Cecot asks AEAT (Spain's tax agency) for Verifactu calendar

The employers’ association Cecot has asked the AEAT (Spain’s Tax Agency) to confirm the implementation schedule for Verifactu, as published by El Economista in its roundup of news from the second half of September 2026. The request comes at a time when private clinics, private practices and healthcare centres operating as self-employed professionals or SMEs are reviewing their invoicing and collection processes in light of the regulatory changes linked to mandatory electronic invoicing and the requirements for invoicing IT systems.

What was published and why it matters to a clinic

The information published by El Economista focuses on a specific demand from the business community: certainty about the dates and conditions for the entry into force related to Verifactu. For a private clinic, that certainty directly affects operational decisions (which system to use, what changes to request from the provider, how to adapt internal workflows) and coordination with the tax adviser and the firm that handles accounting and taxes.

At the same time, the same outlet recalls the European and corporate context of electronic invoicing: Italy, which implemented mandatory B2B electronic invoicing in 2019, processes more than 2,500 million electronic invoices per year, according to a PDF from El Economista. That figure is often used as an industry reference to gauge the impact of a change of model on relationships between businesses, including the provision of private healthcare services when the clinic invoices companies, insurers or third-party payers.

Verifactu: scheduling uncertainty and its effect on operations

Cecot’s request, as reported by El Economista, emphasises the schedule. For a clinic, the timetable conditions:

Planning changes to invoicing software

If implementation requires technical adjustments or procedural changes, the clinic must plan tests, migrations and internal validations. The main operational implication is to avoid making live changes that affect the issuance of invoices, credit notes or corrective invoices during periods of high activity.

Coordination with the tax adviser

Any change that affects the way invoices are issued and retained impacts the operations of the firm that handles taxes and accounting. El Economista does not provide specific deadlines in the excerpts cited, so, in the absence of an official confirmation of the schedule, the management recommendation is to coordinate the roadmap with the tax adviser and not to base decisions on dates that have not been officially published.

Risk of friction with payers

In private clinics it is common to have different payers coexist (patient, company, insurer or mutual insurer, public authorities under agreements). When invoice requirements or formats change, it must be verified that the recipient accepts the channel and the type of document. Cecot’s interest in confirming the schedule, according to El Economista, aims precisely to reduce uncertainty in that adaptation.

Mandatory electronic invoicing: impact on B2B and control of non-payments

El Economista’s PDF links the adoption of electronic invoicing to an improvement in the control and monitoring of payments in business environments, and provides an aggregate figure on non-payments: “SMEs lose 2,000 million a year due to non-payments,” according to the same document. Although that figure is general and not specific to the healthcare sector, the takeaway for a clinic is clear: if a significant portion of its invoicing is B2B (occupational health services, workplace medical checks, services to groups, agreements with local companies), the move to electronic invoicing may affect traceability and collection management.

Italy is cited as a reference case by volume — more than 2,500 million electronic invoices per year — following the B2B obligation introduced in 2019, according to El Economista. For clinics that work with corporate groups or providers that already operate with e-invoicing in other countries, interoperability and compliance with formal requirements become points to review.

What clinic management should review now

Given the information available from the cited sources, there are two immediate management tasks that depend less on regulatory detail and more on internal control:

Invoicing map: who you invoice and in which scenarios

Management should identify what portion of invoicing is B2B (to companies), what portion is B2C (to private patients) and which circuits use third‑party payers. This map makes it possible to prioritise changes once the official schedule is confirmed, as Cecot requests according to El Economista.

Collection circuits and tracking of non-payments

Given the sector figure cited by El Economista on losses from non-payments in SMEs, it is advisable to review the internal follow-up procedure: when an invoice is issued, when it is sent, how acceptance or rejection is recorded and what milestones exist before making a claim. This is an administrative, not a clinical, change.

Data protection: what does not change with electronic invoicing

The sources cited do not include specific criteria from the AEPD (Spain’s data protection authority) nor concrete rulings; therefore, it is not appropriate to attribute new data protection obligations beyond what is already required in any processing. In practice, the management of electronic invoicing and related records must continue to treat patient data with the appropriate organisational measures and with access restricted to authorised staff, insofar as healthcare invoicing may include identifying information and, where applicable, sensitive details.

What remains pending and what to watch closely

El Economista’s story about Cecot’s request focuses on the lack of confirmation of the schedule. For a clinic, the points to monitor are twofold:

Official confirmation of dates and conditions

Until the AEAT confirms the requested schedule, any planning should consider scenarios and avoid irreversible commitments based on assumptions that have not been published.

Technical and operational requirements that are specified

Invoicing operations may depend on how technical and reporting obligations are defined, and on whether transitional periods are provided. With the information available from the cited sources, those issues cannot be considered finalised.

References and links

• El Economista: request from Cecot that the AEAT confirm the Verifactu schedule.
• El Economista (PDF): data on electronic invoicing, volume in Italy and mention of losses from non-payments.

This article summarises public information from the sector. It is not legal or tax advice.