The government of President Claudia Sheinbaum has presented the economic package by 2026, which in theory seeks to balance public finances with social needs. It highlights the increase in health spending, driven by greater tax collection. As Analysis of the Economic and Budgetary Research Center (CIEP), this increase will be financed to a large extent of the so -called “healthy taxes”: increases in special taxes on production and services (IEPS) applied to cigarettes, soft drinks and video games with violent content. The Ministry of Finance estimates that they will generate about 41,000 million additional pesos, and will be used for health.
According to the PEF analyzed by CIEP, total health expenditure by 2026 is projected at 996,528 million pesos, an increase of 55,551,43 million compared to 940,976 million 2025, 5.9% more. At first glance, this seems a positive step, especially considering that in the first year of this administration the health sector suffered significant cuts, hence the inocable austerity in hospitals and health centers. Now, the landowner team seems to have received clear instructions to prioritize, at least minimally, the health of Mexicans. As a percentage of GDP, the indicator goes from 2.5% to 2.6%, an additional tenth that reflects some intention, but is far from presumable.
However, when the numbers break up, deep questions arise about real priorities. The net increase in total public spending for the health sector is about 45,000 million pesos (from 941,000 to 996,000 million). Although this avoids new cuts, it does not close the gap with international recommendations: the World Health Organization suggests allocating 6% of GDP to health; Mexico falls short at 3.4 percentage points. This deficiency is covered with families’ pocket expenses, which sacrifice other essential items to pay consultations, medications or hospitalizations. In a country with chronic inequalities, this perpetuates a cycle of economic vulnerability.
The most striking, according to the analysis of Judith Méndez, CIEP specialist, is the internal distribution of these additional resources. Instead of addressing the population without social security – the most disadvantaged, representing millions without access to basic services – the bulk of the increase benefits the IMSS. This agency will see a 11% rise in its budget, equivalent to 58,000 million pesos. Why prioritize IMSS, which has other sources of financing: employer and workers fees? This decision collides frontally with the official discourse to reduce the inequality gap. Historically, the right -wing population has been the most favored, and this trend is accentuated: by 2026, only 3 out of 10 pesos in health will go to those not secured, while 7 out of 10 will concentrate on the segment with labor coverage.
This preference is not isolated. Other Social Security institutes, such as ISSSTE, Pemex, Sedena and Semar, face cuts between 3% and 5%, suggesting a deliberate concentration in the IMSS, directed by Zoé Robledo. What is the strategic sense? It is not understood, especially when the government emphasizes equity. If the goal is to close inequalities, extra resources should flow towards social security, where needs are pressing: chronic diseases, lack of infrastructure and collapse in public hospitals.
Another unintelligible point is the cut to the Ministry of Health, headed by Dr. David Kershenobich. After losing more than half of your budget in 2025, it will now suffer an additional reduction of 2,229 million pesos, 3.2% less. Despite sessions with tax authorities, the economic health team failed to reverse the scissors.
In contrast, some specific programs receive modest increases. The IMSS welfare rises 0.8%, from 171,206 to 172,492 million (1,286 million more). The State Health Contribution Fund (FASSA) increases 0.6%, with additional 540 million. But the largest jump is for the Health Casa per Casa program, dependent on the Ministry of Welfare, which almost doubles 2,070.8 to 4,000 million (93.2% more). Although positive, this is insufficient to cover the 16 million older adults and people with disabilities who depend on it.
In summary, the 2026 budget shows a shy effort to strengthen health, funded by “healthy” taxes that could promote better habits. However, by prioritizing IMSS and cutting key areas, it could rather go for the course of perpetuating inequalities and leaving critical needs without addressed. Following, a greater integral strengthening of public coffers will be required -beyond collection by IEPS -, if the president Sheinbaum really wants to advance in health coverage, because this goes through a true financial protection of health care.
