the community.
At the same time, specialists are warning of a phenomenon called “care foregone.” This term refers to the fact that patients, often from modest backgrounds or facing financial difficulties, deliberately choose not to seek treatment due to their inability to afford the costs. This foregone conclusion is observed both in the purchase of medications and in the receipt of paramedical care or necessary examinations.
This trend could also accentuate the territorial disparities, already marked in France, between urban dwellers who benefit from a dense and easily accessible health care offering, and residents of rural or disadvantaged areas, where additional costs could weigh more heavily on households. The health divide, already at the heart of debate, could thus widen even further.
Faced with this situation, several actors, such as AG2R La Mondiale or Humanis, are calling for a more balanced approach and better consideration of the specificities of populations. These supplementary health organizations play an essential role in limiting out-of-pocket costs and maintaining broad access to care, but they themselves are subject to economic constraints in this context.
In this tense climate, calls are increasing for the government to favor alternative solutions to increasing deductibles, instead favoring prevention, coordination of care, and better efficiency in the management of the health system. The objective would be to contain spending without compromising the health of citizens.
The role of mutual and complementary health insurance companies in the face of the reform of medical franchises
The planned reform also worries supplementary health organizations such as La Banque Postale Assurance Santé, Swiss Life Santé and MGEN. These players, essential to the health system, supplement health insurance coverage to cover unreimbursed costs. The increase in medical deductibles is testing their ability to maintain attractive coverage while controlling their own expenses.
For these mutuals, the increase in out-of-pocket costs could lead to a significant increase in demand for reimbursements, which inevitably weighs on their financial balance. Thus, the Mutuelle Générale and Harmonie Mutuelle fear that their contributions will have to be increased in order to absorb this additional cost. This situation would be unfavorable for members, in particular young workers and middle-income families who constitute a significant part of their members.
Furthermore, several mutual insurance companies are committed to an active policy of prevention and nutritional monitoring, essential for limiting medical costs. In particular, they encourage their members to consult a nutritionist, often partially reimbursed depending on their policies. To learn more about the coverage of these consultations, it is worthwhile to refer to the conditions offered by mutual insurance companies on specialized websites, such as
Prostavia.fr
. In this context, mutual insurance companies must imperatively adapt their offerings, but also support their members by offering advice to limit healthcare expenses. Strengthening the complementarity between health insurance and mutual insurance companies remains crucial to preserving a supportive and accessible system.Finally, beyond economic issues, these organizations represent an important link in the social dialogue surrounding reforms. For example, AG2R La Mondiale and Humanis regularly participate in discussions with public authorities to find viable solutions to budgetary and social challenges.
Social and political issues surrounding the doubling of medical deductibles
The political context in September 2025 is particularly delicate. With the Bayrou government weakened and facing a vote of no confidence on September 8, the imminent publication of the decree on medical franchises is creating significant social tension. This measure, described as “inflammatory” by many, is crystallizing concerns about the future of the healthcare system and social justice.
Unions such as the CGT (with Sophie Binet) denounce a reform imposed “on the sly” that unfairly penalizes insured persons. The question of transparency and consultation thus arises very clearly: how can such an announcement be explained without fully integrating the review of this measure into the social security financing law? This situation poses a democratic challenge in the management of public affairs related to health.
In the political sphere, opponents of the reform see a risk of mass mobilization, with planned demonstrations and growing protests among healthcare professionals, pharmacists, and patients. The risk is therefore of seeing a lasting crisis develop, affecting not only financing, but also the quality and organization of care.
Maintaining social security requires a delicate balance between budgetary discipline and social justice. This doubling of deductibles, although aimed at better controlling spending, calls into question how society wishes to manage solidarity in healthcare. Alternatives such as the development of prevention programs, a reform of medical fees, or better management of care pathways are all avenues worth exploring.
Upcoming events, particularly the publication of the decrees and the ensuing reactions, will be decisive in understanding the direction in which the French healthcare system is headed. The commitment of stakeholders on the ground, including mutual insurance companies and the French Health Insurance Fund, will be essential to defining a sustainable trajectory.
