German health insurance boss warns of 'massive' contributions hike
"If further action is not taken, a contribution tsunami is inevitable with this coalition agreement," Andreas Strom, the CEO of DAK-Gesundheit,
told the
Augsburger Allgemeine
newspaper
on Sunday.
Back in January, long-term care insurance (
Pflegeversicherung
) contributions rose to 3.6 percent, while the recommended ceiling for additional health insurance contributions was raised from 1.8 percent to 2.5 percent.
According to Storm, statutory health insurance is facing another increase of at least half a percent point at the end of the year.
This would mean employees pay an extra 0.25 percent - or €25 on every €1,000 earned - on their health insurance contributions each month.
"In conjunction with rising long-term care insurance contributions, we are then moving towards total social security contributions of 43 percent," the DAK CEO explained. "This is not only an imposition on insured employees, pensioners, and employers, it is also poison for the economy."
According to Storm, the CDU/CSU and SPD - who are due to form a government in May - have failed to set out adequate funding for Germany's financially strained insurance funds.
READ ALSO:
How Germany's new coalition will affect your bank balance
"All concrete measures mentioned in the drafts that could have ensured the goal of stable social security contributions in the short term were deleted from the final coalition agreement," he said.
Advertisement
In previous plans drafted by the parties, a total of €20 billion was earmarked in order to cover "non-insurance costs" for health insurance, including care for the unemployed and Covid-related backlogs. In addition, around €9 billion was earmarked for the long-term care insurance funds.
These "urgently needed funds" were deleted without replacement in the final version of the coalition agreement, Strom said.
With reporting by Imogen Goodman
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Int'l Business Times
5 days ago
- Int'l Business Times
'Make America Healthy Again' Report Cites Nonexistent Studies: Authors
At least four of the studies cited in a flagship White House report on children's health do not exist, authors listed in the document told AFP Thursday, casting doubt on the paper outlining US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s agenda. The highly anticipated "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) report was released on May 22 by the presidential commission tasked with assessing drivers of childhood chronic disease. But it includes broken citation links and credits authors with papers they say they did not write. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described the mishaps as "formatting issues" during a press briefing Thursday and said the report will be updated to address them. "It does not negate the substance of the report," said Leavitt, who expressed confidence in Kennedy and his team, and insisted that their work was "backed on good science." The errors were first reported Thursday by NOTUS, a US digital news website affiliated with the nonprofit Allbritton Journalism Institute. Noah Kreski, a Columbia University researcher listed as an author of a paper on adolescent anxiety and depression during the Covid-19 pandemic, told AFP the citation is "not one of our studies" and "doesn't appear to be a study that exists at all." The citation includes a link that purports to send users to an article in the peer-reviewed medical journal JAMA, but which is broken. Jim Michalski, a spokesman for JAMA Network, said it "was not published in JAMA Pediatrics or in any JAMA Network journal." Columbia University epidemiologist Katherine Keyes, who was also listed as an author of the supposed JAMA study, told AFP she does research on the topic but does not know where the statistics credited to her came from, and that she "did not write that paper." "I would be happy to send this information to the MAHA committee to correct the report, although I have not yet received information on where to reach them." Guohua Li, another Columbia University professor apparently named in the citation, said the reference is "totally fabricated" and that he does not even know Kreski. AFP also spoke with Harold Farber, pediatrics professor at Baylor College of Medicine, who said the paper attributed to him "does not exist" nor had he ever collaborated with the co-authors credited in the MAHA report. Similarly, Brian McNeill, spokesperson for Virginia Commonwealth University, confirmed that professor Robert Findling did not author a paper the report says he wrote about advertising of psychotropic medications for youth. A fourth paper on ADHD medication was also not published in the journal Pediatrics in 2008 as claimed in the MAHA report, according to Alex Hulvalchick, media relations specialist for the journal's publisher, the American Academy of Pediatrics. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declined to comment, referring AFP's questions to the White House. At her briefing, Leavitt declined to answer how the report was produced and whether artificial intelligence tools may have been used to craft it, directing those questions back to HHS. The Democratic National Committee blasted the report as "rife with misinformation" in a Thursday press release, saying Kennedy's agency "is justifying its policy priorities with studies and sources that do not exist." Kennedy was approved as health secretary earlier this year despite widespread alarm from the medical community over his history of promoting vaccine misinformation and denying scientific facts. Since taking office, he has ordered the National Institutes of Health to probe the causes of autism -- a condition he has long falsely tied to the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The report's chronic disease references appear to nod to that same disproven theory, discredited by numerous studies since the idea first aired in a late 1990s paper based on falsified data. It also criticizes the "over-medicalization" of children, citing surging prescriptions of psychiatric drugs and antibiotics, and blaming "corporate capture" for skewing scientific research.
