Proposition 51K2689

Projet de loi modifiant, en ce qui concerne les contrats privés d'assurance maladie, la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Sept. 26, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

private insurance personal insurance insurance health insurance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 29, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mrs. De Meyer, you are a reporter. I suppose that you will summarize your report, as you usually do?

The President, [...]

for a technical amendment. This was subsequently proposed here by Mr. Monfils and approved by the Chamber two minutes ago.

There are still rules. We tried to explain it to someone else. Without prejudice to Article 11(3) the meetings of the Committee shall take place on Tuesday and Wednesday, unless the Conference of Presidents has decided otherwise.

That has not happened.

I must remind you that I have proposed that. Mr Monfils explained it here. There was consensus. There is a technical improvement, which goes to room two and comes back. One article was forgotten in the Constitution. It was approved by the Chamber. The Chamber has full authority. It was said consensual, ten minutes ago, you can check it.

The fregates can travel across the country. What is a Technical Article?

It is not discussed today. It will be discussed on April 12. It was subsequently submitted by consensus, Mr. Tant.

Mr. Speaker, I do not fully understand. The chairman of the committee announced that he would convene the committee.

I said it here. The meeting of the committee now takes place in room two. This proposal will be discussed in the plenary session on 12 April.

Please acknowledge that this is an unusual procedure. You swipe it through quickly, between the soup and the potatoes. No one responds to it, and with it it is cluttered. Let me admit that this deserves a slightly clearer decision-making. This is the reason for the reaction of our party chairman.

I understand the response, but if you read the comprehensive report, colleague Tant, you will see that that data exchange has taken four minutes. However, it was done correctly.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary. We started on 14 and 29 November 2006 to finally finish the discussion on 7, 13 and 21 March 2007. We have held extensive hearings with Hubert Claassens, professor emeritus at KU Leuven, Test-Buy, the mutualities, the insurance brokers, the chairman of the insurance committee, the CBFA, the Centre for Equal Opportunities, the Flemish Patients Platform and Assuralia.

First we received the introductory presentation from the Minister of Economy, who emphasized the social aspect of the draft. From now on, the insured would receive the guarantee that he would continue to enjoy his individual hospitalization insurance for the rest of his life, even if he or she becomes chronically ill or disabled. Moreover, the guarantee is extended to the partner and the children, which are included in the insurance. Specifically, it means that a child who is born sick or disabled, or would face a chronic disease or disability during the course of the policy, could continue to enjoy hospital insurance for the rest of his life on the same terms as that of a healthy person. The lifetime coverage applies equally to all who enjoy a group insurance. This concerns not only the employees of the company involved in the group insurance, but also the partners and the children. Everyone has the right, as soon as they lose the benefit of the group insurance for any reason – due to dismissal, bankruptcy of the company, retirement and the like – to continue the insurance individually. The maintenance of hospital coverage is therefore no longer dependent on the employment relationship. Even in the case of separation or going to live independently of the children, the draft guarantees the right to lifelong individual continuation, according to the minister.

We had a very extensive discussion of the draft, witnessed by the many meetings dedicated to it. Mr. Minister, I have to say that it has become a bit of a female task, because it was mainly colleagues Creyf, Lalieux and not least colleague Baeke, who conducted the discussion on the draft. There have been a lot of comments formulated, also based on the input from the hearings, which was quite skeptical. A whole series of amendments were also formulated. To illustrate the openness and discourse content of our committee, in good work led by the chairman of the committee, I must say that many amendments have survived the amendment strike. Many amendments were adopted. There were discussions and amendments on a number of issues: the scope of application, the situation of persons who are not domesticated in Belgium, the impact of the legislation on the law on national insurance contracts, the possibility of changing insurer, coverage conditions, insurance conditions, the proportionality principle and the problem of pre-existing diseases and how it was addressed.

To be brief – and I will be brief on the request of the Chairman – the draft was thoroughly amended and eventually, with the approval of the Minister and of the whole committee, approved with a broad consensus of 9 votes in favour with 2 abstentions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, this is a very important proposal. You call this bill itself the most social and engaged project of the entire legislature. The original bill has indeed evolved a little more in that direction after the hearings on the bill. The amendment was made in the Committee on Economic Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Chamber that the very first initiative to regulate the supplementary health insurance was given by CD&V and myself in March 2003 already with the bill on the supplementary health insurance. Colleagues, unfortunately, CD&V was already in the opposition and the rest can be guessed.

