Proposition 54K2710

Proposition de résolution relative à l'amélioration de l'accessibilité financière des corrections oculaires.

General information ¶

Authors

Vooruit Monica De Coninck, Karin Jiroflée

Submission date

Oct. 16, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

resolution of parliament optical industry health insurance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB PP

Voted to reject

Open Vld

Abstained from voting

CD&V ∉ N-VA MR VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to adopt.
• Veli Yüksel (CD&V) voted to reject.

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 28, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I would like to refer to the written report – in addition, excellent.

I will speak briefly on behalf of my group, depending on the other interventions.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, these few words – which will not surprise you – will serve to confirm our support for these two resolution proposals. They in fact engage the present government and its successors on the right path, so that patients can obtain glasses or lenses more easily.

Their cost is indeed a brake for many of our fellow citizens. According to a recent Test-Achats barometer, 26% of people who needed glasses still felt that their purchase was a cost that was very difficult, or even impossible, to pay. Therefore, it will not surprise anyone that our group fully supports the VAT reduction from 21 to 6%. To this end, together with our colleagues from the sp.a, we have submitted amendments several times. Unfortunately, they have never been able to get the necessary support.

Health is not a luxury product. Eye corrections are the first necessity for anyone who needs them, whether they are children, adolescents or adults.

Finally, I repeat, access to our health care has been severely tested during this legislature, as evidenced by the two billion savings, of which a not negligible part has weighed directly on the patient portfolio. They also resulted in the inability to meet unsatisfied needs. I think of glasses, hearing aids, or even orthodontic and prosthetic care.

It is time to reverse this trend. I hope today that this government and the next will hear the message and will implement the recommendations contained in these texts.

This is a resolution that comes at the end of the legislature. Even if one recognizes an accessibility issue, it is also important to know what type of refund can be applied. We are looking at an approach that takes into account the severity of cases. I found that between the two proposals made here, there is a fundamental difference: in one, we find the refund of the montures; in the other, not. It is well known that the reduction of VAT on the mount will depend on the price. It would have been important to make this difference. She was not. It is known that the cost of the measure is around 100 million euros.

This is a resolution. The reason why we abstained in the committee and we will abstain today is because we don’t think it’s right to make us believe that the expected changes in the sector will come quickly, while we don’t know whether the budget will be released by the next government.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, under the slogan “Hearing, seeing and laughing should not be a luxury” we have been conducting action on social media for two years. In the same framework, we have submitted three resolutions over the past two years on dental care, hearing and hearing devices and eye defects. We did so because we are convinced that there is a growing inequality in health care and especially in those treatments that are fundamental to lead a dignified life.

A few weeks ago we could still read in a study of Test Purchase that in 2017 97 139 Flammers to the OCMW had to step for, in our eyes, very normal and obvious concerns such as glasses, go to the dentist, but also for, for example, school bills. It is scandalous that in a society like our people for this kind of affairs, which are part of a dignified life, they have to ask for help.

I would like to give a few figures. The latest edition of the Health Survey shows that 8% of households indicate that financial barriers have been the cause of having to postpone medical care, dental care, prescription medicines, glasses or mental care over the past 12 months. We find that a sign that our healthcare is struggling with a number of unsatisfied needs. In another survey, a survey of our Socialist Mutualities, 24% of respondents said they should choose a cheaper alternative to health care for financial reasons and 6% indicated that they would even completely refrain from buying glasses or lenses for financial reasons.

In our consideration, another important element for the patient’s invoice is the fact that only eight out of ten opticians are conventional. For unconventional optics, 25% is refunded. This is the same system that I just talked about. We believe that this situation should not continue.

Our resolution on dental care and hearing aids was rejected in the committee. The resolution on eye care and remedies for eye defects has reached the plenary session. I hope that this resolution will be adopted so that the next government can work on it.

We have had the opportunity to discuss this issue several times.

I would like to say again here how much glasses or eye lenses are not luxury. This is about corrections, isn’t it, Mr. Minister?

( ... ) : [...]

I am not talking about the hearing problem, but the visual problem. I am myopic myself. But that’s not why I’m working on this issue.

This is a real disability. This is a problem for children who are trying to get a screening as early as possible, and that is so much better. In any case, it is an indispensable treatment, indispensable at any age of life.

I would also like to remind you that it is quite appealing to find that in our country the cost of patient charge is one of the highest at the level of the European Union. Today, reimbursements are excessively light because you have to have a visual deficit of more than 8.25 diopters. Basically, it is necessary to be almost blind in order for adults to benefit from mutual intervention. For children, interventions are planned more early, but they are not sufficient to allow corrections to adapt to the evolution of myopia or other problems of visual deficit.

This resolution crossed the direction of the Commission. It is likely to take the course of the plenary session.

That said, I heard my MR colleague say that a resolution might not be the best choice because it would make people believe that things could be changed before the end of this legislature, which I will answer that he had the opportunity to act by reducing, for example, the VAT rate to 6% on glasses, the day he did it for flowers and plants.

In my opinion, it would still have been logical to think first and foremost about patients who need glasses or lenses and for whom this is an indispensable treatment of a recognized visual impairment that can be ⁇ serious.

You have made the choice of flowers and plants and you have refused the choice of a first step in reducing the cost of glasses and lenses and improving accessibility for patients. It is a pity!

Today, this is just a small step. Maybe tomorrow we’ll be able to take a bit more ambitious steps. I will meet with you soon because I have the intention to go back on the subject.