24 November 2025

In decision 9C_161/2024 of 29 October 2025, the Federal Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against a ruling by the Insurance Arbitration Tribunal of the Canton of Vaud. The appellant, A., a consultant psychiatrist and psychotherapist, had billed health insurers for more than the permitted 100 hours per week. On this basis, the Insurance Arbitration Tribunal had ordered A. to reimburse the health insurers CHF 72,729.90.

In front of the Federal Supreme Court, A. argued that the reimbursement claim was time-barred, a contention which the court rejected. A. further claimed that the Insurance Arbitration Tribunal had wrongly included services rendered in the patient’s absence in the calculation of the 100-hour limit and objected to the Tribunal's reliance on an annual average rather than weekly billing records. The Federal Supreme Court also rejected these grounds of appeal. The court held that the Insurance Arbitration Tribunal had correctly determined the relevant hours and noted that the use of an annual average had benefited A. Finally, A. alleged a violation of his economic freedom and the principle of proportionality. However, the Federal Supreme Court found that A. had accepted the billing of services based on the TARMED system, that the public interest clearly prevailed, and that the principle of proportionality had not been breached either. For these reasons, the Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

For more information, see here.