Carole Hazé (FMF) warns: a new tax on health insurance policies would increase inequalities

The Federation of Mutuals of France (FMF), represented by its president Carole Hazé, raises alarm over the government’s proposed new tax on mutual insurance companies. Announced in a still fragile economic context, this measure raises many concerns about its repercussions on social protection and the purchasing power of the French people. The debate highlights a major issue: the taxation applied to health insurance could increase inequalities rather than reduce them, thereby weakening the fundamental principles of solidarity that govern the mutualist system. This article explores in detail the arguments put forward by the FMF and their concrete implications, through a precise analysis of the mechanisms involved.

• The position of Carole Hazé and the FMF on the proposed tax
• Economic impact and consequences for policyholders
• Taxation and inequalities: an increased risk
• Legislative and historical context of taxes on mutuals
• Reactions from social protection stakeholders
• Alternative measures and future outlooks
• Concrete illustrations and case studies
• The essential role of mutuals in the economy and national solidarity

The position of Carole Hazé and the FMF on the tax imposed on mutuals

Carole Hazé, president of Mutuelles de France, embodies the critical voice against this proposal to increase taxation on mutual insurance organizations. She emphasizes that any additional tax imposed on these bodies will have a domino effect detrimental to policyholders. This call is based on a rigorous analysis of socio-economic impacts and highlights an apparent paradox: a measure intended to regulate health expenditures could widen inequalities.

At the heart of the debate, the FMF recalls that mutuals play a crucial role in supplementing social protection, especially for the most vulnerable populations. Carole Hazé insists that mutuals are not mere economic actors but non-profit organizations whose primary vocation is to ensure equitable access to care. An additional tax, she claims, would weaken these structures by increasing costs borne by members’ contributions.

Furthermore, the FMF criticizes the lack of thorough consultation before announcing the new tax. It denounces a failure to consider mutualist specificities in government projects, attributing a blunt and counterproductive character to the measure. Carole Hazé highlights a major risk: the decline in the quality and diversity of health insurance offerings, depriving policyholders of coverage tailored to their needs.

• 🔍 The essential role of mutuals in social protection
• ⚠️ The risk of transferring taxation onto policyholders
• 💬 Call for stronger dialogue between government and mutualist actors

Aspects	Points defended by Carole Hazé and the FMF	Risks identified
Social role	Equitable access to care, mutualist solidarity	Weakening services, reduction of offerings
Taxation	Opposition to increased taxes on mutuals	Repercussions on members’ contributions
Dialogue	Need for consultation with policymakers	Unilateral and hasty decisions

To deepen this analysis, also read the full article by L’Argus de l’Assurance.

Economic impact of the new tax on mutuals and consequences for policyholders

The additional taxation planned on health mutuals presents a particularly concerning economic aspect. The mutuals’ economy relies on a solidarity-based model, capable of pooling risks and offering affordable rates. A fiscal increase will inevitably lead to higher premiums, which could trigger a “ripple effect” difficult for households, especially the most modest, to absorb.

As mutuals are largely present in disadvantaged areas or among middle- and low-income populations, this additional charge threatens to increase access inequalities to healthcare. This issue is all the more critical as it occurs in a rising inflationary context, where budgets allocated to health are already under pressure.

Moreover, mutuals may be forced to cut their coverage or revise the guarantees offered to offset the financial impact of the tax. This rationalization could impair policyholders’ ability to benefit from adequate services, notably in prevention, vision, or dental sectors, which are essential to quality of life.

• 📈 Likely increase in premiums for members
• 🏥 Risk of degradation of guarantees and services
• 💸 Negative impact on household purchasing power
• ⚖️ Delicate balance between tax burden and mutualist offering

Category	Economic impact	Effects on policyholders
Modest households	Significant increase in premiums	Possible reduction in access to quality care
Mutuals	Margin compression and guarantee adjustments	Decreased diversity of propositions
State	Increased tax revenues	Potential for social and political tensions

For an in-depth overview of the fiscal mechanics related to mutuals, consult this explanatory analysis.

Taxation and inequalities: the aggravation of a concerning phenomenon

The proposed tax on mutuals takes place in a context where health inequalities remain a significant societal challenge. Carole Hazé warns against a taxation policy that, rather than correcting disparities, could exacerbate them by more harshly targeting vulnerable populations, those most dependent on mutuals for access to complementary care.

It should be noted that current taxation already weighs heavily on health insurance contracts. The addition of a reinforced tax could create an effect opposite to that sought by public authorities. While it is essential to preserve collective solidarity, excessive fiscal increases could lead to health precariousness.

This spotlight prompts us to reflect on the relevance of fiscal instruments used in the health sector. The goal of reducing the Social Security deficit must be accompanied by a detailed analysis of social impacts, avoiding uniform measures that ignore territorial and socio-economic disparities.

• ⚠️ Disproportionate taxation of mutuals, a barrier to equity
• 📊 Territorial and social disparities in access to care
• ✊ Need for tax policies adapted to policyholders’ realities
• 🛡️ Maintaining solidarity as a central goal

Dimension	Current situation	Risks associated with the new tax
Territorial inequalities	Variable access to mutuals depending on regions	Reduced access in disadvantaged areas
Social inequalities	Low-income populations dependent on mutuals	Increased costs of premiums
Solidarity	Mutualist mechanisms promoting social justice	Weakening of social protection foundations

See also the complete dossier on mutualist fiscal issues by La Mutualité Française.

Legislative and historical context of taxes on mutuals in France

French mutuals have undergone a series of imposed taxes over the decades that gradually complicated their operation. The taxation system for complementary health insurances traditionally aims to fund social security but is often criticized for its impact on the quality of mutualist services.

Historically, the Tax on Complementary Health Insurances (TSCA) was introduced to combat the deficit of health insurance. Its rate has undergone several adjustments, periodically modifying mutuals’ contributions, often sparking controversy. The recent proposal to increase this tax illustrates this trend and reopens an old debate between financial efficiency and social equity.

It is noteworthy that the government attempts to compensate for a significant decline in social contribution revenues due to the economic situation. This fiscal measure is thus part of a logic to restore public finances, at the expense of increased constraints on the mutualist sector.

• 📜 Historical evolution of the TSCA in France
• 🔍 Links between social security deficit and tax increases
• 💰 Economic pressures on mutuals over the past decade
• ⚖️ Delicate balance between public funding and mutualist solidarity

Year	Key event	Consequence for mutuals
1990	Creation of the Tax on Complementary Health Insurances (TSCA)	Start of specific taxation on mutuals
2008	First significant increase of the TSCA	Higher costs borne by members
2020	Strengthening of fiscal oversight on mutuals	Enhanced regulatory adjustments
2025	Proposal to increase the TSCA by the government	New upcoming fiscal burden

For an updated overview, consult this article from Viva Magazine.

Reactions from social protection actors to the tax on mutuals

Alongside the FMF and Carole Hazé, several other social protection stakeholders express their opposition to the creation of a new tax. Mutual federation organizations, insured associations, and health economics experts converge to denounce a poorly calibrated measure likely to fuel social tensions.

Some believe this additional fiscality penalizes a system that is a pillar of national solidarity. Mutual organizations emphasize their role as social buffers, especially during times of economic uncertainty. The proposed increase could weaken this balance, harming the quality of protection offered.

At the same time, some political leaders defend mutuals, emphasizing the need to focus efforts on more targeted approaches, such as innovative technologies and better prevention. This debate calls for rethinking health funding mechanisms, increasing expertise, and involving citizens more actively.

• 📣 Mobilization of mutual federations
• 👥 Support from insured associations and economists
• 🛑 Warning against worsening inequalities
• 🔄 Proposal of innovative alternatives for social protection

Actors	Position	Key arguments
FMF and Mutuals	Strong opposition	Negative impact on access to care
Insured associations	Support for fighting the tax	Protection of purchasing power
Economic experts	Critical analysis	Recommending alternative measures
Policymakers	Mixed debates	Call for dialogue and consultation

To delve into the reactions, refer to this FMF opinion piece.

Alternative measures considered to preserve solidarity and access to care

In response to the broad opposition led by Carole Hazé and the FMF, alternative proposals are emerging to address financial challenges without sacrificing social balance. These options aim to reconcile the necessary cost control with the preservation of a solidaristic healthcare system.

