They denounce what they call a “blind plane” of the Social Security budget. Biologists announced on Wednesday October 26 that they will stop feeding the national Covid screening test file (SI-Dep) from Thursday.
As part of the Social Security financing bill (PLFSS), analysis laboratories have been ordered to lower the prices of their routine examinations (excluding Covid-19 screening tests). The government plans, thanks to this measure, to achieve 250 million euros in savings in 2023.
“Faced with the deafness of the public authorities, we have decided to suspend the transmission of screening data on the SI-Dep platform from October 27”declares to Agence France-Presse the president of the Alliance for medical biology, Alain Le Meur.
If patients will continue to receive their results, “there will no longer be any possible follow-up of the epidemic”, he warns. Laboratories will no longer be reimbursed by Medicare – their loss of earnings is estimated at 14 million euros per week.
“Already high profitability before the crisis”
The profession thus intends ” send a message “ to the government, which has not modified its PLFSS, providing “a reduction in prices by order” in the absence of a “deal with significant savings” before 1uh February, at height “of at least 250 million”.
“We assume to ask for efforts from the biology laboratories”repeated the Minister of Public Accounts, Gabriel Attal, Tuesday in the Senate, justifying the measure by “Already high profitability before the crisis” and still accumulates by an addition of more than 7 billion “testing revenue” for two years.
The biologists have however proposed to limit the puncture to the year 2023 alone, in respect of the benefits resulting from the increase in their activity due to Covid-19. “Okay for an exceptional contribution, but not for a totally blind plane”summarizes Mr. Le Meur, who warns that biologists are “capable of going longer”until “a strike if the government does not [les] not include “.
The examination of the budget of the “Safety” in the Assembly, interrupted by the use of 49.3 on the “income” part, resumed Wednesday evening on the “expenditure” section, where the disputed article appears.