My bill was forwarded to the Social Affairs Committee for advice. A report was then made. I must say that the Socialists were absolutely against. The regulation of supplementary insurance was seen by them as a threat to the first pillar of health care, namely the mandatory health insurance. Fortunately, the Socialists, and especially the SP, have changed their minds.

More than 4 million Belgians have additional health insurance. At the moment nothing is regulated. The draft law, as it was amended, is therefore a whole step forward in that sense.

This is a step forward on two important points.

The first important point is that the individual health insurance is made for life, both for the insured and for his family members, who were included in the insurance. Private insurance companies will therefore no longer be able to unilaterally terminate or modify a contract, for example by raising the premium or because the insured or someone from his family has become seriously ill. The insured retains the right to request a change in the contract.

It is also important that for family members the insurance runs lifetime, even when they leave the family. A major child who is going to live alone or a divorcing partner with a health problem can therefore continue the policy.

The aforementioned regulation is clearly a step forward. I give the example of young adults who have cancer and want to leave the parental home.

The bill also sets out the conditions under which the premium of the individual hospitalization insurance can still rise. For example, a premium increase is possible if the cost of medical services according to some objective parameters rises faster than the index of consumer prices. The Commission for Banking, Finance and Insurance, the supervisory body of the Belgian financial sector, must, in consultation with the Federal Knowledge Centre for Healthcare, give permission for the increase.

A second important point from the bill concerns the collective hospitalization insurance or the collective, supplementary health insurance through the employer. Often the family members of the insured worker are also attached to the aforementioned group insurance.

If people retire or lose their jobs, the collective insurance expires. If the employees experienced a serious health problem during the duration of the collective insurance and wanted to continue the contract on an individual basis, they very often encountered unattainable conditions, such as an unpaid premium increase.

The Bill-Verwilghen prohibits premium increases due to the medical condition at the time of the individual continuation. Additional medical examination or a medical questionnaire is therefore prohibited. However, the insurer may adjust the premium to the age of the candidate-insured. Unfortunately, this can still lead to a substantial premium increase.

By paying an additional premium during the duration of the collective contract, the insured can avoid this. The family members of the employee also have the right to individual continuation of a collective agreement. If someone leaves the family, for example in a divorce, this person can continue the contract individually. If the employee does not wish to continue the contract, for example in retirement, the family members still retain the right to continue.

This scheme is, of course, also a step forward for all those who have a hospital insurance through the employer. These two points, Mr. Minister, Mr. President, colleagues, are real steps forward and address a lot of problems. That is meritorious, but we also talked in the committee that there was a missed opportunity to move forward. The bill is only a partial answer to a real problem. The problems that have not been solved, which still persist and will still cause a lot of controversy, are the controversy in so-called pre-existing diseases. This is an especially important issue that already causes a lot of disputes between the insured and the insurer. Sometimes, after the conclusion of an insurance contract, insurance companies do not want to reimburse the costs resulting from a disease because the insured would have silenced the disease symptoms when concluding the insurance contract. The bill restricts the freedom of movement of insurance companies, but the regulation leaves a lot to be desired. If a diagnosis is made within two years after the conclusion of the insurance and if the insurer can demonstrate that symptoms already existed before the conclusion of the contract, the insurer may still refuse to reimburse the damage or costs. Once the two-year period has expired, the insurer can no longer rely on pre-existing symptoms. For several young adults with cancer, this does not offer a solution. They went to their doctor repeatedly before the diagnosis, several times they were told that nothing serious was happening and if those people then in good faith conclude an insurance and shortly thereafter a correct diagnosis is made, then they are at risk that the insurance company will not reimburse the damage or costs.

Colleagues, Mr. Minister, in case of bad will due to the insurer, any visit to a doctor can give rise to the assertion that there was already a symptom. In the context of the problem of pre-existing diseases, the insurer is obliged to communicate to the insurer all known data that may affect the risk assessment. It is very difficult for a lie to judge which symptoms, for example, a headache or a cough, indicate a subsequent condition. If one kept it in diagnoses rather than in symptoms, the matter would be much clearer and simpler.

Referring to a pre-existing condition is, in our opinion, only acceptable if a clear diagnosis has already been made by a specialist physician before the conclusion of the contract. In addition, we also find the deadline before a policy is undoubtedly quite long. Our proposal implies that the policy becomes undisputed after one year and that only a diagnosis, and no symptoms, can lead to a rejection.

Some colleagues from the majority were able to follow our attitude and even shared it. They had the same care. Unfortunately, there were agreements within the majority and they were different. Unfortunately, some colleagues had to conclude that there was no solution to this.

There are other provisions, Mr. Minister, which cause problems or which are not the solution to existing problems. Among other things, the scheme to help chronically ill people, who do not yet have hospitalization insurance, at the time of the diagnosis out of the emergency. There is a two-year transition period. After the entry into force, private insurance companies will not be allowed to refuse chronically ill and disabled persons. This is important because it is a step forward.

However, hospitalization insurance may exclude costs related to the existing disease or disability. For ex-cancer patients, this puts little sodium to the dig. For example, a heavy leukaemia treatment leaves traces on the whole body so that an insurance company can relate all medical costs in some way to the condition. This transitional arrangement should be reviewed by 1 October 2008 at the latest. Mr. Minister, we actually regret that the bill does not provide the possibility to guarantee that those people with an increased risk will be able to find an appropriate insurance at an affordable price.

I repeat what we have said in the committee. For us, there are a number of other shortcomings. For example, there is the fact that medical costs in specialized hospitals are not included in the policy. For costs of for example recalls in specialized hospitals, such as MS clinics, rehabilitation centers, psychiatric hospitals, pain centers and palliative care, insurers are still not required to include them in their policy. Everyone knows that these recordings are increasingly needed. People assume that they are insured for an admission, but subsequently find that their policy excludes such care in whole or in part.

There is also an individual continuation of a collective insurance through work. However, at what price this should be done, it is not very clear. We remain with the question of whether the possible individual continuation will also take place at an acceptable price and in an efficient way. We also regret that the information obligation for the insurer is lacking. We regret that the insurer, who is, however, properly informed about the termination of a collective policy, has no serious information obligation for a possible individual continuation of that policy by the main insured and other family members.

Mr. Minister, it should also be stated that part of private health insurance falls outside the scope of this law. Think, for example, of pension funds or mutualities, insofar as they also offer additional health insurance.

Minister Demotte would have a draft law. However, it has not yet been submitted to Parliament. The draft law states that both legislations must be implemented simultaneously. What if the Bill-Demotte is missing for a while or maybe not even approved? There is a risk that this law will not be implemented. I can hardly accept that.

I have said that there are many gaps in the law, but the positive aspects contained in it should nevertheless be able to be translated within a predictable time and should not be made dependent on a law that has not yet been submitted to Parliament.

Finally, the health insurance agreements ...

Mrs. Creyf, I fear there is a problem with the sound installation. The microphone no longer works. I cannot fix it.

The [...]

We were informed that it would be a serious number of police. You promised in the committee that you would provide us with figures on the number of cases. Maybe you can give it to us later.

I come to the conclusion. We decided to abstain from voting. If we voted "yes", this could suggest that the case for supplementary health insurance is regulated and that the law is what it should be.

This bill is an important step forward, but offers only a partial solution to a real problem.

Mrs. Creyf, I thank you, also for your kindness despite the problems related to the sound installation in this House.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill we are examining today is the result of a very long parliamentary work, carried out following hearings, which have been very critical of the draft submitted by the government. I am grateful again to all those who, both during the hearings and subsequently, collaborated in improving this text and helped us on a matter as important as complex.

The social dimension of the project is considerable. In fact, it aims at the guarantee for the insured to benefit throughout his life of his individual complementary hospital insurance even if he contracts a chronic illness or if he becomes disabled. In addition, this guarantee extends to the partner and children included in the insurance. This principle is quite revolutionary, as it aims to concrete the protection of sick people.

