Catherine Vautrin receives Patrick Stefanini and Claude Évin to talk about state medical aid

The government is awaiting the decision of the Constitutional Council on the immigration law on Thursday. At the same time, he is already working on the sensitive subject of state medical aid.

Catherine Vautrin, the new Minister of Labor, Health and Solidarity, receives Thursday January 25 Patrick Stefanini and Claude Évin, the authors of the report on state medical aid, commissioned in the fall by Élisabeth Borne. They will present their work to the minister. The government’s objective remains to move forward fairly quickly, since it was a commitment of the former Prime Minister to LR, in the deal on the immigration law. His successor Gabriel Attal is committed to respecting it. This was discussed when the leaders of the right saw the Prime Minister last week. They came away mixed because it did not “nothing nothing nothing specified, neither on the timetable nor in substance”, we confide on the LR side.

And for good reason, it is an explosive debate within the majority. “It was a sensitive subject before the reshuffle and it remains a sensitive subject,” admits an advisor to the executive, between the right wing which applauds – “fortunately we’re going to keep our word” – and the left wing who breaks into a cold sweat upon hearing “reform” And “SOUL” in the same sentence. “It’s going to be a big problem if we touch it,” warns a deputy, burned by the immigration law, even if one of his colleagues who voted against says she is calm: “if we just review the basket of care a little without touching the principle of state medical aid, that doesn’t bother me.”

A working base

The Evin-Stefanini report, which did not “not ordered to prop up furniture”explains a minister but to serve as a basis for work, reaffirms “utility” of the AME, while proposing some adaptations, such as withdrawing this aid from illegal immigrants who can be deported due to disturbances to public order. Opponents of an overly radical reform have no shortage of arguments since caregivers have stepped up to the plate, but also the president of the ethics committee, Jean-François Delfraissy, who warned against any reform “substantial” who would be “medical and economic nonsense”.

For its part, the right is pushing for a replacement of state medical aid with emergency medical aid. A minister is formal: “The debate is not for or against the AME, it’s settled, we are for it but we can discuss some adaptations”. A MoDem MP has fun: “The LRs will have surprises if we stick to the report because that will mean that we are strengthening state medical aid!”. Its authors suggest, for example, fighting against “non-recourse” by organizing a health check upon arrival in France because half of potential beneficiaries do not apply for AME. The risk with this reform is to make people disappointed: on the right if the government does not go far enough. Or in the majority if the government goes too far.