Health Monitor 2026
Access before costs, but not at any price
The Swiss electorate continues to rate the quality of the healthcare system very positively. At the same time, costs are becoming increasinly important: access to high-quality care remains a key priority, but there is a growing willingness to accept specific restrictions in order to reduce healthcare costs.
High quality remains the foundation
79% of eligible voters rate the quality of the Swiss healthcare system as good or very good. The share of voters giving it the top rating of “very good” has risen particularly clearly, from 24% in 2025 to 32% in 2026. A further 18% describe the quality as fairly good. Negative assessments therefore remain the exception.
There is also a clear view of what defines a high-quality healthcare system. 59% consider good training for medical staff to be one of the most important quality criteria. 55% name easy access to family doctors and specialists in their own region. In third place, 39% mention equal access to new, innovative medicines and therapies.
Although costs play a role in people’s understanding of quality, they are not the main priority. Low health insurance premiums are cited as a key quality indicator by 32 per cent.
Health insurance premiums are moving back into focus
Alongside the positive assessment of quality, the perceived financial burden is rising again. Health insurance premiums are most frequently cited as a persistent or occasional problem: across Switzerland as a whole, this applies to 33 per cent of eligible voters. Dental bills and taxes follow, at 28 per cent each.
Behind these overall figures lie marked differences between language regions. In German-speaking Switzerland, 25% describe health insurance premiums as a problem. The figure is 59% in French-speaking Switzerland and 38% in Italian-speaking Switzerland. Whilst the level of concern in French-speaking Switzerland is declining compared with the high figures of recent years, it is rising again in German-speaking Switzerland and Italian-speaking Switzerland.
Greater willingness to compromise
Quality, broad access to medicines and comprehensive basic health insurance remain important guiding principles. However, when restrictions are explicitly linked to lower healthcare costs, willingness to compromise increases markedly in 2026.
65% would be willing to give up free choice of hospital, compared with 49% in the previous year. 58% would accept restricted access to new modern medicines or treatment methods, up from 41% in 2025. Giving up free choice of doctor is also supported by a majority, at 57%.
Even when it comes to reducing the range of services covered by basic health insurance, acceptance rises from 36% to 50%. By contrast, when respondents are asked how basic insurance should be designed without linking the question to a specific cost reduction, keeping the current level of benefits remains the most common choice at 43%. 30% favour an expansion and 22% a reduction.
Two expectations therefore coexist: healthcare coverage should remain comprehensive overall, but when cost savings are made explicit, people are more willing to accept restrictions on certain choices and services.
Greater priority for primary care and prevention
Priorities are also shifting in the allocation of financial resources. General practitioners and prevention rank first, with 47% wanting more resources to be allocated to each area. 32% would like more funding for psychotherapy and 25% for hospitals.
The trend is different for medicines and vaccine research. During the Covid-19 pandemic, demand for additional investment in this area rose sharply. In 2026, 24% still favour more funding for medicines and vaccine research. 12% want additional spending on medicines and 8% on specialists.
Financial priorities are therefore shifting more strongly towards immediate primary care and disease prevention.
Access to innovation remains important
For innovative therapies, equal access regardless of cost ranks first in 2026. 75% support this principle. At the same time, openness to some financial limits is increasing: 44% believe that the Swiss healthcare system cannot afford unrestricted access to innovative therapies, compared with 35% in the previous year.
The actual availability of new medicines is difficult for many people to assess. One third believe that innovative medicines are more often available in Switzerland than in Germany, while 33% are unable to give an assessment. After respondents were informed that, according to the information presented in the questionnaire, only around half of new innovative medicines are available in Switzerland within the same period as in Germany, 72% considered this situation problematic.
Respondents mainly associate delays with high prices and lengthy procedures. 86% agree with the statement that pharmaceutical companies charge excessively high prices for new medicines. 78% point to the time taken for an approved medicine to be added to the list of medicines reimbursed by health insurers, while 76% cite the duration of review and approval procedures.
A strong pharmaceutical location matters, but acceptance of higher prices is limited
The role of the pharmaceutical industry in healthcare provision is widely recognised. 90% want research, development and production of medicines to remain strongly anchored in Switzerland. 69% believe that weakening Switzerland as a pharmaceutical location could also put healthcare provision at risk in the long term.
Three quarters of respondents also believe that assessments of medicine prices should take into account not only the goal of keeping costs as low as possible, but also Switzerland’s attractiveness to pharmaceutical companies and the availability of new medicines. However, support falls when this trade-off explicitly involves accepting somewhat higher medicine prices: 51% would be prepared to do so if it strengthened jobs, research and security of supply in Switzerland.
The Health Monitor 2026 therefore presents a differentiated picture: access and quality of care remain highly important. At the same time, growing cost pressure is increasingly setting limits on willingness to pay and on unrestricted access to healthcare services.
Methodology
For the Health Monitor 2026, gfs.bern surveyed 1,046 eligible voters in Switzerland on behalf of Interpharma between 28 July and 17 August 2026. Of these, 675 were from German-speaking Switzerland, 248 from French-speaking Switzerland and 123 from Italian-speaking Switzerland. Data were collected using a mixed-mode approach, comprising 202 telephone interviews and 844 online interviews via the Polittrends panel. The data were weighted by factors including settlement type, education, party, age and gender by language, canton and language region. The reported sampling error is ±3.1 percentage points at a 50/50 distribution and a 95% probability level.
Further information is available in the Cockpit in German or French.