The lifetime guarantee is also covered to any person receiving a group insurance, since the project allows the continuation of a supplementary insurance on an individual basis under similar conditions. It goes without saying that a duty of information in the head of the employer but also of the insurer is a priority for both insured and co-insured, so that they do not ignore the exercise of this right. The draft sanctions severely for non-compliance with this obligation. This is a positive point for insured information and consumer protection.

It has been a long time since the leading patient and consumer associations insisted that radical improvements should be made with regard to the problem mentioned.

Many critics have been made by the people interviewed regarding the feasibility of the initial project. In this regard, the PS group – together with the sp.a-spirit group – made numerous amendments (22) and supported the project through a long reflection and adoption of amendments.

Of course, the project could still be the subject of some improvements. Mrs. Creyf recalled it and we discussed it in the committee. I think more ⁇ of the problem of pre-existing diseases in relation to the notion of "symptom" preferred to that of "diagnosis", for which a consensus could not be reached. We regret this because the term "diagnosis" would have been much more appropriate and more protective for the insured than the term "symptom", which risks losing one of the effects of this law. But it is not because we have not reached consensus that we must reject the law. However, it is a pity that the vote on the amendment we had submitted did not take place.

However, the consultation work has improved and filled some other gaps in the text. The protection of the insured should be strengthened, in particular in the context of possible changes that could affect the calculation of the premium and the conditions of coverage.

We have also been very vigilant about the role initially assigned to the CBFA as well as the objectivity and significance of the criteria for modifying the technical basis for the calculation of the premium and the insurance conditions. We have ensured that these changes are based on factors provided for by law and outside the insurer’s will, provided that these changes are made well in the interest of the buyer.

In this regard, the intervention of the Federal Centre for Healthcare Expertise appeared to us to be a necessary counterweight in measuring the objective parameters that lead to changes.

We are also disappointed by the fact that an amendment failed to move forward with regard to the establishment of an aging reserve as part of the transition from collective insurance to individual insurance. But we still appreciated the accuracy made by the Minister on the reflection that will be carried out on this problem, following the evaluation of the new regulation provided for in this bill.

I will not talk about any other changes.

Like Mrs. Creyf, I would like to emphasize the importance, for all insured and all affiliates, to enjoy the same protection at the same time. This is why a similar project relating to the supplementary insurance subscribed with mutuals will be submitted by Mr. Demote after the week of Easter. I hope that it will be voted soon so that the project under consideration today can still be effective during this legislature. In my opinion, I repeat, it is primary to ensure equal treatment of all affiliates of mutualities and private insurance companies.

These were the comments I wanted to make.

Following the observations made in committee, in particular concerning the problem of symptoms which is fundamental in my opinion, it will be necessary to evaluate and eventually improve the law.

Nevertheless, this is a considerable improvement for people with chronic diseases or disabilities. We look forward to voting on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, partly responding to the introduction given by Mrs. Creyf: for the sp.a, a well-developed social security remains the most important.

Of course, but I would like to emphasize here again that this still remains the main concern for us.

First of all, it is necessary to cover the costs of health care.

Investing in health, in equal opportunities in health, is and remains a responsibility of the government. The maintenance of compulsory social insurance is the main instrument to ensure equal access for all.

Unlike private insurance, compulsory medical insurance is the only guarantee, I still think, today, for the preservation of solidarity between poor and rich, between sick and dispatched.

The reality is indeed that more and more people today have an additional insurance to cover certain costs in illness and health troubles.

The draft law that we discuss here today and that we have discussed extensively in the committee also plays a role in that reality. It brings a lot of additional rights and guarantees for an insurer in the framework of the supplementary health insurance. I think this is definitely an important step forward. The strengths have already been outlined here: the guaranteed lifetime coverage; the right to access for chronically ill and persons with disabilities – although limited, I will return to that later –; the indexation of the premiums; the individual continuation of a collective insurance, about which I will not further extend, because I have already done that in the committee. In the discussion of the amendments, we have discussed this extensively. I think it is an important step forward.

I would like to focus my explanation on three points that I would like to pay attention to.

This bill is a first step, but I think that the work is ⁇ not done, that there is still a lot of work ahead regarding health insurance and the access of sick and people with disabilities to those insurance.

