We briefly assessed the technical side of a Bexio integration. A connection using Bexio’s REST API would be feasible for us. We then reviewed the commercial terms, which were decisive for our decision.
An integration could save work for practices that already use Bexio for their accounting because they would not have to transfer invoice data a second time.
The two programs handle different tasks. A practice records patient details, treatments, and insurance information in tarif590. tarif590 uses these details to create the correct Tarif 590 invoice. Bexio, by contrast, is designed for general accounting. It manages items such as income, expenses, supplier invoices, and bank payments.
Who does what?
| Practice task | tarif590 | Bexio | What matters to the practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Record the patient, treatment, and insurance | ✓ | — | These details belong in tarif590 |
| Create the Tarif 590 invoice, reimbursement receipt, and QR payment section | ✓ | — | tarif590 creates these documents |
| Reconcile bank payments with open invoices | ✓ after importing a camt.054 file, with manual assignment | ✓ automatic bank reconciliation | Bexio can save additional manual work here |
| Manage general accounting, supplier invoices, and expenses | — | ✓ | This is only needed if the practice uses Bexio for accounting |
A camt.054 file is a bank file containing details of incoming QR payments.
tarif590 can import this file. The practice then manually assigns each payment
to the correct invoice. With a connected bank account, Bexio can automatically
reconcile bank payments with open invoices. This extra automation would be the
practical benefit of an integration.
What would an integration improve?
With a suitable connection, invoice data could flow automatically from tarif590 into Bexio. Bexio could process the data in the general accounts and reconcile bank payments. This would avoid duplicate data entry and reduce the risk of an invoice being overlooked.
With such an integration, patient data, insurance information, and treatment-related work would remain in tarif590. Bexio would receive only the data needed for accounting. It would therefore complement tarif590, not replace it.
Why do we not offer the integration?
Our decision took account of the published model for a Bexio Marketplace partnership. Bexio does not charge an annual membership or listing fee. Instead, the service fee is 25% of the revenue that tarif590 earns from shared customers. Shared customers are all customers who use both Bexio and the partner solution. This also includes existing customers brought by the partner. According to its public information, Bexio does not currently offer Marketplace partners another billing model.
According to Bexio, the fee falls to 20% for the top 20% of Marketplace partners by revenue. Even this reduced rate is too high for us.
The fee would have to be paid from the price of the integration or from tarif590 revenue. In the second case, less money would be available to operate and improve tarif590. We also do not want to make the core product more expensive for practices that do not use Bexio. Under these conditions, a Marketplace integration is not commercially viable for us. This does not rule out a future optional integration whose costs are borne solely by Bexio users.
What does this mean for the practice?
Without an integration, practice billing continues as before. tarif590 creates
the Tarif 590 invoice with its QR payment section. Practices that import
payments using camt.054 manually assign them to the correct invoice in
tarif590. Practices that also use Bexio transfer the necessary invoice details
themselves or reconcile them with their accountant.
If the conditions change or another commercially viable solution becomes possible, we will reassess the integration.
Review date: 10 September 2026. The percentages and the definition of shared customers come from Bexio’s public information.
Sources: