**7. Conclusion**

Although CHI had not been envisaged as such at the very beginning of the transitional reforms in Slovenia from the old political, social, and economic system to a new one in 1990–1992, it has taken ground over the past 30 years. This development occurred despite several attempts at abolishing it or transforming it into a different conceptual framework (especially in view of the need for a system approach to longterm care insurance). It has proven to be robust, and it has served to the purpose of buffering some potential negative fallout of the economic crisis from 2009 to 2014. Furthermore, contrary to the most significant and often repeated criticism, namely, that it was a regressive type of health insurance, it has proven to have a good level of transgenerational solidarity. Flat-rate premiums were the trigger to claims of regressivity, but the fact that a healthy population of persons in their 20s and 30s paying the same premiums as those above 65 years of age clearly shows an important lever for solidarity. A very high level of coverage through the inclusion of much of the adult population in the CHI enables such a situation. The intervention with which the Government around 15 years ago protected persons, who for economic reasons

*Complementary Health Insurance in Slovenia DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105150*

cannot pay for the premiums of the CHI serves as another example of solidarity and social correction of socio-economic differences. The more covert aspects of inefficiency, namely, the structure of the provided services and delay in cost-effectiveness measures, are visible only upon a systematic understanding of the health care financing system and therefore rarely discussed and put forward. Generally, productivity is dealt with only indirectly through the pricing of reimbursement criteria set up by HIIS, which has not been updated and endorsed by the medical professional societies.

The most adverse effect of a potential abolishment of CHI would very likely be a system of uninsurable copayments, which would affect the vulnerable layers of the population in Slovenia to a much more significant degree than the flat-rate premiums, with all the introduced adjustments for socially vulnerable, do. We can conclude that amidst strong pressures for either its abolishment or its expansion, the CHI in Slovenia has proven to be an important resource for the stabilisation of health expenditure. Despite it being a private insurance as it is paid after taxes, it bears a very strong public and social component.
