Understanding the UWP’s EC$75,000 NHI Plan: What Voters Should Know

The United Workers Party’s 2025 manifesto, “Reclaiming Our Future”, puts health care front and centre. One of the biggest headline promises is a National Health Insurance (NHI) scheme offering up to EC$75,000 in annual coverage for every Saint Lucian. The plan is listed both in the party’s seven-point SOS programme and in the healthcare chapter of the manifesto as “National Health Insurance with up to $75,000 in annual coverage.”

It sounds big and bold – especially in a country where one serious illness can wipe out a family’s savings. But what does this promise really mean in practice? This article breaks down the proposal in simple terms so that voters can weigh the benefits against the unanswered questions.

1. What exactly is being promised?

According to the manifesto and supporting public statements, the UWP is committing to:

• National Health Insurance for all – every Saint Lucian would be covered under a new NHI system.
• Up to EC$75,000 in annual coverage per person – this is the headline figure that has grabbed public attention.
• Stronger health infrastructure – completion of a “state-of-the-art” St. Jude Hospital, district hospitals in Soufrière and Dennery, upgrades to wellness centres, and a modern health information system with electronic health records.

In simple language, the party is saying: “No matter your income, you will have an insurance umbrella of up to $75,000 a year to help pay for your health care.”

2. What services would the $75,000 cover?

The manifesto confirms the size of the coverage but does not spell out in detail the full “basket of services.” Usually, National Health Insurance plans have a clear list of benefits, for example:

• Doctor and specialist visits
• Hospitalisation and surgery
• Diagnostic tests (X-rays, scans, blood tests)
• Maternity care
• Chronic disease management (diabetes, hypertension, cancer follow-up)
• Medication on an approved list

For voters, one key question is: Will the NHI cover all of these, or only some? Another big question is whether overseas treatment, airlifts or specialised care will be covered at all, especially for conditions that cannot be treated locally.

3. How will the NHI be funded?

Any serious NHI system must answer the money question. Around the world, these schemes are usually funded through:

• Payroll contributions from employees and employers;
• Government revenue (taxes, levies, or a dedicated health fund);
• Premiums or co-payments from individuals;
• or a combination of all three.

The manifesto states the intention to provide up to $75,000 in annual coverage but does not yet give a detailed financing formula. Without that information, it is hard to judge:

• Whether workers will face new payroll deductions;
• Whether businesses will have to pay an additional employer contribution;
• Whether government will rely on higher taxes, new levies, or more borrowing to fund the scheme;
• And most importantly, whether the plan is financially sustainable year after year.

A national promise of $75,000 per person sounds generous, but if the funding model is not clearly explained, voters are effectively being asked to sign a blank cheque.

4. Can the health system actually deliver $75,000 worth of care?

Insurance on paper is one thing. Access to real, quality care is another.

Saint Lucia’s public health system is still under pressure. St. Jude Hospital is not yet fully commissioned. OKEU has struggled with bed space, staff shortages, and equipment challenges. Many wellness centres do not have regular doctors or a full range of services. Private care exists, but it is often costly.

For NHI to work in a meaningful way, three things must happen at the same time:

1. Facilities must be upgraded – functioning hospitals, well-equipped clinics, reliable ambulances and diagnostic services.
2. Human resources must be strengthened – more doctors, nurses, lab technicians, pharmacists and support staff, properly paid and retained.
3. Systems must be modernised – electronic health records, clear referral pathways, and strict standards for quality of care.

If these pieces lag behind, then even with a $75,000 insurance limit, patients could still face long waiting times, limited services and the need to travel overseas at their own expense.

5. What are the potential benefits if the plan is done properly?

If designed and funded well, National Health Insurance could bring important advantages:

• Protection from catastrophic health bills – fewer families pushed into poverty by one illness.
• More equal access to care – not only the well-off or well-connected get timely treatment.
• Better public health outcomes – earlier diagnosis, better management of chronic diseases, and a healthier workforce.
• More predictable health financing – the State and households can plan better when costs are pooled.

In that sense, the UWP’s focus on National Health Insurance is responding to a real need in the country. The question is not whether health reform is necessary – it is. The real issue is whether this particular design is realistic and backed by a clear implementation roadmap.

6. The big questions voters should ask

As campaigns heat up and slogans get louder, voters should cut through the noise and ask a few calm, serious questions:

• Is the $75,000 figure based on actuarial analysis, or is it mainly a political headline?
• Will I, as a worker or business owner, be required to pay a contribution, and how much?
• What exact services are covered under the NHI basket? What is excluded?
• How will this new NHI interact with existing public services and private insurance plans?
• What is the timeline for rolling out the scheme, and what are the milestones?
• Most importantly: will the promised hospital and clinic upgrades happen before or after the NHI goes live?

7. Conclusion: Hopeful idea, but details matter

The EC$75,000 National Health Insurance proposal is one of the most eye-catching promises in the UWP manifesto. For households struggling with medical expenses, it speaks directly to their fears and dreams – the hope that no one will have to choose between treatment and putting food on the table.

However, real health reform lives and dies on the details: how it is funded, how it is phased in, how strong the supporting health infrastructure is, and how transparent the government is with the public about costs and trade-offs.

As Saint Lucians head toward the polls, it is worth celebrating ambitious ideas – but it is even more important to demand clear answers, honest numbers and a realistic plan behind every promise. Only then can voters truly decide whether the $75,000 NHI plan is a genuine game changer or just another campaign headline.