Carole Hazé (FMF) warns: a new tax on mutual insurance companies would worsen inequalities

The Federation of Mutuals of France (FMF), represented by its president Carole Hazé, rings the alarm about the government’s proposed new tax on mutual societies. Announced in an already fragile economic context, this measure raises significant concerns regarding 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 exacerbate 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 insured individuals
• Taxation and inequalities: an increased risk
• Legislative and historical context of taxes on mutual societies
• Reactions from social protection actors
• Alternative measures and future prospects
• Concrete illustrations and case studies
• The essential role of mutual societies in the economy and national solidarity

The position of Carole Hazé and the FMF on the tax imposed on mutual societies

Carole Hazé, chairman of Mutuelles de France, embodies the critical voice against this plan to increase taxation on mutual societies. She emphasizes that any additional tax imposed on these organizations will have a domino effect detrimental to insured individuals. 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 mutual societies play a crucial role in supplementing social protection, especially for the most vulnerable populations. Carole Hazé insists that mutual societies are not merely economic actors but non-profit organizations whose primary vocation is to guarantee equitable access to care. According to her, an additional taxation 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 the failure to consider mutualist specificities in government projects, attributing a sudden and counterproductive nature to the measure. Carole Hazé highlights a major risk: the decrease in the quality and diversity of health insurance offerings, thus depriving insured individuals of coverage tailored to their needs.

• 🔍 The essential role of mutual societies in social protection
• ⚠️ The risk of transferring taxation costs to insured individuals
• 💬 The call for strengthened dialogue between government and mutualist stakeholders

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

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

Economic impact of the new tax on mutual societies and consequences for insured individuals

The additional taxation considered on health mutuals presents a particularly concerning economic dimension. The mutualist economy is based on a solidarity model, capable of pooling risks and offering affordable rates. An increase in taxes will inevitably lead to higher contributions, which could trigger a “cascading effect” difficult for households, especially the most modest, to absorb.

Since mutual societies are often present in disadvantaged areas or among middle and low-income populations, this additional burden threatens to increase inequalities in access to health care. This issue becomes all the more critical in a context of widespread inflation, where health budgets are already under strain.

In addition, mutual societies may be forced to reduce their offerings or revisit the guarantees provided to offset the financial impact of the tax. This rationalization could impair insured individuals’ ability to benefit from adequate services, particularly in prevention, optics, or dental sectors, which are essential to quality of life.

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

Category	Economic impact	Consequences for insured individuals
Modest households	Sizable increase in contributions	Possible reduction in access to quality care
Mutual societies	Margins compression and guarantee adjustments	Reduced diversity of proposals
State	Increased tax revenues	Potential for social and political tensions

For an in-depth overview of the fiscal mechanics related to mutual societies, visit this explanatory analysis.

Taxation and inequalities: worsening a concerning phenomenon

The proposed tax on mutual societies comes amid a context where health inequalities remain a significant challenge for French society. Carole Hazé warns against a taxation system that, rather than correcting disparities, could worsen them by hitting the most vulnerable populations harder, those most dependent on mutual societies for access to supplementary care.

It should be noted that current taxation already weighs heavily on health insurance contracts. The addition of a reinforced tax could have an unintended effect, counteracting the objectives of public authorities. While it is essential to preserve collective solidarity, excessive fiscal increases could foster health precariousness.

This analysis invites reflection on the relevance of the fiscal instruments used in the field of health. The goal of reducing the social security deficit must be accompanied by a nuanced analysis of social impacts, avoiding a uniform approach that ignores territorial and socio-economic disparities.

• ⚠️ Disproportionate taxation of mutual societies, a barrier to fairness
• 📊 Territorial and social disparities in access to care
• ✊ The need for tax policies adapted to the realities of insured individuals
• 🛡️ Maintaining solidarity as a central objective

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

See also the full report on the issues of mutualist taxation by Mutualité Française.

Legislative and historical context of taxes on mutual societies in France

French mutual societies have faced a series of taxes over the decades that have increasingly complicated their functioning. The tax system on supplemental health insurances traditionally aims to finance social security but is often criticized for its impact on the quality of mutualist benefits.

