Summary

  • ITU’s 2025 report records CHF 378.824 million in after-service health insurance liability and CHF 15 million in dedicated assets, about four per cent coverage.
  • Existing measures are narrow: CHF 1 million per biennium, plus a 5.35% of base-salary contribution for staff recruited from 1 January 2026.
  • The Plenipotentiary Conference is asked to take note of the report. Its funding paths are examples, not adopted targets.

A large number, a small verb

The International Telecommunication Union’s 2025 after-service health insurance report ends with an action that sounds almost clerical: the Plenipotentiary Conference should take note. The same report puts the liability at CHF 378.824 million and dedicated assets at CHF 15 million. It describes the fund as about 4% covered and more than 96% unfunded.

That is an actuarial measure at 31 December 2025, not a bill for that amount due tomorrow. The report says current payments can be met. Its finding is about the accumulated value of future health benefits earned by staff, and the resources set aside against them. That distinction matters: this is a long-duration financing decision, not a claim that retirees are about to lose care.

The eye-catching fall from CHF 415.835 million in 2024 to CHF 378.824 million in 2025 does not show a repayment. The report attributes the movement chiefly to revised assumptions: the discount rate rose from 1.40% to 1.80%, while assumed medical-cost inflation fell from 2.40% to 2.20%. The liability moved because the model changed. The dedicated assets did not suddenly grow by CHF 37 million.

Who pays is already being narrowed by cohort

ITU’s current measures allocate CHF 1 million per biennium to the fund. From 1 January 2026, a payroll contribution equivalent to 5.35% of base salary applies to newly recruited staff. It is not a levy on all staff, and it does not establish a funded target for the full obligation.

That design puts a boundary around the mechanism. New entrants begin contributing under a defined rule; the existing liability still spans the wider workforce and future benefit years. The public report does not say how many people had been hired under the rule by the time of PP-26, or how much it had collected. A dated count and receipt total would show the mechanism’s initial scale.

The report says the current measures do not amount to a comprehensive long-term strategy capable of materially reducing the gap in a reasonable timeframe. It offers illustrations instead: 25% coverage in 15 years, 50% in 30, or 75% in 45. One 30-year scenario estimates CHF 5 million to CHF 10 million a year, equivalent to 4–7% of salaries. Shorter timetables require more each year. These are choices placed on the table, not promises the conference has adopted.

“If there is a surplus” is not a contribution rate

The draft 2028–2031 financial plan contains a further opening. Proposed Decision 5 tells the Council, if a budget surplus is achieved, to prioritize an appropriate allocation to the ASHI Fund. It gives no annual rate and no coverage deadline. The clause depends on a surplus arriving, then leaves “appropriate” to a later decision.

The Russian Federation’s separate October proposal asks for a quantified strategy, an impact assessment and a timetable. It suggests pay-as-you-accrue funding and offers 1% of staff costs as one possible rate. That proposal is not policy. Its denominator also differs from ITU’s 5.35% of base salary for new hires, so the two percentages cannot be compared as rival prices for the same base.

The documents therefore leave a precise gap between measurement and authority. The actuarial report measures the obligation; the conference’s requested action merely records it. A draft surplus clause might direct future allocations, while a member proposal would require a quantified path. Neither yet settles the annual contribution, the covered population or the date at which members consider the gap acceptably smaller.

ITU’s Plenipotentiary Conference meets in Doha from 9 to 27 November 2026. Members can ask for a funding target, a timetable and public reporting against both. They can also leave the current design in place. Either choice has consequences over decades. “Take note” is the report’s requested action; it is not a funding plan.

Sources