Criticism of the draft law – medical practices demand sensible patient control

04.03.2015 16:59

At the first reading in the German Bundestag, the Association of Resident Doctors in Germany renewed its criticism of the Health Care Strengthening Act and called for sensible control of patients. “The planned term service positions are purely symbolic politics and will not resolve the supply bottlenecks in specialist medical services,” predicts the federal chairman of the NAV-Virchow Association, Dr. Dirk Heinrich. Instead of thinking about suitable ways to control patient flows, the law would take away capacity from outpatient care. This doesn't fit together front and back.

The planned allocation of specialist appointments by the statutory health insurance associations (KVen) will only restrict patients' free choice of doctor. However, the actual cause of sometimes long waiting times is ignored. Heinrich: “It must be clear to every patient that the four-week guarantee does not automatically lead to the doctor of their choice around the corner. But this is precisely the promise politicians make to the population. There must finally be a rethinking of the use of medical services. The doctor doesn't come for free. Every visit to the practice incurs costs. Many patients are not aware of this. These costs are offset by limited premium income in statutory health insurance, which will run out at some point. Centralized appointment allocation doesn’t change that.” The NAV boss demands that communicating this to people is the job of politicians.

However, the draft law is far from that. Instead of responding appropriately to the increasing treatment needs of an aging population, politicians are putting the red pencil on outpatient care. “With the forced purchase of practices in numerically oversupplied areas, the draft law contains an irresolvable contradiction: guaranteed appointments here, practice closures there,” criticizes Heinrich. Instead, decades-old needs planning is stoically adhered to, which is based purely on ratios and not on the disease burden on the population.

What care could look like in the future is explained by Dr. Using the practice networks as an example, Heinrich makes it clear: “Thanks to close intercollegiate exchange and the use of electronic communication channels, waiting times in the networks are already significantly shorter than in uncontrolled standard care. Multiple examinations are avoided. Medications are only used to the extent that they are actually needed.” This is where the legislature must start and make innovative treatment models accessible to all patients. The more binding promotion of practice networks, as provided for in the law, is a good approach.

Overall, however, the law devalues self-government. “The undemocratic weighting of votes in the representative meetings and the establishment of further sector boundaries make the VSG overall a law that weakens supply,” states Heinrich.