Éliane works in a small construction company in the north of the Paris region. Two years ago, her boss, who was retiring, wanted to hand over the reins to her, which this “old lady” of the company accepted with enthusiasm. He has to gather the funds, take out a loan to buy back his employer’s shares. But just as she began dealing with the banks, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Éliane must first overcome the illness and it is only once “complete remission” has been announced that she resumes her search for credit without suspecting that she will suffer a double punishment. “Before,” she says, “the banks rolled out the red carpet. The company is doing well. Relations were good with our financiers. » But, from being a “good customer”, Éliane became “guilty” of having succumbed to a serious illness. She approaches several banks, and always the same answer: the future business manager presents an “aggravated health risk”. Éliane is no longer “solvent” and must therefore take out insurance. It will take her more than a year to find an insurer and another year to be able to finalize the loan that will allow her to buy the business. All this at a high price, because she had to suffer “surcharges” which could go up to 200% of the normal rate.
The problem is not new and has already been the subject of regulations, in 2001 with the Belorgey agreement, then 2007 with the Aeras agreement which set itself the mission of significantly reducing the number of loan refusals for lack of insurance. The French Federation of Insurance Companies published, in September 2009, an initial assessment for the year 2009: 173,000 requests presented “an aggravated health risk”, or 10.9% of files representing a “slightly higher” proportion. in 2008. The federation is pleased that only 1.1% of requests were dismissed. But specifies that the requests have “been the subject of an insurance proposal covering at least the risk of death”. However, one of the challenges of the Aeras agreement was to also cover the risk of disability and, from this point of view, the results are much more nuanced. For this risk, “insurers were only able to respond positively to 24% of requests,” writes the insurance federation modestly. As for the “sanctions”, they apply widely: 51% of these contracts are “without extra premium” but with “exclusion or limitation of guarantees”. The others are surcharged (between less than 50% and more than 200%), sometimes also with exclusions of guarantees.
Faced with this blockage, a new round of negotiations on “the insurability of people with increased risk” opened last Friday, bringing together representatives of the government, banks and insurance companies, sick and consumer associations. . One of the challenges remains to force financial institutions to cover the risk of disability. Ten to twelve million people are affected by the Aeras agreement. The government says it is waiting for “ambitious changes”, with Christine Largarde, Minister of the Economy, estimating that “covering the risk of death is not enough”. But, the National Federation (Fnath) is concerned, “despite the firm commitments that had been made, no improvement has been implemented on this issue”. The Association of Work Injured and Disabled Persons, signatory of the Aeras convention, warns this time that it will not be able to “be satisfied with promises and other commitments without substance”, as access to credit and insurance is “at the center of the fight against discrimination”.
Paule Masson
2023-12-24 03:10:00
#Bank #loans #double #punishment #sick #LHumanité
