>> “The institutional realignment is the right approach to revitalize public health in Germany,” writes the BMC in its paper and also states the reason for its unequivocal approval: “So far, public health has suffered primarily from a lack of coordination among the relevant actors.” Therefore A “powerful” federal institute for public health that coordinates the numerous activities, integrates institutions and combines research, care and administration under one roof has a key function.
In order for the realignment to be successful, the authors continue in their paper, it is now important to lay the “right foundation” for the federal institute, in which all core areas of public health are covered. In addition, in order to prevent redundancies and frictional losses, cooperation with other relevant institutions must be restructured. Because: “The exchange between all stakeholders is central to enabling a coherent approach. Improving public health can only be achieved together.” But that is not the case, as co-author Prof. Dr. Reinhard Busse, Professor of Healthcare Management at the TU Berlin, explained in the BMC web talk. Since public health was rediscovered in western Germany around 25 years ago, there has been a coexistence between practical orientation and scientific engagement with this scientific field, which continues to this day. In the meantime, there have been approaches such as the “Public Health Future Forum”, which was intended to build a bridge. But it was already clear back then that practice and science actually had to be thought of together. This is exactly what can now be achieved.
At the BMC web talk, two of the...
Thirteen authors presented the paper. “A pub
lic Health Federal Institute can only be successful if it covers a specific set of tasks and uses a wide range of competencies.
united, appropriately networked and independent,” explained Prof. Dr. Volker Amelung, Chairman of the BMC and Professor for International Health Systems Research at the Hannover Medical School. “Politicians must now set the course to ensure that no further institute with an authority character is created that cannot react in crisis situations.” For the urgently needed realignment of public health, the “long overdue” institute should be designed as a powerful think tank for research and supply networks, is an attractive employer and, above all, has the right to be heard in politics. His general opinion: “What is written in the coalition paper is great and a unique opportunity. You just have to get involved and think about how such an institute can be designed.”
“The current uncoordinated collection and publication of health data leaves us in the dark. This means no evidence-based policy can be made,” added co-author Busse. He emphasized that the federal government must clearly define the range of tasks of the federal institute. In addition to better communication, gaining data-based knowledge is crucial, says the doctor and health economist. His petition: “We need a federal institute as a research data center that carries out reliable analyzes and ensures that its findings are also carried beyond the healthcare system, in the spirit of health in all policies.”
Prof. Dr. Marie-Luise Dierks, who was unable to attend the web conversation, pointed out in a written statement that a federal institute has a wide range of competencies, from socio-medical know-how to met-
I need hodic skills for communication skills. The head of the course
Public Health at Hannover Medical School and co-author of the paper therefore recommends a “hybrid organizational structure with ad-hoc task forces or guest positions that provide temporary work for
the Federal Institute”. In order to attract truly excellent scientists and experts from all areas to the federal institute, no rigid structures should be created.
The question, Amelung said in the web conversation, will be how to ensure that such an institute does not become a “toothless tiger” or a “subdivision of some ministry”. Nevertheless, it must be set up to be “extremely politically relevant”, have a direct influence on politics and, although “close to it”, be structured in such a way that it is neither bound by instructions nor has to process what is imposed on it.
Monika Schneider, policy advisor at the AOK Federal Association, pointed out in a speech as a participant in the web conversation, among other things, that so far many topics have been raised and many papers have been created on them, but there is a lack of prioritization and, above all, implementation. AOK BV had already developed these points in its own internal paper, which it would like to include, which Amelung was happy to accept. <<

Link to the BMC paper: https://bit.ly/37tS46

Prof. Dr. Volker Amelung, Federal Association of Managed Care e. V. & Hanover Medical School
Prof. Dr. Reinhard Busse, Technical University of Berlin
Prof. Dr. Marie-Luise Dierks, Hannover Medical School
Thomas Altgeld, State Association for Health and Academy for Social Medicine Lower Saxony e. V..
Malte Behmer, Federal Association of Managed Care e. v.
Dr. Anne Sophie Geier, National Association for Digital Health Care e. v.
Dr. Bernhard Gibis, National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians
Dr. Bernadette Klapper, German Professional Association for Nursing Professions - Bundesverband e. v.
Matthias Mohrmann, AOK Rheinland/Hamburg
Johanna Nüsken, Federal Association of Managed Care e. v.
Prof. Dr. Alexandra Philipsen, University Hospital Bonn
Prof. Dr. Friedrich Wilhelm Schwartz
Prof. Dr. Ulla Walter, Hannover Medical School