Is private health insurance worth it for employees on a €100,000 salary?

Under § 6 (6) SGB V, the regular Jahresarbeitsentgeltgrenze in 2026 is €77,400. A regular annual income of €100,000 is therefore above this threshold. If the legal requirements are met, you can choose between voluntary statutory health insurance and private health insurance, according to the Social Insurance Calculation Values Regulation 2026.

A clear jump for 2027 is already fixed. On October 7, 2026, the Federal Cabinet decided on a regular JAEG (i)JAEG · JahresarbeitsentgeltgrenzeThe annual income threshold in Germany. Employees who earn more than this per year may leave statutory health insurance and switch to private health insurance.More about JAEG → of €84,150 per year. The Federal Council still has to approve the regulation.

For an employee with an annual salary of €100,000, this increase does not change the starting position. He is also above the JAEG for 2027. The more interesting question is therefore which health insurance fits his goals.

We do not like advice that sells the switch mainly through monthly savings. In our view, the main reason for private health insurance should be the access to medical benefits you want when you are ill.

That is why our review does not start with the question of which plan is the cheapest. We first clarify which outpatient, inpatient and dental benefits the client wants to secure by contract. Only then do we judge what this cover costs.

In practice, this leads to different solutions. The following three examples show exactly this for a healthy 35-year-old employee without children and with an annual salary of €100,000. The premiums come from specific calculations for 2026 and are not general market prices.

Source of the three private examples: specific plan calculations from the advice of PKV-Welt, as of 2026. Profile: 35 years old, healthy, no children. The premiums can differ with a different entry age, state of health or scope of benefits.

This client wants more benefits than in his current statutory health insurance. At the same time, he is concerned about how high his private premium could be at retirement age. For this goal, a combination of comfort cover and a high premium relief component can be interesting.

In the ARAG example shown, the total premium in 2026 is €738.34 per month. This includes €117.20 for a premium relief component. According to the calculation, the employee's own cost is €369.17 per month. From age 67, the agreed component reduces the monthly private premium by €400 according to the calculation provided.

The client therefore deliberately pays for later relief during his working life. During employment, the employer contributes to the eligible premium within the legal requirements. At retirement age, a subsidy from the Deutsche Rentenversicherung towards private health insurance can also be applied for. In 2026 the Deutsche Rentenversicherung calculates this subsidy from the statutory gross pension and limits it to at most half of the actual eligible insurance premium.

We would not fix the later amount of this pension subsidy today. A 35-year-old will only reach retirement age in several decades. Contribution rates, pensions and legal rules can change by then. The €400 premium relief, by contrast, comes from the specific plan calculation of the example.

The second client does not want to save money with private health insurance. His goal is a very high level of benefits. In this case, we think a comparison of the statutory maximum contribution with the total private premium says little, because the employer pays part of the premiums.

In the Alte Oldenburger example shown, the total private premium in 2026 is €826.45 per month. After the employer contribution of €413.23 shown in the calculation, the employee's own cost is €413.22. For the personal household budget before tax effects, this figure says much more than the total premium.

For a childless employee outside Saxony, the employee share of long-term care insurance in 2026 is 2.4 percent up to the Beitragsbemessungsgrenze. For health insurance, a general contribution rate of 14.6 percent and an average additional contribution rate of 2.9 percent apply in 2026. Based on the Beitragsbemessungsgrenze (i)BBG · BeitragsbemessungsgrenzeThe contribution ceiling of statutory health and long-term care insurance. Income above this amount is not used to calculate contributions.More about BBG → of €5,812.50, the calculated employee share for health and long-term care insurance is about €648.09 per month, if you calculate with the average Zusatzbeitrag (i)ZusatzbeitragThe additional contribution each statutory health insurance fund charges on top of the general rate. Its level differs from fund to fund.More about Zusatzbeitrag →. The actual statutory amount can differ because each statutory health insurance fund sets its own Zusatzbeitrag.

So in 2026 we do not compare €826.45 of private premium with a total statutory contribution. For this client, we compare about €413.22 of own private cost with the corresponding own statutory cost. Only then do we talk about the difference in benefits. Tax effects are deliberately not yet taken into account in this comparison.

The third example shows the limit of our recommendation. From our advice experience, we rate Barmenia as a strong insurer, especially in claims settlement. Even so, we would not recommend the combination shown for a healthy 35-year-old employee at entry.

