Diederik Schrijvershof was interviewed by the Dutch Financial newspaper (FD) about a successful proceeding against the Dutch Healthcare Authority (NZa) on behalf of independent psychologists and the LVVP, their professional association, and ongoing legal proceedings for various trade and professional associations in the Dutch healthcare sector concerning the tariffs for 2026 that are too low, as determined by NZa.
On June 2, 2025, Diederik Schrijvershof and Leah Peeters won a preliminary relief case against the NZa on behalf of (members of) the LVVP. The court prohibited the NZa from using a calculation method for the Normative Labor Component (NAC) in its 2026 tariff for all the LVVP members that is based on a maximum of 36 hours per working week and 46 working weeks per year. Because the NZa categorically refused to adjust this calculation method, which causes considerable damage to members of the LVVP, the LVVP and its members successfully took the matter to the civil court. Even after this defeat the NZa persists in using this calculation method which according to the court may not be used for independent psychologists, general practitioners, dental care, independent psychiatrists, and maternity care.
The FD reports: "The dissatisfaction with the maximum of 36 hours per working week and 46 working weeks per year is widespread, says Diederik Schrijvershof, partner at Maverick Advocaten. ‘The system is flawed. Everyone in primary care, from dentists to general practitioners, psychiatrists, and birth and maternity care, is affected by this.’ Schrijvershof was the lawyer in the lawsuit that the LVVP recently won against the NZa. At the end of September, he will be assisting an association of general practitioners in similar proceedings against the regulator."
The FD reports: "Schrijvershof blames the NZa for not reconsidering the way it calculates costs, despite requests to do so, after the independent psychologists won their court case. On the day of the ruling, the regulator published the new rates for dentists and orthodontists. ‘The NZa knew at the time that there had been well-founded massive opposition to the 36-hour and 46-working-week cap for months and that the LVVP case had been lost, but it pressed ahead anyway,’ says Schrijvershof. ‘That is quite reprehensible, because the NZa could have sought dialogue.’"
Leah Peeters and Diederik Schrijvershof previously wrote a blog about the role of the NZa and the structural consequences of the NZa's (incorrect) setting of tariffs for various healthcare providers.
Maverick Advocaten has been assisting various trade and professional associations (and their members) on a daily basis for many years in cases involving (proceedings in the context of) tariff regulation by the NZa. Maverick Advocaten provides advice on cost price investigations and/or other data requests made by the NZa regarding tariff regulation. Where necessary, we take legal action against an NZa rate decision. For example, Maverick Advocaten achieved success for providers of forensic mental health care against the NZa Tariff decision for mental health care and forensic care 2023 and 2024. In addition, Maverick Advocaten successfully litigated against the NZa Tariff decision for general practitioner care 2023.
Read the full FD article here.
Follow Maverick Advocaten on LinkedIn
