PCPA national average, different individual bills
The official 2027 premium documents, published on 29 September, enable comparison. The announced average is not an individual premium: canton, age, deductible and model affect the amount. The FOPH’s explanatory dossier explains these distinctions and directs readers to the federal comparison tool.
For the PCP, comparison does not settle the collective question. Rising mandatory expenditure must be assessed against disposable income. Two people paying similar premiums may face very different burdens. Analysis must therefore explain how financing is distributed, rather than only differences between insurers.
Accessible assistance and clear responsibilities
The Party calls on authorities to check the actual reach of assistance, the simplicity of applications and processing times. A right that is hard to understand or paid too late can leave a family in difficulty even where support is provided.
The responsible levels of government must discuss funding with clearly presented distributional effects. The PCP advocates stronger solidarity and contributions better reflecting resources. Every change should explain who pays more, who is relieved and how necessary services will be maintained. Shifting a burden between accounts is not by itself a saving for society. Its effect on households must also be disclosed.
Address costs without weakening care
Managing spending requires examination of prices, procedures, coordination and organisation. It cannot be reduced to asking patients to postpone treatment or staff to work with less time. The amount of work needed must remain visible in decisions.
The PCP supports stronger primary care and continuity between practices, hospitals, home support and long-term institutions. Handover work must be recognised and organised. An announced saving should be assessed alongside access, delays and unmet need rather than counted only in an isolated budget or shifted onto relatives and other services.
Scrutiny after the announcement
The Party calls for monitoring of what households actually pay after assistance and cost-sharing, together with access to care. Figures should distinguish age and income circumstances where reliable data permit, with their limitations and reference bases explained.
The annual announcement must become a starting point for political scrutiny of funding and service choices. Health requires resources, qualified staff and effective organisation. For the PCP, financing must strengthen material security and ensure that the need for treatment does not become a decision to go without because of household finances. Proposals and implementation should be judged against that outcome.
Scrutiny needs a stable method from year to year. Household comparisons must explain whether assistance and cost-sharing are included and which income measure is used. The PCP calls for understandable results and published assumptions: a change of calculation must not be presented as an actual improvement. Relief should be visible in disposable income.
Documents and sources
The cited documents provide the facts and provisions examined. Political judgments and proposals expressed in this article are those of the PCP.