In the calculation provided, the plan Barmenia einsA expert1+ comes to €1,221.79 per month in 2026, including long-term care, Krankentagegeld (i)KrankentagegeldPrivate sick pay: a daily allowance from private insurance while you are unable to work. It replaces lost income from an agreed day of illness.More about Krankentagegeld → and the statutory surcharge. After the employer contribution shown of €543.09, the employee's own cost is €678.70.

Compared with the Alte Oldenburger example, the client therefore pays €265.48 more per month out of his own pocket. Compared with the ARAG example, the difference is €309.54 per month. This is exactly why the statement "a plan with very strong benefits" is not enough for us.

Our professional limit for this starting profile is clear. For a healthy 35-year-old without children, we consider a starting premium of more than €1,000 per month too high. This is not a legal limit and not a market statistic. It is our assessment from our advice practice.

We do not judge a plan in isolation by its list of benefits. We check what extra net cost the employee actually carries for the extra benefits. This is exactly where the three real cases differ.

A higher premium can make sense if the client deliberately wants the extra benefits. In our view, it becomes a problem when a considerable extra price arises without the extra benefits having a corresponding value for the client. A high salary does not change this review.

This is also why we do not switch clients to private health insurance at any price. If we cannot find a convincing combination of health, desired benefits and premium, statutory health insurance remains a real alternative.

A decision for private health insurance should not only fit today's employment contract. We therefore work through foreseeable changes before we choose a plan. These include family planning, parental leave, part-time work, changes in income and the step into self-employment.

A typical example is a 35-year-old tax advisor with an annual salary of €100,000. Today his employer contributes to his health insurance. If he later opens his own practice, this employer contribution ends. The private premium then has to be paid from his own income.

In the ARAG example in particular, the premium relief component gains a second perspective. The current employer contributes to the eligible premium during employment, while the client builds up a later premium reduction. Whether this strategy suits the tax advisor still depends on his planned self-employment, his income and the level of benefits he wants.

The example profile is childless. For the long-term decision, we still check family planning. In statutory health insurance, spouses and children can be covered free of charge through family insurance if the legal requirements are met. In private health insurance, every insured person needs their own contract.

That is why the same private solution can be judged differently for a single 35-year-old than five years later with a partner and two children. We prefer to calculate this change before the switch rather than only when the family has already grown.

A good client profile is not enough. The insurer and the specific plan must also fit the requirements. We would rather advise against a switch than place a client with a company that we do not consider right for his situation.

In doing so, we separate the quality of the insurer from the price of the plan. The Barmenia example shows this separation very clearly. Our positive assessment of claims settlement does not automatically lead to a recommendation of the plan combination shown. In our view, the entry price remains too high for the example profile.

The other way round, we do not choose a plan because it is the cheapest. Benefits, plan design, long-term planning and premium must convince together.

1. Set the benefit goal: Should private health insurance mainly offer better benefits than statutory health insurance, or is the highest possible level of benefits wanted?

2. Test the life path: Family, part-time work, parental leave and possible self-employment are considered before the choice of plan.

3. Check health: Health data is prepared before the application. If needed, we make an anonymous risk enquiry. The insurer decides on acceptance.

4. Compare net cost: For employees, we compare the own cost after the employer's share, not just two total premiums. The tax component follows in a second step.

5. Filter insurer and plan: A plan must convince on its level of benefits and on its premium. A high price is not justified by a well-known insurer alone.

6. Run a cross-check: We explicitly check which arguments speak against the switch. Only then is the decision made.

For us, an income of €100,000 is no reason to make an unsuitable private health insurance look good on paper. We would see the switch critically if the health questions only lead to unattractive terms, if family planning clearly speaks against the desired setup or if no suitable insurer is available.

For the example profile, our premium assessment comes on top. If the starting premium for a healthy 35-year-old without children is already above €1,000 per month, in our view the extra price must be checked very critically. The Barmenia example with €1,221.79 shows exactly this case.

A client who only wants to save money in the short term does not get an automatic recommendation for private health insurance from us either. The decision should still work in the case of illness and with later changes in life.

With an annual salary of €100,000, an employee in 2026 is above the regular JAEG (i) of €77,400. This income also exceeds the €84,150 decided for 2027. Access is therefore settled, but the decision is not.

Our three real cases show why. One client can choose a high level of benefits with €413.22 of own cost. Another combines €369.17 of own cost with a premium relief of €400 from age 67, calculated in the plan. A third would pay €678.70 himself for a plan with very strong benefits, which we consider too high for an entry at 35 in this combination.

The more useful question is therefore not "Is private health insurance worth it at €100,000?" It is "Which private health insurance strategy fits my benefit goal, my life path and my long-term premium?" These three points should be answered before a switch.