Proposition 54K3524

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 4 avril 2014 relative aux assurances et instaurant un droit à l'oubli pour certaines assurances de personnes.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Leen Dierick, Griet Smaers, Servais Verherstraeten
LE Catherine Fonck
MR Benoît Friart
N-VA Rita Bellens
Open Vld Nele Lijnen, Frank Wilrycx

Submission date

Feb. 6, 2019

Official page

Visit

Subjects

consumer protection insurance insurance contract insurance law

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

On the question of the Commissioners, I refer to the written report. I would like to subsequently give a presentation.

First, I give the word to the first applicant, Ms. Smaers.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we all know people who in the past have had to deal with a serious medical condition such as cancer, but not just cancer. Even though the treatment has been successful and the disease is in the past, they often later still face the consequences of the disease. For example, when they want to buy a home and make a debt balance insurance, they are often denied that insurance or have to pay higher premiums.

With this legislative proposal, we want to provide a solution so that even people who have had a serious medical condition in the past have the chance to enter into a debt saldo insurance without having to pay an additional premium due to their condition.

The French legislation introduces the right to be forgotten. The candidate insured must also communicate his medical antecedents, such as a cancer condition. However, if the person concerned has been declared healed for more than ten years, the insurance undertaking shall not take into account the condition, may not refuse the insurance and may not charge an additional premium.

The proposal provides for a reference rooster for cancer and chronic diseases for a period shorter than ten years. The reference roster is inspired by the French reference roster. A draft was already submitted to the members of the Committee for Business, after it was requested.

Colleagues, the bill came into being after the preparatory work of the Minister of Economy and Consumer Affairs, Mr. Peeters. It responds to the proposals of the consumer and patient associations in the Committee on Insurance. The proposal is also based on French legislation.

There have been many questions from various members in the committee for business over the past few years, in order to be able to provide an answer to the problem raised.

My bill is a significant step forward for those who have faced such a serious medical condition in the past. I hope for the support of all groups. During the discussion in the Committee on Business, it was shown that there is broad support for the principle. I know that many members were asking party to go even further. During the discussion, we pointed out that the proposal is a first step. At that time, we could not yet develop a scheme for several insurance contracts but only for the debt saldo insurance.

CD&V wants to work on this in the future, and I personally want to do so.

As already stated in the committee, this is a first, important step that has already been discussed a lot between patient associations, the Commission of Insurance and, for example, the Foundation against Cancer, which has done a lot of work on the subject. It is an important first step. The work is ⁇ not yet done for all those people who have ever suffered from a serious illness, but we have yet again resisted a beacon.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, as colleague Smaers said, who has once been seriously ill and has been declared healed, is now often still experiencing obstacles, for example when wanting to conclude a debt saldo insurance. Due to the disease, the insurer sometimes carries an increased risk for the insurance company, making the insurance premiums to be paid often very high, not to say unpaid.

This legislative proposal aims to incorporate solidarity into the law, so that the persons concerned do not have to pay such high premiums and make it easier to take a mortgage loan. They will still have to disclose their medical history in their insurance application, but after a period of ten years that will no longer be taken into account in the calculation of the premium.

First of all, it is cancer, but the bill provides for the possibility for the government to set up a reference rooster that can also contain other diseases. For certain types of cancer and chronic diseases, the deadline would be even shorter than ten years. There were a number of questions about the ten-year term, which is considered quite long. However, if the deadline is always reduced to less than ten years, this would result in very high costs for insurance companies and thus result in higher premiums for insurers who have not previously been ill. Our main concern is that this system should not result in insurers who have not previously been sick facing too high premiums.

As the reference rooster used in the list, prepared by the Federal Knowledge Centre for Healthcare, is evidence-based, higher supplementary premiums should no longer be avoided. This should also apply to the supplementation of the list. The Knowledge Centre may also determine the period after which the insurance companies may no longer charge an additional premium to the insured. Since this system also protects the rights of non-sick people, we naturally support this law.

Chief Speaker, dear colleagues, chronic patients or former cancer patients experience more difficulties than others in accessing property. In fact, to subscribe to a mortgage loan, you all know, you need an insurance balance remaining due. However, for these people such insurance is simply unpaid and therefore inaccessible.

That’s why in 2010, we voted the Partyka-Lalieux Act which provided several measures to limit the amount of insurance premiums, submit these premiums to a check and frame questionnaires and medical examinations. This was ten years ago the result of a collective work of this Parliament in the general interest. Unfortunately, this law did not go far enough. In May 2018, a comprehensive assessment of this regulation showed that it contained several shortcomings. Even today, those who have been sick often suffer double or triple punishment. Not only do they have to deal with illness and often suffer a significant decrease in income, but also the access to property, oh how important, especially to secure a future, is made difficult or even impossible due to the attitude of the insurance companies.

