Health insurers incorrectly charged collection costs

This article was last updated on October 11, 2024

Canada: Oye! Times readers Get FREE $30 to spend on Amazon, Walmart…
USA: Oye! Times readers Get FREE $30 to spend on Amazon, Walmart…

Health insurers incorrectly charged collection costs

For years, health insurers wrongly charged collection costs for late payment of health premiums and deductibles.

Eight published rulings from four courts show that customers were wrongly charged collection costs up to and including last year.

Insurers may charge collection costs. But in these cases it was unjustified, because the rules for charging the extra costs were not clearly stated in the general terms and conditions.

This concerns claims from the four largest insurers, Zilveren Kruis, CZ, VGZ and Menzis. Together they account for 85 percent of the market.

Vague terms

Lawyer and debt expert André Moerman investigated the judicial decisions. He notes that subdistrict courts judge that insurers formulate the so-called collection clause in the general terms and conditions too broadly.

Such a clause states, for example: “If you (the policyholder) do not pay on time, we may charge you (the policyholder) administration costs, collection costs (including collection costs) and the statutory interest.”

Moerman notes that the amount of the collection costs is not stated. Costs other than collection costs are also stated and it is not stated that a free reminder will be sent first. “That is insufficient information and therefore reason for the subdistrict court judge to annul the collection clause and reject the collection costs,” said Moerman.

Too vague

Professor of consumer law at the University of Groningen Charlotte Pavillon says that lower judges in various courts are in line. This line is that general terms and conditions must be clear and that insurers may not charge costs that deviate from the law.

The court rulings only affect claims on which the insurers requested a court ruling. Only in those cases were the collection costs canceled by the judge.

Moerman believes that consumer protection by the courts should not only have consequences for these individual cases that have been brought to court, but for all cases. “It’s time for the legislature to look at this.”

Payment arrears

In recent years, health insurers have charged collection costs to hundreds of thousands of policyholders. Insurers are obliged to report payment arrears of six months to the CAK. Last year, 178,916 insured people were registered with arrears, this year already more than 184,000. The number of times collection costs were charged is even higher, because this also happens with shorter payment arrears. It is not clear how many cases there are.

It is also not clear what the recent rulings of the subdistrict courts could mean for insured persons who have been charged collection costs. Moerman says, with these statements in hand, they could deduct the collection costs already paid from the amount still owed to the insurer. “It is true that other courts have not yet explicitly commented on this.”

Pavillon also points out that there is a visible trend, but that other subdistrict judges may look at it differently. And there is no case law from a higher court yet,” says Pavillon, who is also a deputy judge. “If I were a lawyer at a health insurer, I would look for that case law.”

In response to the recent rulings, health insurers point out that they adhere to the legal standards for determining collection costs. As of 2024, they have adjusted the wording of the conditions.