WILLEMSTAD - The Social Insurance Bank (SVB) is not allowed to unilaterally terminate the care contract with an obstetrician when the midwife turns 65. This is stated by the Court in Willemstad, which points to unlawful age discrimination and the lack of authority to terminate the contract based on age.
The National Ordinance Basic Health Insurance was introduced in 2013, among other things in the context of a health care reform process due to the financial situation of the Country of Curaçao.
In order to achieve cost savings in healthcare, further criteria were drawn up in 2019, including an age limit for reaching retirement age.
However, the SVB has not concluded a healthcare contract with obstetricians and other medical professionals. Termination of this under the rules from 2013 and 2019 is therefore not an issue.
The legal relationship is determined by the 1960 Social Insurance Scheme, which does not authorize the SVB to terminate the legal relationship with the obstetrician because she has reached the age of 65.
Age discrimination
There is prohibited age discrimination if the application thereof would treat equal cases unequally by the SVB without there being an objective and reasonable justification.
The application of mandatory retirement age is a form of age discrimination, according to the Court. It is true that the obstetrician is not an SVB employee who is obliged to retire, but she does depend on SVB-insured persons for the majority of her income in her practice. In fact, she will no longer be able to operate her practice profitably after reaching the age of 65, the Court concluded.
According to the court, the Explanatory Memorandum to the 2019 regulation does not sufficiently show that the age limit is an appropriate and necessary means of achieving cost savings in healthcare.
This applies not only in the case of the claimant with her midwifery profession but also to all other medical professionals within the meaning of the 2019 regulation.
GPs
Earlier, SVB got the reprimanded when it wanted to oblige GPs to retire at the age of 65. The judge also concluded that there was age discrimination.
Painful for the government, because the Court also found that age discrimination does not lead to more efficient care.