Historically, the Tax on complementary health insurances (TSCA) was introduced to combat the deficit of health insurance. Its rate has undergone several changes, periodically adjusting the contribution of mutual societies, often sparking controversy. The recent proposal to increase this tax reflects this ongoing debate and rekindles an old discussion between financial efficiency and social equity.

It is noteworthy that the government is trying to compensate for a significant decrease in social contributions revenues due to economic circumstances. This fiscal measure thus fits into a logic of public account correction, 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 mutual societies over the past decade
• ⚖️ Delicate balance between public financing and mutualist solidarity

Year	Key Event	Impact on mutual societies
1990	Creation of the Tax on mutual societies (TSCA)	Start of specific taxation on mutual societies
2008	First significant increase of the TSCA	Increased costs for members
2020	Enhanced fiscal control over mutual societies	Stronger regulatory adjustments
2025	Government proposal to increase the TSCA	New fiscal burden on the horizon

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

Reactions of social protection actors to the tax on mutual societies

Besides the FMF and Carole Hazé, several other social protection actors express their opposition to the creation of a new tax. Mutual federations, insured associations, as well as health economics experts, concur in condemning a poorly calibrated measure likely to fuel social tensions.

Some believe that this additional fiscal measure penalizes a system that is a pillar of national solidarity. Mutual organizations emphasize their role as social buffers, especially in 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 mutual societies, highlighting the need for more targeted efforts, notably through innovative technologies and better prevention. This debate has given rise to a call to rethink health funding mechanisms by incorporating more expertise and citizen participation.

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

Actors	Position	Key Arguments
FMF and Mutual Societies	Strong opposition	Negative impact on access to care
Insured associations	Support for opposing the tax	Preservation of purchasing power
Economic experts	Critical analysis	Recommendations for alternative measures
Political figures	Mixed debates	Call for dialogue and consultation

To explore reactions further, refer to this FMF statement.

Alternative measures envisioned 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 avenues aim to reconcile the necessary cost control with the preservation of a solidaristic health system.

Among the proposed solutions are enhancing prevention, digitalizing health services, and better regulating the margins of supplementary organizations. The objective of sustainably reducing public spending invites a rethink of all processes, integrating innovation and equity considerations.

Another approach involves differentiated taxation, taking into account the characteristics of mutual societies or the profiles of their members, to avoid uniform application that penalizes the most vulnerable. These proposals respond to the need for targeted, determined action that does not compromise social protection.

• 🔬 Strengthening health prevention programs
• 💻 Increasing digital adoption to reduce costs
• ⚖️ Implementing tailored taxation based on situations
• 🤝 Constructive dialogue between government and mutual organizations

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

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

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

Several situations exemplify the tangible consequences of increased taxation on mutual societies. For example, in certain rural regions where populations depend heavily on mutual societies to supplement reimbursements, a rise in contributions has already affected access to care.

A representative case concerns the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region, where a local mutual had to cut back its optical and dental care offerings following a significant increase in taxes, directly impacting its members. This contraction of guarantees sparked discontent and withdrawal of memberships.

Furthermore, studies conducted in urban zones show that low-income households, already in precarious situations, increasingly forego care when contributions become too heavy, fueling a vicious circle 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 insured individuals
Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes	Reduction in optical and dental guarantees	Increased care abandonment
Disadvantaged urban areas	Increase in mutual contribution costs	Decreased memberships, health precarity
Isolated rural areas	Less access to mutual services	Creation of territorial inequalities

For further details, consult the practical report on the issues and impacts in 2025.

The crucial role of mutual societies in the economy and national solidarity

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

Their contribution goes beyond simple reimbursement of care. They also act upstream through prevention and health awareness actions. In a context of population aging and rising medical costs, mutual societies offer the flexibility and adaptation of guarantees essential for effective coverage.

The financial weakening of mutual societies caused by increased taxation could have serious consequences for the entire healthcare system. The risks are twofold: causing a loss of economic efficiency and jeopardizing the sustainability of a protection model based on intergenerational solidarity.