During the debate on her relevant urgent parliamentary question in the House of Representatives, Milena Apostolaki accused the government of being unwilling to protect thousands of insured individuals from the unbearable increases in health insurance premiums
As noted in the relevant press release, the PASOK MP raised the critical issue of new increases ranging from 9% to 13% on lifetime hospital insurance policies, pointing out that insurance companies are citing a new adjustment index, which has not yet been published, resulting in thousands of citizens —especially older policyholders—facing unbearable financial burdens without meaningful protection from the State.
Although Deputy Minister L. Tsavdaridis claimed that there is no regulatory gap, subsequently stating that the new adjustment index will be published in June, he essentially acknowledged the absence of a regulatory framework for a long period of time, without, however, providing clear answers to critical questions regarding the legality of the increases, the need for temporary protection of policyholders, and oversight of insurance companies.
“The government has chosen to act as a detached observer in the face of the financial suffocation of thousands of policyholders. If it weren’t for pressure from PASOK, we wouldn’t have the Deputy Minister’s statement today announcing the new adjustment index at the end of June.
The fact that the government was dragged into today’s announcement clearly highlights its deliberate maneuvering, which has long led to an unregulated environment designed to facilitate unjustified and abusive increases and force thousands of policyholdersto be forced to abandon their lifetime contracts,” the PASOK MP noted pointedly.
She also highlighted Decision No. 2196/2025 of the Council of State, which confirmed the unfairness of the terms used in insurance policies regarding premium increases. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that terms allowing for premium increases must be specific and fully understandable so that the insured can foresee the financial consequences of their contract in advance; otherwise, such terms are unfair, directly violate the principle of transparency, and upset the contractual balance to the detriment of the consumer.