Emmi Zeulner, a healthcare expert with the Christian Social Union (CSU), has called for amendments to the care reform draft bill put forth by Federal Health Minister Nina Warken (CDU). Her primary criticism focuses on the proposal to reduce the pension points awarded to family caregivers.
Speaking to “Spiegel”, Zeulner emphasized the significant impact on women, stating that “many women-and primarily women-reduce their working hours to care for relatives in need.” She firmly opposed the idea that these individuals should be penalized with lower retirement benefits for their caregiving efforts, stating that the CSU would not allow this to happen.
Furthermore, Zeulner demanded a risk equalization mechanism that would incorporate private insurers and civil servants into the funding of the social care insurance. She argued that without this equalization, the care funds are disadvantaged in financing their services. She noted that private insurance companies might reject individuals with pre-existing conditions, and that data shows a link between education and better health among civil servants. These factors, she argued, cause many people with high care risk to accumulate primarily within the statutory system.
Her suggestion mirrors the calls from the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Greens for a universal insurance model within healthcare. Regarding care, she pointed out that benefits are already virtually uniform in practice. She questioned the logic of maintaining separate systems with varying risks and financial challenges when the benefits offered are already the same.
As the CSU’s Union chair in the Bundestag’s Health Committee, Zeulner’s position deviates from her own party line, which advocates for cuts and greater co-payment by families. Recently, CSU Vice-Chair Albert Stegemann (CDU) had called for children of care recipients to contribute more significantly to paying for care placements, suggesting the current income threshold-which exempts children earning less than €100,000 annually-should be lowered. Zeulner strongly disagreed with this, arguing that keeping the current threshold provides necessary room for young families and strengthens the concept of eligibility, a principle she stated her party had fought hard to defend.
