Take-Aways (AI)
  • Legal cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­on in the KVG that pro­fil­ing and auto­ma­ted indi­vi­du­al decis­i­ons are per­mit­ted for the ful­fill­ment of tasks in order to ensu­re legal certainty.
  • Health insu­r­ers need auto­ma­ted, cross-invoice data ana­ly­sis to iden­ti­fy syste­ma­tic irre­gu­la­ri­ties and con­trol costs.
  • Avo­id incon­gru­ence with UVG: Pro­fil­ing should also be enshri­ned in the KVG so that acci­dent and health insu­r­ers have the same powers of review.

Moti­on SGK-NR (20.3013): Pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data in the KVG: legal cer­tain­ty with regard to the future data pro­tec­tion law

Sub­mit­ted text

The Fede­ral Coun­cil is ins­truc­ted to adopt the fol­lo­wing amend­ment to the Fede­ral Health Insu­rance Act (KVG) to be sub­mit­ted: For the sta­tu­to­ry respon­si­bi­li­ty To ensu­re effec­ti­ve, appro­pria­te and eco­no­mic­al medi­cal tre­at­ment, health insu­r­ers should – while main­tai­ning per­so­nal data pro­tec­tion – coll­ect the data of their insu­red per­sons. con­ti­n­ue to eva­lua­te as well as issue auto­ma­ted indi­vi­du­al decis­i­ons may

Justi­fi­ca­ti­on

Due to Euro­pean data pro­tec­tion legis­la­ti­on and the cur­rent total revi­si­on of the Fede­ral Data Pro­tec­tion Act (FADP), various other laws of the new term “pro­fil­ing” and the enact­ment of auto­ma­ted indi­vi­du­al decis­i­ons be ancho­red in the law. The KVG is also affec­ted: For the sta­tu­to­ry task of ensu­ring effec­ti­ve, expe­di­ent and eco­no­mic­al medi­cal tre­at­ment, health insu­r­ers are to con­ti­n­ue to be allo­wed to eva­lua­te the data of their insu­red per­sons – while main­tai­ning per­so­nal data pro­tec­tion – and to issue auto­ma­ted indi­vi­du­al decisions.

Cur­rent is in Artic­le 84 KVG regu­la­tes the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data – inclu­ding the pro­ce­s­sing of data requi­ring spe­cial pro­tec­tion and per­so­na­li­ty pro­files. As part of the total revi­si­on of the FADP, it is now neces­sa­ry to the term “pro­fil­ing” is also ancho­red in the KVG. must be made. Other­wi­se, the­re is a risk of legal uncer­tain­ty in the future imple­men­ta­ti­on of the sta­tu­to­ry tasks.

More than 120 mil­li­on invoices per year can­not be eva­lua­ted and cor­re­la­ted by hand, e.g., to iden­ti­fy syste­ma­tic bil­ling irre­gu­la­ri­ties. Health insu­r­ers must be in a posi­ti­on to use EDP-based systems to cross-accoun­ting checks to be car­ri­ed out. This is not pos­si­ble wit­hout machi­ne or auto­ma­ted pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data.

Moreo­ver, it is not com­pre­hen­si­ble why in the Fede­ral Law on Acci­dent Insu­rance (UVG) the imple­men­ta­ti­on of Pro­filings is to be enshri­ned in law, but not in the KVG. Both acci­dent and health insu­r­ers must veri­fy by law that medi­cal tre­at­ments are appro­pria­te and eco­no­mic­al (Art. 48 and 54a UVG and Art. 32 and 56 KVG).

The group of experts on the cost con­tain­ment report, the Fede­ral Coun­cil and poli­ti­ci­ans are cal­ling on health insu­r­ers to tigh­ter cost con­trol. In order for health insu­r­ers to be able to ful­fill this obli­ga­ti­on, a clear and unam­bi­guous legal regu­la­ti­on is needed.