Why occupational health insurance (OHI) is gaining importance
Occupational health insurance (OHI) is increasingly evolving into an additional component of modern compensation and benefits strategies. The planned reform of statutory health insurance (GKV) is expected to further reinforce this trend. The current draft bill is still undergoing parliamentary approval; it is expected to be passed by the Bundestag before the summer recess in early July 2026, although further substantive changes remain possible.
What is certain, however, is that under the public health insurance system employees will face some cutbacks. From 2027 the planned changes will include higher patient contributions for medicines, dental prosthetics will become more expensive (the public health insurance subsidy will decrease from 60% to 50%), patient contributions for inpatient hospital stays will rise, family insurance coverage will be restricted, and costs for homeopathic medicines will no longer be reimbursed.
As a result, personal contributions for insured employees will increase. OHI can provide targeted relief in this regard and can help improve employees’ access to healthcare.
For companies, OHI is becoming an increasingly effective tool for attracting and retaining talent, whilst contributing to positioning themselves as modern, forward-looking employers.
If you are interested in tailored OHI solutions for your workforce, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Retirement Savings Account as a New Start for the Riester Pension
The Retirement Savings Account is set to launch on January 1, 2027, as the successor to the Riester pension. As part of the reform of subsidized private pension provision, it will also be possible to open a tax-advantaged investment account without being obliged to provide a guaranteed return, thereby offering greater potential for investment returns than the frequently disappointing Riester pension.
The plan involves providing support through allowances, tax benefits, and a cost cap on the so-called “standard product.” The Riester pension will not be abolished immediately; existing Riester contracts and credit balances can be transferred to the new model.
The future subsidy program differs from the previous Riester subsidy program in three main aspects: Instead of a complex subsidy system consisting of a basic allowance, a child allowance, a special tax deduction for expenses that takes the allowance into account, and the requirement for a minimum individual contribution, the subsidy now consists of a 50 per cent grant on the first €360 of personal contributions, followed by a 25 per cent subsidy up to the subsidy ceiling, meaning that the basic subsidy amounts to €540 per year. In future, the maximum child allowance will remain at €300 per child.
Annual Financial Statements of the Pension Security Association (PSVaG) for 2025
According to the annual report for 2025 submitted by the PSV, whilst the number of insolvency cases covered by the PSV rose by 20% to 614, the number of new beneficiaries to be covered fell to 37,400 (compared to 48,600 in 2024). As a result, the total claims volume in 2025 fell slightly from €703 million in the previous year to €653 million.
For 2026, there are signs of another increase in insolvency cases. In the first quarter, the number of new insolvency filings was nearly 30% higher than in the previous year. However, as a significant proportion of the insolvency proceedings filed in 2025 were not opened until 2026—meaning that the loss volume in 2025 was lower than originally assumed when the insolvency contribution at 1.2 per thousand was set, and investment returns performed better than expected—substantial funds could be allocated to the compensation fund (currently €3.6 billion) and the provision for contributions refunds.
Overall, despite the current insolvency situation, to date only a moderate increase in the premium rate for 2026 is expected.
The Reversal of the Burden of Proof Under the New Pay Transparency Directive (EUPTD) – Significance and Consequences
Even though Germany has not yet managed to transpose the directive into national law within the specified timeframe, the EUPTD will in the future grant employees not only extended rights to obtain information (see Art. 5(1), Art. 6(1), and Art. 7(1) EUPTD) and claims for damages (see Art. 16 EUPTD), but it has also made it significantly easier for them to assert their rights.
An important tool in this regard is the so-called reversal of the burden of proof. Whereas employees previously had to allege and prove that the employer had breached a duty (for example, in the form of unequal treatment), the burden of proof for ensuring proper compensation of employees will in the future fall on the employer (see Art. 18(1) EUPTD).
A distinction must be made between two cases here:
According to Art. 18(1) EUPTD, an employee needs only to present facts that give rise to the presumption of direct or indirect discrimination. The employer then bears the burden of proof presenting evidence to demonstrate that there is no direct or indirect pay discrimination.
In the second case, pursuant to Art. 18(2) EUPTD, where administrative or judicial proceedings are brought on the grounds that the employer has failed to fulfil, or has not fully fulfilled, the obligations laid down in Articles 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of the EUPTD, the employer must prove that there has been no direct or indirect discrimination, or that the breach of the obligations laid down in Articles 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of the EUPTD was minor and clearly unintentional.
So think twice before tying the knot – or the disadvantage under inheritance tax law of being merely a common-law partner
In its ruling of April 25, 2026 (4 K 2179/25), the Munich Family Court decided that the taxation of a survivor’s benefit from an employee-funded direct insurance policy (salary conversion) for a non-married partner is permissible from an income and inheritance tax perspective.
It is arguably indisputable that, from an income tax perspective, the survivor’s benefit constitutes an income of funds to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff refused to acknowledge that this also constituted a financial benefit arising upon death (see § 3(1)(4) ErbStG) and was therefore subject to inheritance tax.
Accordingly, the subject of the dispute was not the treatment of the survivor’s benefit under income tax law, but rather the additional inheritance tax liability, which the plaintiff considered impermissible.
The court made it clear , however, that the plaintiff, as the decedent’s partner, did not meet the eligibility criteria set forth in §§ 46–48 of SGB VI for receiving a pension from the decedent’s statutory pension insurance—namely, a widow’s, parent’s, or orphan’s pension—and that, consequently, the inheritance tax liability could not be waived even on an exceptional basis. The court also found no violation of Article 14(1) of the German Constitution (GG) and thus of the so-called “prohibition of excessive burden.”
Furthermore, even if the application of § 35b of the German Income Tax Act (EStG) led to a corresponding reduction in the tax burden, ultimately approximately 60% of the amount went to the tax authorities in the case in question.
Continuing Employment While Receiving a Pension and the Impact on Occupational Pension Plans
Demographic trends in Germany are increasingly leading employees to want to continue working beyond the statutory retirement age.
At the same time, companies are becoming ever more reliant on these employees due to the pervasive shortage of skilled workers.
On top of which, many employees find the abrupt transition to retirement challenging: in addition to financial considerations, the enjoyment they derive from their work and their social integration also play a major role. This opens up various options for the design of occupational pension plans.
For example, long-term insured persons in particular, as defined by Section 38 of Book VI of the Social Code (SGB VI), may already receive a deduction free pension at age 65 and still continue working.
However, receiving a full pension while continuing to work can result in the loss of sick pay entitlement, with the consequence that, if additional income is lost due to illness over an extended period, significant gaps in coverage may arise. One current solution here is to receive a partial pension, even if it amounts to 99.99%.
This raises the fundamental question of how to proceed with existing company pension plans, which are often not designed to address such scenarios. Consequently, there is an increased need for advice in this area, which companies should not take lightly.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions on this topic!
