In order to show that contributions to compensation funds are a source of redistribution of wealth made by businessmen and that these entities can be allies of the Government in its social policies, this week the Asocajas Congress will deliberate in Cartagena. Adriana Guillén, executive president of the guildspoke with Portfolio of proposals that they will make to the Government and of the concerns about the health reform that would include the end of the EPS.
(Read: Government admits drug shortages but denies shortages).
What will be the central message in the Congress?
We want to show public opinion how to redistribute income in the family compensation system. It is important to understand, first, that this is a social benefit. And, secondly, that this contribution from the employers is an atypical parafiscal, and the Constitutional Court has said so in several rulings, which means that the resources do not belong to the State, but belong to the workers and we want that to be in shop.
Will they talk about inclusion?
The country’s workers are heterogeneous, we have female heads of households and Afro-descendants, an indigenous population, people with disabilities, older adults, and we want to make visible those who attend the savings banks in different programs, also with the idea of starting to provide differentiated attention. And we will talk about the concept of inclusion and dignity.
What is it about?
We want to show that the fact that a worker is formal does not mean that he is not vulnerable. If a woman is the head of a family, has two children and earns a minimum wage, when divided among three people, that group is below the poverty line, but since they are formal, they escape the focus of State programs.
Precisely, the boxes are focused on that population that earns less than two minimum wages, in the system it is almost 76%. We want to demonstrate that it is a source of redistribution of the wealth that the employer contributes and how that contribution of $480,000 a year by a worker who earns a minimum wage can be returned to $34 million thanks to monetary contributions, scholarships, housing subsidies and aid to the unemployed, among other programs that we will show. It helps them move away from that poverty line and consolidate them into the middle class. We will show the programs we have to help them.
(See: There is concern in the health sector about a possible reform of the system).
Adriana Guillén, president of Asocajas.
private file
What are the general figures of the system?
Last year it was $8.4 billion, spread over a population of 10.3 million affiliated workers and 10.6 million beneficiary family members.
What expectations do you have with the wave of reforms proposed by the Government?
We are a very interesting actor for the Government because of the social line it has and because of our experience, here the concept of collaborative governance can materialize.
I have heard the Minister of Housing saying that they want to maintain the competition of subsidies and generate rural subsidies, which interests us. We want to introduce you to the possibility of having subsidies for the purchase of used housing, something that would be very interesting for middle-class workers. As for the Ministry of Labor, the minister has said that she wants to review unemployment assistance in order to eliminate access barriers and we can work on that.
Aren’t you afraid that in the labor reform they want to touch the sector?
We have always been on that spectrum. What one has to review is its redistributive effect and how that contribution can be seen as an investment. This is a social benefit and cannot be eliminated per se because of what I mentioned before, for this to be done – which would be highly regressive – it would have to have a very important justification. The elimination of one or two points would have very serious consequences for social policy.
And the health issue?
It has us worried, like everyone else, because we believe with the greatest respect that the elimination of this actor – the EPSs – does not solve structural problems. Last year, for example, of the 92,000 guardianships that were presented to the system, a large majority had to do with the opportunity in care and here the problem is a lack of personnel in certain specialties.
(Read more: Health Concern: America, Epicenter of Monkeypox.)
What other problems does the system have?
You have to look at the sufficiency of the UPC and how far the State or whoever is going to go in services. We are very afraid that a change like the one being proposed will actually lead to people who have the possibility continuing to pay for health policies and those who do not receive a service under different conditions, unless they make sure that territorial entities are going to provide it in a very effective way.
Is there talk of an intermediation that is not efficient?
But you have to look at why it is not efficient. If there are no professionals, the claim is for the EPS, but if that actor is eliminated, who will be claimed later?
Regarding the medical cost, the EPS make a very good financial balance so that this UPC is sufficient. It is undeniable that many do not have technical or financial reserves to continue operating and what we have seen is a skimming of the market in which those with capacity are remaining.
The question is whether we are ready for those people who are with those robust EPS to be left without them and pass on to whom, under what conditions, who is going to tell the patient what the route is. In all that we have observed, we have not been told what will happen to the patient when the actor is eliminated, when it will happen, if there will be a transition, what will happen to the IPS. We are missing a bit of the film.
Constanza Gomez Guasca
Add Comment