Among the suggested solutions are enhancing prevention efforts, digitalizing health services, or better regulating the margins of supplementary organizations. The goal of sustainable public expenditure reduction encourages rethinking all processes, integrating innovation as well as equity concerns.

Another approach involves differentiated taxation, considering the characteristics of mutuals or their members to avoid uniform application that penalizes the most vulnerable. These proposals aim for targeted, determined action that safeguards social protection.

• 🔬 Strengthening health prevention programs
• 💻 Increased adoption of digital solutions to reduce costs
• ⚖️ Implementing tailored tax policies based on circumstances
• 🤝 Constructive dialogue between authorities and mutuals

Measure	Advantage	Limit
Enhanced prevention	Reduction in costly care needs	Initial investment period
Digitalization of services	Cost optimization	Possible exclusion of non-connected populations
Differentiated taxation	Greater social justice	Administrative complexity
Ongoing dialogue	Better adaptation of measures	Requires strong political commitment

More details on supplementary health initiatives available at Aide BTS Assurance.

Concrete examples and case studies illustrating the effects of a tax on mutuals

Various situations demonstrate the tangible consequences of increased fiscality on mutuals. For instance, in some rural areas where populations rely heavily on mutuals to supplement their reimbursements, an increase in contributions has already impaired access to care.

A representative case concerns Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, where a local mutual had to reduce its optometry and dental care services after a significant tax increase, directly impacting its members. This contraction of guarantees caused a wave of discontent and membership drop.

Additionally, studies conducted in urban zones show that modest households, already in precarious situations, more often forgo care when contributions become too burdensome, fueling a vicious cycle of social and health exclusion.

• 🏘️ Case of the regional mutual in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
• 📉 Care abandonment observed among modest populations
• 💡 Domino effect on local public health
• ➕ Need for targeted and adaptive measures

Region	Impact of the tax	Effects on policyholders
Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes	Reduction of optometry and dental guarantees	Increased care abandonment
Disadvantaged urban zones	Increase in mutual contributions	Drop in membership, health precarity
Remote rural areas	Less access to mutual services	Creation of territorial inequalities

To learn more, consult the detailed report on the issues and impacts in 2025.

The crucial role of mutuals in the economy and national solidarity

Mutual organizations occupy a unique space within the French economy and social fabric. They actively contribute to building a social protection system founded on solidarity and mutual aid, adapted to demographic and health developments. Carole Hazé reminds us that these mutualist structures embody a social and solidarity economy, distinct from purely profit-driven logics.

Their contribution goes beyond simple reimbursement of care. They also act proactively through prevention actions and health awareness campaigns. In a context of an aging population and rising medical costs, mutuals offer flexibility and adaptability in their guarantees, essential for effective coverage.

Financial weakening of mutuals, caused by increased taxation, could have serious consequences for the entire health system. The risks are twofold: diminishing economic efficiency and jeopardizing the sustainability of a model of protection based on intergenerational solidarity.

• 🏛️ Contribution of mutuals to social and solidarity economy
• 🩺 Role in prevention and risk management
• 💡 Adaptability to population needs
• ⚠️ Threats posed by punitive taxation

Dimension	Mutuals’ contributions	Risks in case of increased taxation
Social economy	Employment retention and local dynamism	Reduced investments and jobs
Social protection	Solidarity-based access to care	Increased difficulties in access
Prevention	Programs and awareness campaigns	Decreased capacity to act

For more information on mutuals’ commitments, see the official presentation of the FMF.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ) about the tax and its implications

• ❓ Why does the FMF oppose a new tax on mutuals?
  The FMF fears this tax will increase contribution costs, especially impacting modest households and weakening access to supplementary health coverage.
• ❓ What are the main economic risks associated with this tax?
  An increase in premiums, a potential reduction in mutuals’ coverage offerings, and a negative impact on policyholders’ purchasing power.
• ❓ How could this tax exacerbate social inequalities?
  By increasing the cost of mutuals, the most vulnerable populations might cut back on their coverage, hindering their access to care.
• ❓ What alternatives are proposed to avoid these effects?
  Measures such as strengthened prevention, digital services, and differentiated taxation are recommended.
• ❓ What role do mutuals play in the economy and solidarity?
  Mutuals support a social economy, promote equitable access to care, and develop essential prevention programs.