Cantonal differences Audit office identifies gaps in supplementary benefits
The Swiss Federal Audit Office praises the implementation of the 2021 supplementary benefits reform, but points out cantonal differences and gaps in supervision.
04.11.2024, 23:04
SDA
No time? blue News summarizes for you
- The Swiss Federal Audit Office (SFAO) rates the implementation of the 2021 reform of supplementary benefits as positive overall.
- However, it notes that cantonal differences can lead to unequal treatment and sees potential for improvement in supervision by the Federal Social Insurance Office.
- The SFAO recommends expanding the risk analysis and supervisory instruments to ensure uniform implementation.
According to the SFAO, the reform of supplementary benefits that came into force in 2021 is being implemented well overall. However, it identifies unequal treatment in some cases depending on the canton and continued gaps in supervision.
Supplementary benefits provide people who receive an AHV or IV pension with a minimum income. In 2022, expenditure for this amounted to CHF 5.5 billion. Two thirds of EL are financed by the cantons, the rest by the federal government.
The EL reform introduced numerous new regulations. For example, after the death of EL recipients, their heirs are now obliged to reimburse the benefits received. This is intended to reduce EL expenditure.
Cantonal differences
The Swiss Federal Audit Office (SFAO) audited the implementation of the reform at three cantonal offices in Bern, St. Gallen and Geneva - and came to an overall positive conclusion in its report published on Monday. However, differences were found that could lead to unequal treatment of EL recipients from different cantons.
The Federal Social Insurance Office (FSIO) confirmed the cantonal differences in its statement on the report. However, these are not an indication of unlawful implementation, but are rather due to the cantonal differences in terms of socio-demographic structures, labor market situation and the like.
"These differences therefore represent neither a financial risk nor unequal treatment of EL recipients," writes the FSIO. The results of the SFAO's evaluation are therefore very positive, as no specific errors were found.
Improve supervision
According to the SFAO, there is also room for improvement in the supervision exercised by the federal government over the FSIO. Various points have been improved since the last audit. The risk analysis introduced at the level of the AHV compensation funds is not sufficient to cover the benefits in the area of EL.
Against this background, the SFAO feels compelled, according to the report, to reformulate its recommendation on the supervision of EL. Specifically, it recommends that the FSIO supplement its risk analysis and introduce a concept and the necessary supervisory instruments to better monitor compliance with and uniformity of EL implementation in the cantons.
The FSIO wrote that it would supplement its risk analysis and its supervisory concept for the EL. It will also demand more detailed reporting from the audit offices for the EL audit. However, this approach will not reduce the diversity of the cantonal situations.
Additional costs
Elisabeth Baume-Schneider, the Minister of the Interior responsible for the FSIO, backed up the Federal Office's position. In a federalist system, it is difficult to achieve "egalitarian" results, especially when it comes to combating poverty. However, she shares the SFAO's view "that all suitable instruments should be used to ensure that tasks are performed efficiently".
According to Baume-Schneider, the implementation of the additional auditing measures recommended by the SFAO will result in considerable costs. An estimate by the FSIO puts these at around CHF 1.6 million. "The question arises as to who should bear these costs." Without additional funding, the FSIO will hardly be in a position to carry out this additional audit.
