The government approved the draft state budget for 2026 and the updated medium-term budget forecast for the period 2026-2028, which serves as a motive for the law. The three main budgets - the state, the NHIF, and the DOO - this time received broader support in the National Council for Tripartite Cooperation. The budget allocation of the DOO was approved unanimously. However, in the case of the NHIF, the AIKB and the CITUB abstained.
What are their motives?
According to Plamen Dimitrov, president of the CITUB, there is no mechanism for increasing salaries in healthcare, even though the NHIF budget is increasing by about 500 million euros.
“There is no guarantee of anything. There is no money in the treasury for salary increases. The problem is in the distribution“, he commented on Nova TV.
In his words, “for years there has been no clearly defined mechanism for how clinical pathways provide real salaries“, and this is leading to a build-up of tension:
“It is urgent to decide how to finance labor in healthcare. This is done with a collective labor agreement.“
According to him, between 70-80 thousand workers in the sector will be directly affected.
Regarding the large budget, Dimitrov commented that the main goal of the adjustments was to reduce expenses and not increase revenues through new taxes. “This is happening with this budget. A billion and about 200-300 million less will be collected because there is no dividend tax, no social security contributions, no SUPTO“, he specified.
Dimitrov emphasized that the budget is “smaller overall“, and the redistribution of GDP is “far below 45%“. According to him, this was also the expectation of society: “Both income and expenditure to be smaller — this has been achieved.“
The President of the Confederation of Bulgarian Trade Unions described as “scandalous“ the claims that there are “piggy banks“ in the budget salaries:
“Look, there are no piggy banks in pensions and salaries. The salaries of doctors, nurses, and the administration — these are not anyone's piggy banks.“
He described such claims as empty of content and misleading to society.