853.100
LCAMALKVGAV
CH-TI
CH-TI
Art. 22 LCAMal Legge di applicazione della legge federale sull’assicurazione malattie (LCAMal)
LCAMal
Art. 22 LCAMal
[15] 1 Gli assicuratori comunicano all’autorità designata dal Consiglio di Stato i dati personali degli assicurati nei confronti dei quali hanno promosso un’esecuzione ai sensi della legge federale sull’esecuzione e sul fallimento (LEF), indicando il periodo a cui è riferito il credito dell’assicurazione obbligatoria delle cure medico-sanitarie e la sua composizione.
2 Il regolamento disciplina i particolari.
[15] Art. reintrodotto dalla L 14.12.2011; in vigore dal 1.1.2012 - BU 2012, 49; precedenti modifiche: BU 1999, 41; BU 2007, 661; BU 2009, 98; BU 2010, 49.
Decisioni giudiziarie che applicano questa disposizione (33)
36.2006.50 · ti (art. 22 cpv. 1 LCAMal)
Insured v. Sickness Fund: Suspension of Benefits Over Unpaid Arrears
This provision, which prohibits the insurer from suspending benefits, was used to support the finding that the insurer's action was illegal.
36.2006.50 · ti (art. 22 cpv. 2 LCAMal)
Insured v. Sickness Fund: Suspension of Benefits Over Unpaid Arrears
This provision was referenced in the reasoning regarding the reservation of art. 9 cpv. 4 OAMal, but not in the dispositive.
36.2006.50 · ti (art. 22 cpv. 3 LCAMal)
Insured v. Sickness Fund: Suspension of Benefits Over Unpaid Arrears
This provision, regarding the prohibition of compensation, was cited in the reasoning, but not in the dispositive.
36.2006.49 · ti (art. 22 cpv. 1 lett. b LCAMal)
Insured Parties v. Health Insurance Provider: Mootness of Appeal Following Formal Decision
This substantive article was mentioned by the appellants as the ground for the insurer allegedly not having the right to suspend payments, although the court did not use it for the final order.
36.2006.2 · ti (Art. 22 cpv. 1 lett. b LCAMal)
Insured Person v. Health Insurer (Suspension of Benefits Over Unpaid Premiums)
The appeal was granted based on the canton's law prohibiting the insurer from suspending benefits.
36.2006.40 · ti (art. 22 cpv. 1 lett. b LCAMal)
Insured Disabled Person v. Health Insurer Regarding Suspension of Benefits Over Unpaid Premiums
The court annulled the decision because the insurer suspended benefits, which is prohibited by this article for insured persons subject to the obligation to insure.
36.2005.207 · ti (Art. 22 cpv. 1 LCAMal)
Insured Person v. Health Insurance Fund (Benefit Suspension Unlawful)
Cited in the reasoning regarding what the insurer cannot do (including suspend benefits), supporting the annulment of the decision.
36.2005.235 · ti (art. 22 cpv. 1 lett. b LCAMal)
Insurer Benefit Suspension Over Debt Procedurally Flawed
Cited in the reasoning as the basis for the finding that the insurer cannot suspend benefits under cantonal law, supporting the final decision to annul the suspension.
36.2005.178 · ti (art. 22 cpv. 1 lett. b LCAMal)
Insured Party v. Health Insurance Carrier Regarding Benefit Suspension
The decision was annulled because the insurer violated this cantonal provision by suspending benefits when it was prohibited.
36.2005.223 · ti (art. 22 cpv. 1 lett. b LCAMal)
Insured v. Sickness Fund: Improper Suspension of Benefits Due to Procedural Flaws and Improper Inclusion of Family Debts
The court implicitly found that the insurer's action violated the cantonal prohibition on suspending benefits for insured persons subject to mandatory insurance.
36.2005.218 · ti (art. 22 cpv. 1 lett. b LCAMal)
Insured Person v. Health Insurer (Improper Suspension of Sickness Benefits)
Cited in the reasoning to support the annulment of the contested decision, as it prohibits the insurer from suspending benefits for insured persons subject to the obligation to insure.
36.2005.186 · ti (art. 22 cpv. 1 lett. b LCAMal)
Insured Person v. Sickness Fund: Suspension of Health Benefits Due to Premium Arrears
The appeal was allowed based on this cantonal provision which prohibits the insurer from suspending benefits for insured persons subject to the obligation to insure.
36.2005.186 · ti (art. 22 cpv. 2 LCAMal)
Insured Person v. Sickness Fund: Suspension of Health Benefits Due to Premium Arrears
Cited in the reasoning regarding the reservation of Art. 9 para. 4 OAMal for non-resident insured persons.
36.2005.198 · ti (art. 22 cpv. 1 LCAMal)
Insured v. Sickness Insurer on Benefit Suspension for Premium Arrears
The appeal was upheld based on the rule stating that the insurer cannot suspend benefits when the insured is subject to mandatory insurance.
36.2005.167 · ti (art. 22 cpv. 1 lett. b) LCAMal)
Insured Person v. Health Insurance Fund: Improper Suspension of Benefits Due to Arrears
The appellant argued that this article prevented the insurer from suspending benefits.