Four health insurers appeal to the Federal Administrative Court over St. Gallen Cantonal Government provisional tariff CHF 0.90; appeals inadmissible; no irreparable harm

Four health insurers appeal to the Federal Administrative Court over St. Gallen Cantonal Government provisional tariff CHF 0.90; appeals inadmissible; no irreparable harm

Decisions C-1198/2026, C-1202/2026 and C-1203/2026 of 17 April 2026

2026 of 17 April 2026

Four Swiss health insurers appealed to the Federal Administrative Court against a decision of the St. Gallen Cantonal Government dated 13 January 2026. The cantonal authorities had set a provisional tariff point value (Taxpunktwert, TPW) of CHF 0.90 for certain outpatient medical services billed as of 1 January 2026, pending the conclusion of a definitive tariff contract or an administrative decision. The appellants sought to have the decision annulled and requested that the previously applicable, lower TPW be reinstated or, in the alternative, that the case be remitted for reassessment.

The Federal Administrative Court first considered whether the contested decision constituted a final decision or an interim measure. It held that the determination of provisional tariffs is a typical interim (or precautionary) measure aimed at preventing a tariff vacuum until a permanent arrangement is reached. The Court further clarified that appeals against such interim decisions are admissible only where there is a risk of irreparable harm or where allowing the appeal would lead directly to a final resolution of the dispute, thereby avoiding significant procedural effort.

Having examined the parties’ submissions, the Court found that the appellants had failed to sufficiently demonstrate a risk of irreparable harm. It noted, among other things, that ongoing negotiations between the parties undermined the claim of a negotiation deadlock. Moreover, the provisional nature of the tariff meant that it could not prejudice the determination of a future definitive tariff.

The Court also rejected the argument that an alleged systematic mispractice on the part of the authorities justified departing from the general rules governing the admissibility of appeals against interim decisions. The Court therefore held the appeal to be inadmissible, as the conditions for challenging an interim decision were not met.

2026 of 17 April 2026 and C-1203

2026 of 17 April 2026 were based on comparable circumstances. The court also found these appeals inadmissible.