The same healed these people continue to carry the stigma of the disease before the insurance many years later. For this reason, the PS Group submitted in 2018 a bill containing eight measures to improve access to remaining balance insurance for sick people. Among these measures, of course, is the right to be forgotten that we talked about, but that’s not all. We also proposed better protecting the medical data of insurers, better monitoring insurer decisions and more socializing the cost of surprises. I put this proposal on the agenda of the Economy Committee as a priority with the desire to conduct a genuine debate within the Parliament and with the field actors.

The text presented to us today in plenary is a first step, a good decision in the right direction. We will support the text that is submitted to us. I have two regrets. The first is that we have not been able to hold this ambitious debate on insurance for people who have increased health risks.

On the contrary, the debate was confiscated by the minister, who is not even present tonight. It is believed that he is not interested in parliamentary debates, especially those concerning the sick.

I am not talking about you, Mr. President. You have been present from the beginning. It is remarkable! Mr. Peeters should have been here.

I have the right to be forgotten.

Maybe you will benefit from it soon!

In any case, we would have wanted Mr. Peeters to be present among us. In fact, the bill that is presented to us...

The [...]

No, I’m not going to say that, Mrs. Onkelinx.

The [...]

He also has the right to be forgotten, ⁇ even soon.

I would have wanted to ask something to Mr. Peeters, with whom we unfortunately cannot talk tonight. I think Ms. Smaers will pass on my question to her.

First, I regret that we have not been able to undertake a comprehensive reform. I regret that the legislation does not involve much. He only assures – and it is already that – that, for patients whose cancer cure dates back to ten years, the insurers will no longer be able to take it into account to determine the current state of health. For these people, the law is clear.

For the rest, the law provides – and I criticized it in commission, of course – that the King can do this or that. That is why – and I received only smiles at that time – I fought in commission and requested a second reading, in order to obtain royal arrests. Otherwise, the law would remain empty. I thanked Mr. Peeters – and this does not happen every day – for providing us, between the first and the second reading, the royal decrees, which included all our amendments, while these had yet been criticized at the time.

Today I ask the absent Deputy Prime Minister to persist in this gesture of goodwill. Ten years ago, we were told, “Trust the industry! We are not going to insert everything into the Partyka law.” Now, you know that the insurers have tried everything to not apply the law, in particular by bringing an appeal to the Constitutional Court. Nothing has been saved for patients and consumers.

I think it should have been put into a law. We did not do it. What I ask very clearly here is that these royal orders be published before the end of the legislature to show the right path and to definitively show that insurers cannot do anything with people who have had cancer or who suffer from chronic diseases. These people should no longer live the double or triple punishment as they have been living for years.

Mrs. Smaers, you who have brought this bill, I hope you will pass the message to Mr. Peeters. If he actually publishes the arrests, we will think that this is a first victory for patients.

In the committee, we have discussed the current legislation. I will not repeat everything in detail, but I will briefly outline the big lines for those who were not present.

The bill has a long history. Patient and consumer organisations such as Test Purchasing have indeed long been asking parties for a text, as it is now being discussed. Test-Buy is always extremely alert for consumer affairs and in this case for ex-patients or patients who have their disease under control.

About half a year ago, I myself submitted an amendment to the law on various economic provisions to include in that text the right to be forgotten if one was declared cured of a serious illness. The majority at the time rejected my idea, arguing that it would be submitted to Parliament at a later stage. This made me very concerned, because we often hear in committee meetings that a proposal will be drafted later. I am pleased that we were able to conduct the debate and reach a consensus.

At the first reading in the Committee on Business I expressed a huge number of objections and expressed my concern – colleague Smaers may remember – because the text still contained many uncertainties. The original proposal was rather a proposal of principle law, with much more to be clarified through royal decrees. I found the text much too scary and too much written tailored to the insurers and not the insurers and ex-patients.

Finally, before the second reading, as Ms. Lalieux has already communicated, the cabinet staff of Minister Peeters provided us with a list of conditions and also a reference table, which is very closely aligned with the French system we want. The provisions respond to our initial objections, as we now know the list of conditions. The waiting time to be forgotten is based on medical-scientific insights and ranges from one year for for example breast cancer and three to eight years for other diseases. Initially, the proposed waiting time was ten years, but that is very long for people who already live in misery and that was reduced after discussion.

This is indeed an improvement compared to the current situation.

Of course, it can always be better and therefore we believe that the list should be able to be adjusted periodically and in accordance with scientific and medical progress. The number of types of insurance could also be wider. In any case, what we discuss here today is indeed a first step in the right direction.

Our group will therefore fully approve the proposal, as I have already done in the committee.