Please Update your browser

Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.

Jakarta Post

Jokowi raises BPJS Kesehatan premiums, again

  • News Desk

    The Jakarta Post

Jakarta   /   Wed, May 13, 2020   /   06:09 pm
Jokowi raises BPJS Kesehatan premiums, again Residents wait to be served at the Health Care and Security Agency (BPJS Kesehatan) office in Matraman, Central Jakarta, on Nov. 11, 2019. (JP/Dhoni Setiawan)

President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo has raised the premiums for the Health Care and Social Security Agency (BPJS Kesehatan) – roughly two months after the Supreme Court annulled his earlier decision to increase the premiums.

The higher rates are stipulated in Presidential Regulation (Perpres) No. 64/2020 on health insurance signed by Jokowi May 5. The Perpres is the second amendment of the previous regulation, Perpres No. 82/2018, on the same matter.

The new regulation raises the premium for the first-class service to Rp 150,000 (US$10.11) per month per person from Rp 80,000, while almost doubling the cost for the second-class service from Rp 51,000 to Rp 100,000.

The premium for the third-class service was increased by a smaller amount, from Rp 25,500 to Rp 42,000, and the government will provide a Rp 7,000 subsidy for this service category, so participants only have to pay Rp 35,000.

Read also: BPJS Kesehatan to return excess payments as participants continue to pay higher premiums

The decree also states that the premium raise only applies to workers who pay their premiums independently, rather than paying through a cost-sharing structure between employees and employers.

According to the decree, the premium hike takes effect immediately.

BPJS Kesehatan manages Indonesia’s national health insurance (JKN). In October last year, the President signed Perpres No. 75/2019, which stipulated a similar rise for BPJS Kesehatan premiums.

However, the Supreme Court revoked the regulation in March, arguing that the provision violated a number of prevailing laws. (dpk)