Pensions, medical deductibles, work stoppages… The issues that risk igniting the chamber during discussions on the Social Security budget

The text, which provides for no less than 17.5 billion euros in savings, is debated in the Palais-Bourbon arena from Tuesday. The government has put measures on the table that divide the political class, even if Sébastien Lecornu says he is ready to renounce some of them.

The deputies may still be struggling with the finance bill (PLF), but they will now have to tackle the Social Security budget (PLFSS). Members of the Social Affairs Committee have already had a week of lively debates on this issue, which ended with a rejection of the text on Friday evening. It is therefore the initial version, presented by the government, which will be examined in the hemicycle, from Tuesday November 4.

The PLFSS plans no less than 17.5 billion euros in savings in 2026. By the admission of the Minister of Health, Stéphanie Rist, interviewed on Saturday in West France, “this budget requires efforts from everyone. From policyholders, as well as from all Social Security stakeholders”. “A good part of the museum of horrors is found in the Social Security financing bill. It will be a bitter moment of parliamentary debate, of power struggles”for his part warned the leader of the socialist deputies, Boris Vallaud, in La Tribune Sunday.

The government has put measures on the table that divide the political class, even if the Prime Minister, Sébastien Lecornu, says he is ready to renounce some of them. Here are the points from the text which are likely to liven up the debates until November 12.

The suspension of pension reform

The socialists made a condition for non-censorship of the government: the suspension of the 2023 pension reform, by a corrective letter (PDF). The text suspends the progression towards age 64 until January 2028, as does the increase in the number of quarters to contribute in order to start at full rate. The measure will cost 400 million euros in 2026 and 1.8 billion in 2027, according to the government.

In committee, the text was approved by 22 votes to 12, before the overall text was rejected. Elected officials from the National Rally and the Socialist Party voted in favor. “It’s just a small postponement” but useful for “France that works”explained elected RN Thomas Ménage. The favorable vote allows “continue the discussion” with the government, for his part justified the socialist Jérôme Guedj.

The deputies from Les Républicains and Horizons voted against this suspension, as did those from La France insoumise, for diametrically opposed reasons. The former want the reform to be maintained, the latter believe that voting in favor of its suspension amounts to approving a departure horizon of 64 years, even if delayed.

For their part, the Environmentalists abstained, asking for the integration of long careers into the system and different financing avenues not relying on the insured. The Renaissance deputies made the same choice, but for their part in order not to hinder the “discussion” budget, while the MoDem was divided between abstentions and votes for.

The freezing of social benefits

The financing of the suspension of the pension reform was initially to be based on supplementary health insurance and pensions, notably via an under-indexation of pensions in relation to inflation. In the version initially defended by the government, the PLFSS provides for the “freezing of all basic pensions” in 2026 as well as a freeze on social benefits (family allowances, active solidarity income, personalized housing assistance, etc.) usually indexed to inflation. The draft budget also foresees longer-term savings, under-indexing pensions by 0.9 points in 2027, then by 0.4 points for the following years until 2030.

But these measures upset some of the deputies. The Prime Minister himself said he was ready to let go. After the rejection of the amendments to establish the Zucman tax, fiercely defended by the socialists, Sébastien Lecornu announced that “the government (was) in favor of looking at all the amendments which will unfreeze retirement pensions”before making a similar declaration for social minimums. The idea of ​​a “blank year” has already been rejected in committee by the oppositions.

Doubling of medical deductibles

This is another measure rejected in committee. The government wants to double the amount and the ceilings “flat rate contributions and deductibles relating to care procedures or medications”, these small amounts remaining the responsibility of patients during a medical consultation or the purchase of a treatment.

The deductible on boxes of medicine and paramedical procedures is thus increased to 2 euros, the flat-rate contribution on medical procedures to 4 euros and the deductible on medical transport to 8 euros, according to the text written by the government. The executive also wants to extend this logic to consultations with dentists and medical devices, as highlighted article 18 of the PLFSS. The insured “the most fragile”or around 18 million people, will not be affected, the Minister of Health promised on franceinfo.

Health Insurance expenses

Health expenses (including those linked to the operation of hospitals) naturally increase each year by around 4%, due in particular to the aging of the population. But the PLFSS sets a national health insurance spending objective of 270.4 billion euros in 2026, an increase of only 1.6% compared to 2025. During the committee debates, elected officials rejected these forecasts. The Prime Minister opened the door to “loosen(r) a little bit of pressure on the savings as envisaged by the government (…) on the hospital”.

Limiting the first work stoppage to fifteen days

The government proposes to limit the duration of the first work stoppage to fifteen days, if it is prescribed by a town doctor, and thirty days in hospital. Any extension will also be limited to two months. Doctors may, however, deviate from the ceiling provided for “with regard to the patient’s situation” and motivating it on their prescription. To justify this measure, the government points in particular to the growth in spending on daily allowances.

This article was adopted in committee. Its defenders plead for follow-up “more regular for patients, therefore a reassessment of their state of health at the best possible pace”according to the general rapporteur of the text, Thibault Bazin (LR). But his detractors see it as a way of“interfere in the relationship between patient and doctor”as highlighted by La France insoumise MP Ségolène Amiot. She points out a potential lack of visibility for employers wanting to “provide a replacement” with a first stop limited to 15 days. Furthermore, this limitation “assumes that the increase in work stoppages is an increase in fraud and this is false”points out Hendrik Davi, from the environmental group.