The aim is ending over 15 years of mutual link between accidents and prevention services, which have always generated confusion (among other things). Even today, many entrepreneurs believe that the change prevention service, also change the mutual to which should be addressed when a worker suffers an accident yours, which is not the case for years, are completely independent services.

All existing customers of these companies prevention should be very attentive to these disposals, as could generate variations in contract breaches or subscribed conditions, without prior notice to its customers. It notes that in any case the new prevention company can force its customers to renew contracts without negotiation and signing of new pre-contract. Are not legal simple communications that have been variations on a party.

They get to know cases of such sales. Inside sources have reported that buyers Unipresalud (company Mutua Universal prevention), and fraternity, have been acquired by Chiron Group. Known is also the case of the sale of Fremap, on which there have been articles in the national press about irregularities sale .. And also have to be very attentive to the motivations that may move to new investors, since the origins of all businesses prevention, to date, it was only that of making a correct service and reducing accidents in the company. The market entry of companies dedicated to hospital services, for example, no longer a curiosity to which we are all expectant. 

A little history.

Doing a bit of history, remember the early external prevention services. The Law on Prevention of Occupational Risks, in which the requirement that all companies organize themselves to prevent risks to their workers through prevention service was established was approved in 1995. RD 39/1997 later in the requirements to meet these prevention services were established, and the mode of "External Prevention Service" companies dedicated exclusively to the prevention and accredited by the Labour Authority was created, which can be contracted by any company to outsource this service. When Prevention Act was passed, nearly all the technicians of prevention with sufficient training to perform their functions under the Act were in government, in large companies, and mutual accident. The need to build on existing trained technicians led the legislature to allow mutuals to create their accident prevention service. In the years after they were forming new generations of technical prevention, and were creating new companies dedicated to Prevention Service, totally private.

But what initially was a practical necessity, became a serious market distortion, as Societies Prevention used resources of mutual (paid taxes all through the contributions to Social Security) to compete in the private market, which was unfair competition for private services.

Finally this problem is corrected and requires that mutual societies dispose of their prevention, which will be handed to other private investors.