Beneficiaries of ADSE are discounting more than they should – publico

                 

                         
                     

                         

                 

 
                         

The Court of Auditors (TdC) considers that the increase in discounts for ADSE was “excessive” is not supported in studies and, in 2015, would suffice a contribution of 2.1% for the costs of care of provided health were fully financed by the beneficiaries. And even if there was need to ensure security surplus, the public servants and state retirees would only deduct 2.25% of their salaries or pensions, a much smaller percentage to 3.5% currently required.

                     

                         Accounts made a public employee with a monthly salary of 1,000 euros cash now 35 euros each month to qualify for the ADSE, ie 12.5 euros more than necessary.

As a suggestion for the future, TB recommends that the discount rate is indexed to the level of planned spending, with a margin of 10%. It also proposes the introduction of minimum and maximum thresholds of contribution and a variation depending on the age at which the beneficiary enters the system.

The warnings and recommendations were made by TB following an audit Assistance system in the disease to the State Civil Servants (ADSE), released on Friday and that destroys the successive beneficiaries effort increases by “were not based on needs of the system.”

proof that the rise in the discount rate to 3.5% was excessive is 138.9 million surplus of ADSE, recorded in 2014 and 89.4 million euros, due in 2015.

The problem, notes the TB, is that this surplus is being used in state advantage, serving “only fiscal consolidation objectives of the State”. It is the entity that manages the ADSE “has a very limited ownership of the surplus generated (…) not seen you can use them freely, whether in health financing expense or obtaining payment for the subscription term investments or, by applying other investments. ” “On the contrary”, refers to the report, “it is the State that has benefited from the use of this surplus, from the quotizados of ADSE at a 0% rate, ie without any remuneration paid to ADSE.”

The TB also concluded that there was “no basis on proportionality [discounts] face to the self-financing objectives and system sustainability in the medium and long term.”

Further proof that the is the increase was disproportionate increase in the number of disclaimers. Between 2011 and 2014, over 4,000 people left voluntarily ADSE. Most, 75%, resigned last year, coinciding with the largest increase in contributions to the subsystem.

For the TB that is a warning sign about the system’s sustainability, especially as the outputs occurred especially in higher yields. “The disproportion that exists in the last ranks, between the discount and benefits, can foster quotizados output of the system,” insist the auditors, criticizing the absence of a plan of management to solve this problem.

By 2013, ADSE was funded by the beneficiaries and by employers, but from the middle of this year, the contribution of workers and retirees has increased (from 1.5% to 3.5%) and the State diminishing . Since January 2015, the subsystem is powered only by the beneficiary (although there are exemptions).

That’s why even if the TB recommends that the ADSE sure to take charges to be borne by the state budget (see box) and the National Health Service (NHS). And gives as examples of expenses “that have to be financed by general tax revenue”: the state reimbursement the price of medicines, medical care abroad when it does not result from free will of the person, home-based respiratory care prescribed by the NHS the transportation of patients to and from the NHS body and the complementary means of diagnosis and therapy prescribed by the NHS, as well as domiciliary verification in sickness and conducting medical boards at the request of employers, “completely devoid of the benefits scheme ADSE. “

The auditors estimate that these charges have a value of about 40 million euros and recommend that ADSE suspend the funding of the NHS care or other liability that may not be supported by discount “If not available from revenue from public funds.” In the case of absence of control it proposes that the ADSE covers to employers for providing the service.

In terms of management, TB recommends approved a new legal and financial status, which allows beneficiaries to participate in its management, which should be “exclusively technical”, leaving to use the discount rate “as an economic policy instrument.”