Int'l Business Times
5 days ago
- Int'l Business Times
Moderna Loses $700M US Contract for Bird Flu Vaccine Development
The Moderna logo is seen at the Moderna campus in Norwood, Massachusetts on on December 2, 2020, where the biotechnology company is mass producing its Covid-19 vaccine. Moderna announced Wednesday that the Trump administration has canceled a major contract worth nearly $700 million for the development of its bird flu vaccine. This decision ends a key pandemic preparedness project started during the Biden administration. In January, Moderna received $590 million from the US government to support clinical trials and build a vaccine for H5N1, the bird flu virus that's been spreading among cattle and poultry. According to Reuters , the funding followed an earlier $176 million award given in 2024 for the same purpose. The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it ended the agreement after a full internal review. A spokesperson explained, "The project did not meet the scientific standards or safety expectations required for continued federal investment." Moderna's early data from testing showed strong results. In a study with around 300 adults, 98% of participants developed immunity within three weeks of the second shot. Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said the vaccine was "well-tolerated" and produced a "robust immune response." 🚨BREAKING: HHS Terminates Moderna's $766 Million in mRNA Bird Flu Injection Contracts🔻 Ends all federal purchase commitments🔻 $590M canceled for late-stage clinical trials🔻 $176M canceled for early R&D support This marks a major policy shift away from dangerous mRNA… — Nicolas Hulscher, MPH (@NicHulscher) May 28, 2025 Moderna to Push Bird Flu Vaccine Without Federal Funding Despite the promising findings, the federal government pulled its support. Public health expert Amesh Adalja from Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security said canceling the deal "throws away one of the fastest tools we have" to fight a possible bird flu outbreak. He also noted the decision goes against the earlier rapid-response approach used during COVID-19. Bird flu has infected at least 70 people in the past year, most of them farm workers. It continues to spread among animals, raising concerns about a future outbreak in humans, AP News said. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has questioned vaccine use and previously suggested letting the virus spread in poultry to study natural resistance. His remarks were criticized by some members of Congress. Moderna said it still plans to move forward with its bird flu vaccine. The company will look for other ways to continue late-stage development and production. "We will explore alternative paths forward for the program," Bancel added. The company has been counting on its new mRNA vaccines—including the bird flu and a COVID-flu combo shot—to replace falling demand for its original COVID-19 vaccine. Moderna's stock price did not change much after the announcement, staying mostly flat in after-hours trading. Originally published on © {{Year}} All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
Int'l Business Times
20-05-2025
- Int'l Business Times
US Limits Covid Boosters To Over-65s Or Those At High Risk
The United States will limit Covid-19 boosters to people over 65 or those at risk of serious illness, while requiring vaccine makers to run fresh clinical trials before offering shots to younger and healthier individuals, officials said Tuesday. Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Food and Drug Administration's Vinayak Prasad and Commissioner Martin Makary framed the policy shift as "evidence-based" and would align the United States more closely with guidance in Europe. But it comes as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime vaccine skeptic, pushes to remake federal public health policy. Kennedy previously led a nonprofit that was critical of immunization programs, and during the pandemic petitioned the FDA to revoke Covid vaccine authorizations, citing rare side effects including heart inflammation. Prasad and Makary praised the initial Covid-19 vaccine rollout as "a major scientific, medical, and regulatory accomplishment," but argued that the benefits of repeated boosters for low-risk individuals are uncertain. They criticized the US approach of recommending boosters for all adults regardless of age or health status, calling it a "one-size-fits-all" model based on the mistaken belief that Americans couldn't handle more nuanced, risk-based advice. Rather than building public trust, they wrote, it had backfired -- fueling vaccine hesitancy that has spilled over into skepticism toward childhood shots, including those for measles. The FDA said it would rely on lab test results to approve boosters for people who are over 65, or over six months old with at least one underlying condition. But for healthy individuals between six months and 64 years, regulators will now require data from randomized trials. "We simply don't know whether a healthy 52-year-old woman with a normal BMI (body mass index) who has had Covid-19 three times and has received six previous doses of a Covid-19 vaccine will benefit from the seventh dose," they wrote. Some infectious disease experts welcomed the shift. Amesh Adalja of Johns Hopkins University said it matched with the approach taken by other countries in a population that already carries significant immunity. "For lower-risk individuals, the goal has always been less clear, as protection against infection is transient and they don't have a high risk of severe disease," he told AFP. But others voiced concern about the practical consequences. Paul Offit, a leading vaccine expert at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, said it could limit access for people who still want boosters. "Any use, say in a healthy 35-year-old, would be considered off-label, and you wonder whether an insurance company would pay for it," he told AFP. Under the revised framework, companies like Pfizer and Moderna will be encouraged to test updated boosters in adults aged 50 to 64. These studies should measure whether the vaccines reduce symptomatic infections, hospitalizations and deaths. Rather than comparing new shots to earlier formulations, Prasad and Makary suggested placebo-controlled trials -- with saline as the comparator -- to better evaluate both benefit and potential side effects. The proposal, first floated by Kennedy earlier this month, has proved divisive. Critics argue that using a placebo -- when authorized vaccines already exist -- could expose participants to unnecessary harm. "Imagine if there was a death or two in the placebo group," said Offit. "I don't see how you conscience that." Supporters of continued Covid-19 boosters often draw parallels to annual flu shots. But Makary and Prasad pushed back on that comparison, arguing the genetic changes in Covid variants haven't been significant enough to justify automatically updating the vaccine each year. The FDA officials also sought to reassure Americans concerned they might lose access to boosters under the new framework. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) definition of risk factors is "vast, including obesity and even mental health conditions such as depression," they wrote, noting that between 100 million and 200 million Americans would likely still qualify.