I think the bill has missed a number of important opportunities, including the right of access for chronically ill and disabled persons. I think that the law that is now provided is a first step. Sick and disabled persons should not be refused by insurance companies for a period of two years. However, there are also a lot of restrictions. In particular, costs related to an existing condition are excluded. This means that the usefulness of such insurance for those people is still quite limited. Of course, we must address this by further expanding the maximum invoice, but if we are talking about additional private insurance, the impact for that group remains limited.

The argument I have sometimes heard is that over time every Belgian will be privately insured by that system, by the fact that the individual policy can be taken over as a family member or by the continuation of the collective insurance in an individual policy. So the problem will be temporary, because in the next generation everyone will have their own private insurance.

For some part this will be true, but it seems to me too optimistic. I would like to draw attention to this. These are important steps, but we must also not forget that we may be threatening to lose sight of the weakest group in our society: those who may eventually most need such insurance but do not have the financial means to join a policy individually with their family today, who are often not in a work situation – if they already have a job – in which they are offered a group insurance. I would like to emphasize that in Belgium there is still no obligation for the employer to offer such insurance with collective policy to every employee. Studies show that this group is often the most faced with health problems. I would like to pay attention to questions here, in order not to forget this group apart from the draft law and in the coming years to make sure that we do not lose it in the whole story.

Then there is the problem of the pre-existing disease. I also believe that we have missed an important opportunity to address a major problem in the context of supplementary health insurance. Most of the problems that arise today between insurers and insurers with regard to supplementary health insurance relate precisely to that gray zone between the symptoms and the disease for which a diagnosis exists.

Article 5 of the Act on the Land Insurance Contract obliges the insured to communicate all information that is important for an insurer to calculate a premium. For an insurer, it is not so easy to know which elements are important, ⁇ not when it comes to health and medical data. When there is a diagnosis, when a disability has been established, then it is of course that one as an insurer must signal this to an insurer. When it comes to a discomfort or a discomfort – who of us has not even suffered from a headache or a cough – it is less obvious whether one should also inform the insurer. We are not specialists in the matter, nor do we always link that this may be the cause or the precursor of a serious illness within this and two years.

However, the draft legislation provides for an improvement in this area: the period in which insurance companies can recur to these symptoms is limited to two years. However, it will only happen to you if you actually find yourself in such a situation within two years. The uncertainty remains and I believe that an adaptation of Article 5 is ⁇ necessary. In the committee, I and Mrs. Lalieux abstained from an amendment by Mrs. Creyf on this subject. We themselves had submitted such an amendment in the majority consultation, but it failed because the liberal colleagues were absolutely against it.

Therefore, together with Mrs. Lalieux, I have submitted a bill in which we propose an adaptation of Article 5 in that sense. In particular, Article 5 should be restricted. As an insurer, one is obliged to communicate elements to the insurer. This is necessary for determining the premium. However, when it comes to health data, those data can only be based on a clear diagnosis, made by a doctor. One cannot expect a liqueur, expect each of us to communicate any symptom, any illness to the insurer because we suspect that this may cause a major illness later.

I suspect, I assume, that this bill will no longer be discussed in this legislature. However, we want to signal that this will be an important point for us in the next legislature, that we want to work on it further. I will probably not be able to continue this work myself. However, I hope, I count on, that colleagues will incorporate that thread. I will also look at it a little bit.

In any case, it is an important bill. There are many improvements, additional rights for the insured. However, the work is ⁇ not finished. That is the message we want to send from the SP.

Finally, I would like to share the concern that has already been raised here, concerning the entry into force of the draft law. It is about the link made with a draft law surrounding mutualities and country bonds. Both laws should be implemented simultaneously. The end of the legislature is approaching with racial steps. Mr. Minister, therefore, I make a call to you to ensure that this is done on time.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Baeke, I hear from you the same criticisms on the bill as the one I have formulated. I find it all very beautiful and very damaging. However, that bill has been extensive, with important hearings being discussed in the committee. Even my amendment to correct this was rejected. You have abstained.

On the same subject, you will now submit a bill to correct that. We discussed this in the committee and discussed it again. You were present there. And you vote for it. You agreed to it. Now you come on the floor to say that it is a pity.

This is a missed opportunity. You said that too. I just can’t understand why they don’t take that opportunity in the committee, at the moment they get them.

