Conference Agenda

This paper examines the normative challenges posed by participation in high-risk sports within the framework of social (health) insurance systems. It draws on a recent amendment to the Slovenian compulsory health insurance legislation that sought to limit, or even exclude, coverage of health care costs arising from participation in “high-risk leisure activities”. Although the proposal was ultimately withdrawn, it triggered an important debate about the boundaries of solidarity and individual responsibility within publicly funded health insurance.

The contribution explores the underlying tension between the solidarity principle, which underpins compulsory health insurance, and the idea that individuals who voluntarily assume heightened risks should bear greater financial responsibility for the consequences. While social insurance traditionally operates on collective risk-sharing and universal coverage, the increasing prevalence of high-risk activities such as mountaineering, mountain or road biking, for example, challenges established assumptions about equal access to benefits irrespective of personal choices.

The analysis situates the Slovenian proposal within a broader constitutional and theoretical framework, addressing principles such as equality before the law, proportionality, private autonomy, and the social state principle. Particular attention is paid to the conceptual distinction between socially acceptable and socially excessive risk.

By critically assessing the withdrawn legislative initiative, the paper argues that restricting coverage raises complex constitutional and systemic concerns. Any attempt to recalibrate solidarity in compulsory health insurance must be carefully justified, proportionate, and consistent with the foundational commitment of social security systems to universality and equal treatment, as well as the idea of promoting, not limiting, personal freedoms.