Take-Aways (AI)
  • The tier-payant system allo­ws ser­vice pro­vi­ders to trans­mit medi­cal data direct­ly to insu­r­ers in accordance with the law.
  • Insu­r­ers are legal­ly aut­ho­ri­zed to review the obli­ga­ti­on to pay bene­fits and must take tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal data pro­tec­tion measures.
  • Pati­ents may request that medi­cal infor­ma­ti­on be dis­c­lo­sed only to the insurer’s medi­cal ser­vice, which is sub­ject to a duty of confidentiality.
  • In view of exi­sting legal regu­la­ti­ons and cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­ons, the Fede­ral Coun­cil sees no need for action to chan­ge the system.

Inter­pel­la­ti­on Che­val­ley (18.3492): system of tiers payant. Serious vio­la­ti­on of data protection

Sub­mit­ted text

An insu­red per­son may choo­se – for very dif­fe­rent rea­sons – to pay a medi­cal bill wit­hout sub­mit­ting it to his or her health insurer for reim­bur­se­ment. If the Ser­vice pro­vi­der sends the invoice direct­ly to the health insurer, this recei­ves due to the detail­ed listing of the ser­vices detail­ed infor­ma­ti­on about the sta­te of health of the insu­red per­son – wit­hout any data pro­tec­tion, wit­hout the requi­re­ment of a con­fi­den­ti­al report to the medi­cal examiner.

Alt­hough the Fede­ral Health Insu­rance Act (KVG) pro­vi­des that an agree­ment can be signed bet­ween a tiers payant, i.e. the insurer, and the ser­vice pro­vi­der, the insu­red per­son has not­hing to say about the use of his or her per­so­nal data, which, it should be noted, is par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­ti­ve per­so­nal data.

I the­r­e­fo­re put the fol­lo­wing que­sti­ons to the Fede­ral Council:

1. is the Dis­clo­sure of par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­ti­ve data to third par­tieswit­hout the data sub­ject having to give con­sent, not a serious breach of data protection?

2. isn’t the tiers payant system a serious vio­la­ti­on of medi­cal data pro­tec­tion? Should­n’t the data pro­tec­tion com­mis­sio­ner intervene?

3. if so, what does the Fede­ral Coun­cil intend to do to sol­ve this problem?

4. if the Fede­ral Coun­cil wants to retain the tiers payant system, what can insu­red per­sons do to pro­tect their data?

State­ment of the Fede­ral Coun­cil of 5.9.18

1./4. Accor­ding to data pro­tec­tion legis­la­ti­on, a heal­th­ca­re pro­vi­der may dis­c­lo­se per­so­nal data (medi­cal data) requi­ring spe­cial pro­tec­tion if he or she has the Con­sent of the pati­ent, or if the dis­clo­sure of the data is not per­mit­ted by pro­vi­ded for in a law is.

The Health Insu­rance Act requi­res the Insurer to moni­tor the obli­ga­ti­on to pro­vi­de ser­vices and the effi­ci­en­cy of ser­vices (Art. 42 and Art. 56 KVG; SR 832.10). They are ther­eby aut­ho­ri­zed to pro­cess per­so­nal data within the scope of Artic­le 84 KVG aut­ho­ri­zed. The flow of infor­ma­ti­on bet­ween ser­vice pro­vi­ders and insu­r­ers is also cle­ar­ly regu­la­ted by law: Ser­vice pro­vi­ders are obli­ged to issue a detail­ed and com­pre­hen­si­ble invoice and to pass on all admi­ni­stra­ti­ve and medi­cal infor­ma­ti­on requi­red to To check the cal­cu­la­ti­on of the remu­ne­ra­ti­on and the eco­no­mic effi­ci­en­cy of the ser­vice. The infor­ma­ti­on on the invoice inclu­des in par­ti­cu­lar the date of tre­at­ment, the ser­vice pro­vi­ded in accordance with the appli­ca­ble tariff, and dia­gno­ses and pro­ce­du­res in coded form. In the Inpa­ti­ent acu­te soma­tic area the ser­vice pro­vi­ders for­ward the data records with the admi­ni­stra­ti­ve and medi­cal infor­ma­ti­on to the cer­ti­fi­ed data coll­ec­tion point of the respec­ti­ve insurer at the same time as the invoice. The for­war­ding of the medi­cal data to the insurer is coded accor­ding to the clas­si­fi­ca­ti­ons for the medi­cal sta­tis­tics of the hos­pi­tals. At out­pa­ti­ent area The deve­lo­p­ment of a nati­on­wi­de clas­si­fi­ca­ti­on for dia­gno­ses and pro­ce­du­res is under­way. Until this is available, the moda­li­ties and coding agreed in the tariff agree­ments will app­ly. For medi­cal invoices, the fol­lo­wing is the­r­e­fo­re curr­ent­ly coded a very gene­ral dia­gno­sis trans­mit­ted (e.g. A2: coro­na­ry artery disease).

