The ongoing debate surrounding Luxembourg’s implementation of the “Right to be forgotten” (RTBF) has gained momentum following recent parliamentary motions. These motions raise concerns over access to life insurance, pension plans and bank loans for individuals who have recovered from serious health conditions, such as cancer, hepatitis C or HIV, amongst others. The RTBF framework, which has been in place since 2020, aims to protect individuals from discrimination by insurers once they have fully recovered from an aggravated health risk. However, significant challenges and disparities have emerged.
Current framework and limitations
In Luxembourg, the RTBF is not legally binding but is based on a between the ministry of health and social security and the Luxembourg Insurance and Reinsurance Association (Aca). This agreement primarily applies to “Assurance Solde Restant Dû” (ASRD), which covers outstanding balance insurance for mortgage loans, especially for purchasing primary residences or professional premises. The limits coverage to a maximum loan amount of €1m, which the ministry of health argues is “relatively high compared to other member states.”
However, this framework has come under increasing scrutiny. Members of parliament from both the opposition and the ruling coalition have raised concerns about its limited scope and effectiveness. While the initiative has been praised for reducing discrimination within the insurance sector, it does not extend to all forms of insurance, particularly complementary health contracts or pension plans. As a result, many former patients remain at a disadvantage when seeking comprehensive financial protection. The exact number of people affected remains unclear, as “In Luxembourg, insurers do not track how many people benefit from the ‘Right to be Forgotten,’ since individuals are not required to declare a disease they have recovered from,” clarified the ministry.
Reform calls
On 22 January 2025, opposition members urging the government to reassess and potentially reform the RTBF policy, although their proposal was declined. The motion emphasised the growing need to protect citizens’ rights to equal access to insurance products, particularly for those who have been in full remission from severe health conditions. They argued that such individuals should not face discrimination based on their medical histories, and extending the RTBF to cover a broader range of conditions could promote greater social and economic equality. The motion also pointed to the limitations of the current agreement, particularly the exclusion of certain health conditions and the lack of a legal framework to protect against potential abuses. Opposition MPs cited the examples of France and Belgium, where similar “Right to be Forgotten” laws have been adopted, enabling shorter waiting periods and broader coverage. They highlighted , which enshrines the RTBF in law, and , which provides shorter delays and more comprehensive provisions for insurance access.
Government’s stance
In contrast, MPs from the ruling coalition, in a separate , expressed support for the RTBF but emphasised that any reform should be approached cautiously, ensuring a thorough evaluation of the existing framework before any expansion. The Luxembourg agreement, in place for over four years, has reportedly produced positive results, particularly in facilitating access to mortgage insurance for individuals with aggravated health risks. However, government officials recognise that further refinements may be needed, particularly in relation to other forms of insurance.
The ministry of health, in a reply to Paperjam, acknowledged the differences in the implementation of the RTBF across countries. The ministry explained that “the real estate market in Belgium and France is significantly larger, allowing for broader riskpooling by insurers”, allowing for more generous coverage.
The coalition government has committed to a comprehensive review of the RTBF agreement, with a monitoring committee tasked with evaluating its impact and identifying potential improvements. This committee includes representatives from insurers, reinsurance companies, patient associations and health authorities, making it a multi-stakeholder body designed to balance the needs of affected individuals with the interests of the insurance market.
“While the necessity of drafting a law is not currently imperative, its feasibility is being evaluated as part of a comprehensive review of the convention,” the ministry told Paperjam.
Outlook
While the MPs from both sides agree on the importance of ensuring that citizens, particularly those who have fully recovered from serious health conditions, are not unfairly denied access to essential financial products, they diverge on how to achieve this. The opposition advocates for an extension of the RTBF to cover more types of insurance and a reduction in waiting periods for former patients, while the government insists on a cautious approach to thoroughly assess the existing framework before expanding its scope. Central to the debate is the need for a legal and regulatory foundation that strikes a balance between protecting individual rights and ensuring the stability of the insurance market. “The convention in Luxembourg is functioning well,” concluded the ministry.
The insurance and reinsurance industry association, Aca, which has the voluntary agreement with the ministry of health, did not respond to requests for comment from Paperjam.