§ 60 Krankenversicherungsverordnung (TG KVV) - Kodierrevision

C-6826/2015 (Art. 60 Abs. 2 KVG)

Parent Company's Funding to Health Subsidiaries Violates Health Insurance Act

This provision is cited in the first order of the dispositive, which mandates the reversal of certain reimbursements, based on the court's reasoning that these reimbursements constitute cross-subsidization contrary to this article.

A/324/2010 · ge (Art. 60 LAMal)

Applicant's Appeal Against 2010 Health Insurance Premium Increase Rejected

Cited in the reasoning regarding the financing system, but not in the dispositive orders.

A/324/2010 · ge (Art. 60 al. 1 LAMal)

Applicant's Appeal Against 2010 Health Insurance Premium Increase Rejected

Cited in the reasoning as a basis for the legal framework of the appeal decision (though not strictly in the dispositive orders, it forms the core legal context leading to the rejection).

A/324/2010 · ge (Art. 60 al. 2 et 3 LAMal)

Applicant's Appeal Against 2010 Health Insurance Premium Increase Rejected

Cited in the reasoning as a basis for the legal framework of the appeal decision (though not strictly in the dispositive orders, it forms the core legal context leading to the rejection).

A/1201/2008 · ge (art. 60 LAMal)

Appeal Against Increased Mandatory Health Insurance Premiums Upheld

Cited in the reasoning to confirm that the premium clause respects the self-financing principle of compulsory health insurance, supporting the rejection of the appeal.

A/1615/2007 · ge (art. 60 LAMal)

Appeal Against Compulsory Health Insurance Premium Increase Upheld

The court concluded that the premium clause respects the principle of autonomous financing of mandatory health insurance based on this article.

A/379/2003 · ge (article 60 LAMal)

Policyholders v. Affiliated Insurers (2003 Premium Increases)

The court referred to this article regarding the cost distribution system (repération des dépenses) when evaluating the legality of the premium increase.

A/3261/2005 · ge (art. 60 LAMal)

Insured v. Health Insurer Regarding Unsubstantiated Premium Increase for Mandatory Basic Coverage

The court implicitly used the requirement of autonomous financing under this article (cited in paragraph 11.a) as a ground to question the justification of the premium increase, leading to its annulment.

A/3261/2005 · ge (art. 60 al. 1 LAMal)

Insured v. Health Insurer Regarding Unsubstantiated Premium Increase for Mandatory Basic Coverage

Cited in the reasoning (paragraph 5) as part of the legal framework requiring autonomous financing, which the court found unsubstantiated.

A/3261/2005 · ge (art. 60 al. 2 LAMal)

Insured v. Health Insurer Regarding Unsubstantiated Premium Increase for Mandatory Basic Coverage

Cited in the reasoning (paragraph 5) as part of the legal framework requiring separate provisions for compulsory health insurance.

A/3261/2005 · ge (art. 60 al. 3 LAMal)

Insured v. Health Insurer Regarding Unsubstantiated Premium Increase for Mandatory Basic Coverage

Cited in the reasoning (paragraph 5) as part of the legal framework requiring separate operating accounts for compulsory health insurance.

A/3261/2005 · ge (art. 60 al. 4 LAMal)

Insured v. Health Insurer Regarding Unsubstantiated Premium Increase for Mandatory Basic Coverage

Cited in the reasoning (paragraph 5) referencing Federal Council regulations on accounting and reserves.

36.2006.189 · ti (Art. 60 LAMal)

Insured v. Health Insurer (Denial of Justice and Improper Compensation)

Cited in the reasoning (Considerando 6) regarding financing of health insurance, relevant context for the substantive dispute, but not explicitly cited in the dispositive orders.

36.2006.28 · ti (art. 60 cpv. 2 e 3 LAMal)

Insured Party v. Federal Office of Public Health Regarding Health Insurance Premium Increase

Cited in the final review to confirm that the premium calculation was based on the principle of autonomous financing for basic health insurance.

36.2006.31 · ti (art. 60 cpv. 1 LAMal)

Insured Appeal Against Health Premium Increase Denied Due to Limited Judicial Review

Cited by the court as part of the legal framework confirming the premium is financed according to the expense sharing system.