Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 141, to delete lines 20 to 43, to delete page 142 and in page 143, to delete lines 1 to 23.

This amendment concerns the health insurance levy. Since publication of the Finance Bill one month ago, 6,000 people have left the private health insurance sector which is haemorrhaging policy holders because of the spiralling cost of health insurance. Something must be done urgently to keep younger, healthier people within the sector. My proposal concerns lifetime community rating, a concept which has been on the Statute Book since 2001 without anything being done to make it happen.

In this respect I am specifically concerned that people would shop around for health insurance. We are told by the regulator that they are being encouraged to do so. The difficulty is that the legislation, as worded, will penalise anyone who shops around after renewing his or her health insurance policy. Many of the health insurance companies have offers of discounts or free cover for children at different times of the year. There is an advantage for health insurance subscribers, especially if they pay their premium on a monthly basis, in switching from one provider to another, but based on the legislation there will be an in-built disincentive to switch health insurance providers because subscribers will be liable to pay the levy on a second occasion. We sought clarification on this issue on Committee Stage and the Minister said this would not happen. I seek clarification in the House that no subscriber will have to pay the levy a second time within the year covered by his or her policy as opposed to wa calendar year. If a subscriber renews his or her policy on 1 April, I seek clarification that in the following 12 months the subscriber will not have to pay the levy a second time. My understanding is that while the Department of Finance has given a commitment that it will issue guidelines to the Revenue Commissioners, the statute will have to be changed because, as it stands, it is flawed. Why was the statute not changed on Report Stage to correct the anomaly in the system, rather than leaving it for 12 months during which perhaps a problem might arise resulting in subscribers having to retain uneconomic health insurance policies and being forced into a situation where they would have to cancel their policy rather than switch provider?

See this speech in context