I am really looking at this!

The story I am telling here, I have also told in the committee. I abstained from voting on your amendment. You must admit that the bill is an important step forward. You also admit that. There is still work in the store. This is clearly stated by the SP. We want to work on these issues in the next legislature.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, this is a draft law which I have always emphasized in the committee that, in terms of my powers, it is ⁇ the most socially engaged project during this legislature. I hear – at that point the protests today are unisono – that it is an important step forward. However, I share the criticism that has been made to this issue today, which consists in the fact that the work is not yet finished. In this regard, additional efforts will need to be made.

Nevertheless, I would like to insist on defending the bill as it now presents as an important first step. When I talk about the social impact of these measures, there are three very important principles that are new. The first principle is that the insured from now on gets the guarantee that he will continue to enjoy his individual hospitalization insurance throughout his life, even if he becomes chronically ill or disabled during the course of this contract. Moreover – I think this is one of the most important achievements – this guarantee is extended to his life partner and to the children who are born. Specifically, this means that a child who is born sick or disabled or suffers from one of these phenomena during the course of the policy, will continue to enjoy hospitalization insurance for the rest of his life under the same conditions as those for a healthy person. I think this is an important step forward.

The second important principle to be fulfilled is that there is protection for sick and disabled persons who, once they have entered into the insurance, receive a permanently anchored insurance. In other words, the lifelong coverage that has been asked so often will at least get a definitive solution in the long run.

There is a third important point, an innovation that has been pushed for a very long time. Group insurance can now be extended. Not only the employees of the company that entered the group insurance will be the beneficiaries, but also the partners and children.

In other words, the benefits of group insurance, which one would lose as a result of a company’s bankruptcy, retirement or dismissal, will remain in the future. There is thus a preservation of the hospitalization insurance, which no longer depends on the employment relationship.

The bill applies to the supplementary health insurance contract. The mandatory health insurance is, of course, not targeted, but we hope that the legislative work in this area can be completed in this legislature. And my colleague Demotte tells me that he is putting the last hand on his bill, so that it would still be possible that we treat it immediately after the Easter holidays.

Complementary health insurance is the insurance related to hospitalization, disability, disability and guaranteed income.

Dear colleagues, I am convinced that with the vote on this bill, we are innovating for the benefit of all beneficiaries of the complementary health insurance, in the broad sense of the term, and in particular those who become chronically ill or disabled during the period covered by the contract. Their situation will be much more favorable than it was before. In this way, we will eventually resolve the access of these persons to insurance.

This explains why the project is so important and attractive.

I would like to conclude with three comments that I would like to make to each of the members who spoke.

First, the question that Mrs. Creyf asked me, I submitted to Assuralia. It concerned him to know whether some insured are insured through health insurance contracts offered in addition to a main risk that is not lifetime.

I was told the following about the number of health insurance costs. I quote directly from the answer of Assuralia: “... including hospitalization insurance that would escape the lifetime character, in our eyes there is no one on the Belgian market.”

There is one such insurance, in particular the disability insurance linked to a life insurance. In this regard, of course, it is intended to allow such contracts to play at the moment when a person would get sick and would no longer be able to pay their life insurance premium. At that point, the life insurance premium would be borne by the insurance.

However, life insurance, as you know, is limited in time. They run until the age of 65 years. It would therefore be a very limited, in the eyes of Assuralia even non-existent number.

As for Ms. Lalieux’s key question, namely the idea of the aging reserve and its portability, this issue ⁇ deserves to be studied. There was a lack of time for its immediate implementation. In addition, there is a risk of a significant increase in premiums. However, we must seize the opportunity of the evaluation of the law to try to bring a solution to this problem that, in my opinion, deserves to be solved.

I would like to address a final comment to Mrs. Baeke. I fully agree with you when you say that the work is not done and that we need to focus our attention specifically on some weak groups.

Regarding the problem of diagnosis and symptoms, which was cited not only by you but also by Mrs. Creyf, I think we should effectively take the next step in the future.

I hope that this will be possible following the evaluation of the law, because at that time we will be able to judge in real numbers how many people enjoy the benefit we seek with this bill.

I hope the House will approve the bill today.