At a time when cancer insurance and treatment programs are offered as tools of social solidarity and health protection, the decision to triple the health insurance premiums opens the door to a complex issue that deserves discussion, not only from the cost perspective but also through its direct impact on coverage, sustainability, and the pursuit of fairness.
The substantial leap from 40 dinars to 120 dinars as an annual subscription represents a significant financial burden, especially on medium and small companies.
These enterprises have been the backbone of insurance coverage among employees; with this sudden increase, it is expected that a considerable number of them will stop paying subscriptions for their employees or reduce the number of those covered, which will logically lead to a decrease in the subscriber base.
A decline in the total subscription volume contradicts the fundamental goal of any mutual benefit program, which is based on expanding the base, not narrowing it.
It is also expected that the impact of the decision will extend beyond companies only, but will also reach a sensitive age group between 21 and 59 years old, the most active group in the job market, and those most likely to bear insurance costs themselves if not covered, potentially creating a significant coverage gap for this group. Moreover, cancer does not discriminate by age but is linked to overlapping health and environmental conditions.
More dangerously, this exclusion will have a greater impact on residents of provinces, where incomes are lower, and medical options are limited, in addition to difficulties this group faces in accessing medical centers in a timely manner.
Moreover, the simultaneous cessation of exemptions will complicate the situation further, since exemptions were not a luxury, but a social balancing tool ensuring the inclusion of less capable groups, and enhancing the humanitarian aspect of the program.
This simultaneity can transform insurance from a collective protective umbrella to an elitist service, distorting the essence of mutual aid that these programs were built on from the beginning.
Economically, increasing fees does not necessarily result in increased returns as some might think. In insurance systems, sustainability is linked to wide spread and risk distribution, not by loading the cost onto a smaller number of subscribers; therefore, reducing coverage will lead to lower returns, higher pressure on the system, and possibly, the need for future increases, entering a vicious cycle paid for by both citizens and business owners alike.
The discussion here does not deny the importance of developing programs or improving services, nor does it ignore the high treatment costs, but it calls for more balanced approaches that consider market capacity, maintain the inclusion of productive age groups, and reconsider exemptions as a tool of justice, not a financial burden. Health insurance, especially in cancer cases, is not merely a figure in a financial equation, but a decision that affects the health security and social stability of the entire country.