In par­ti­cu­lar, insu­r­ers are obli­ga­ted to use the fol­lo­wing data for pro­ce­s­sing the medi­cal data they recei­ve in the con­text of invoi­cing take the neces­sa­ry tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal data secu­ri­ty mea­su­res (Art. 59ater of the Health Insu­rance Ordi­nan­ce, KVV; SR 832.102). In addi­ti­on, the insu­red per­son may in any case demand that the ser­vice pro­vi­der dis­c­lo­se the medi­cal infor­ma­ti­on only to the medi­cal exami­ner of the insurer (Art. 42 Para. 5 KVG). This regu­la­ti­on ser­ves to pro­tect the per­so­na­li­ty of the insu­red per­son and to safe­guard pati­ent con­fi­den­tia­li­ty. The medi­cal exami­ner is sub­ject to the duty of con­fi­den­tia­li­ty. Accor­din­gly, under cur­rent law, the health insurer may not obtain health data direct­ly in every case.

At Cir­cular let­ter of the Fede­ral Office of Public Health (FOPH) num­ber 7.1“Data pro­tec­tion-com­pli­ant orga­nizati­on and pro­ce­s­ses of health insu­r­ers”, fur­ther spe­ci­fi­es what is pro­vi­ded for in Artic­le 42 KVG and how data pro­tec­tion must be taken into account (www.bag.admin.ch > Search: Kreis­schrei­ben > Kran­ken­ver­si­che­rung: Kreis­schrei­ben-Schweiz > 7.1). This also details the requi­re­ments for the inde­pen­dence of the medi­cal examiner.

2./3. In the KVG, the reim­bur­se­ment prin­ci­ple is cha­rac­te­ri­stic for invoi­cing. Accor­ding to Artic­le 42(1) KVG, the tiers garant system applies unless the insurer and ser­vice pro­vi­der have agreed other­wi­se. Accor­ding to para­graph 2, insu­r­ers and ser­vice pro­vi­ders can agree that the insurer owes the remu­ne­ra­ti­on (tiers payant). For inpa­ti­ent tre­at­ment, the tiers payant system always applies. The regu­la­ti­ons on data and pri­va­cy pro­tec­tion and the prin­ci­ple of pro­por­tio­na­li­ty also app­ly in the tiers payant. Also, in the report of Decem­ber 18, 2013, in ful­fill­ment of the postu­la­te Heim 08.3493, “Pro­tec­tion of pati­ent data and pro­tec­tion of the insu­red”, the Fede­ral Coun­cil pro­vi­ded infor­ma­ti­on on the situa­ti­on of pati­ent data pro­tec­tion at health insu­r­ers (see www.bag.admin.ch > Ser­vice > Publi­ca­ti­ons > Fede­ral Coun­cil reports > Fede­ral Coun­cil reports 2006 – 2015 > 2013). In view of the legal frame­work and the cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­ons that have been made, the Fede­ral Coun­cil sees no need for action.