In private practice, many doctors - particularly those in sector 2 - seek to protect themselves against unpaid bills. The most common solution is to take outpatient depositrequested before the medical procedure. But this method, although reassuring on the surface, often entails administrative complications and can be misunderstood by patients.
Today, a more flexible and effective alternative is emerging: the patient's bank imprint. Although it is relatively unknown in the healthcare sector, it offers many advantages in terms of simplicity, cash flow and patient relations.
Down payments: a habit with its limits
Asking for a deposit before an operation has long been the only way of guaranteeing a minimum commitment from the patient. Cashing in part of the fee makes it possible to secure the consultation, limit withdrawals and ensure immediate cash flow.
But in practice, this practice poses problems:
- The balance has to be settled after the event, which involves further exchanges and even reminders,
- Some patients may refuse or be reluctant to pay in advance ("I pay before I receive treatment?"),
- Administration becomes more complicated (accounting management of advance payments, any reimbursements, monitoring the balance).
To put it plainly: the deposit provides some protection, but it also creates a burden on secretariats and can sometimes be a hindrance to patient relations.
The bank imprint: a flexible and transparent guarantee
With thebank imprintthe logic changes. Rather than cashing in a partial sum in advance, the idea is to record a secure imprint of the patient's bank cardwithout blocking or debiting funds immediately.
At the time of invoicing, once reimbursements have been made by the Assurance Maladie and the supplementary health insurance, the exact out-of-pocket expenses can be collected automatically and without any further action on the part of the patient.
There are many benefits:
- No advance payment for the patientwhich makes it easier to accept,
- A single flow corresponding to the final amount, without administrative adjustments,
- Enhanced security for the practitioner: the impression provides a clear, traceable guarantee,
- Fewer tasks for secretariesThis means they no longer have to manage deposits, balances or refunds.
Advance payment vs. bank imprint: comparison at a glance
| Criteria | Patient deposit | Patient Bank Fingerprint |
|---|---|---|
| Immediate collection | Yes (partial) | No |
| Patient acceptability | Medium (perceived as restrictive) | High (no advance debit) |
| Adjusted final amount | No (deposit + balance to be managed) | Yes (exact out-of-pocket expenses) |
| Administrative simplicity | Low (2 operations minimum) | High (1 single final flow) |
| Impact on cash flow | Immediate advance, but complex afterwards | Later, but secure |
Which option is best in practice?
In some simple cases, a deposit may suffice. But for major procedures, involving a substantial out-of-pocket expensesThe bank imprint appears to be a much more appropriate solution in the medical sector, or in specialties such as anaesthesia and private surgery: it effectively protects fees while considerably reducing the administrative burden.
Conclusion: fewer reminders, more efficiency
Advance payments are still common practice, but their limitations are becoming increasingly apparent: they are complex, contentious and time-consuming. The bank imprint, on the other hand, combines safety, simplicity and greater patient acceptance.
For practitioners and groups wishing to integrate this approach into a framework designed specifically for the medical sector, solutions such as Swikly offer a secure, compliant environment that's easy to set up.
