>> Roski: Ladies and gentlemen, I open the panel discussion.

Schüürmann: I would like to pause for a second at the point of partnership and the concept of responsibility and liability. The problem is that liability in the Patient Rights Act has been shifted further onto the practitioner and has been made even more specific. I think partnership is great and I'm always happy when the patient has a say on an equal level. The only thing I miss is liability and responsibility. This remains entirely with me as a doctor, because there is nothing in the legislation for the patient. This should be taken into account. Then we'll all be there straight away.

Neugebauer: That is a correct comment. We have a lot of catching up to do. That's why we have to take care of it, it's true.

Diel: That concerns professional liability. The other thing is: taking responsibility. It is often unsatisfactory for doctors when they try hard and end up with patients, for example, continuing to smoke or not taking medication. As a doctor, you shouldn't be sensitive about this. But if you are subsequently blamed for the fact that the result is incorrect, then things get tricky.

Roski: What does the patient representative say, Mr. Strunz?

Strunz: Of course you are right. From the doctor's point of view, it is important that the patient behaves as the doctor recommends and believes is right and if the compliance is right. This is really a problem with patients who come from - let's put it cautiously - lower social classes. I can imagine that as a doctor you are powerless in the face of such a phenomenon. The differences in the perception of the opportunities offered by our healthcare system depend heavily on social class. Many studies have proven this. There is no difference between people from higher and lower social classes in the frequency of doctor visits alone. Only: you go to the doctor differently. People from lower social classes go to the doctor when they have a cold and relatively minor illnesses and neglect, for example, preventive examinations. And unfortunately, they don't often follow doctor's recommendations.

Roski: What does the health insurance company that has to pay for it say, Mr. Möhlmann?

Möhlmann: First of all: that the health insurance company doesn't pay anything, but that everything that the health insurance companies spend has been previously given by the insured person and their employer. This afternoon the discussion is once again trending in the direction that we are setting the bar we have set ourselves so high that we will definitely break it. The health insurance companies also have the task of organizing the balance between the interests of patients and those of the insured. To start at the collective level: What will happen if self-government reform occurs? And what if, in a kind of liquid democracy, the representatives are elected to the administrative boards of the health insurance companies? Then we will get a real sharpness between the dichotomous forms of patient and insured person interests. Then many of the things we are discussing today are probably far out of the question. We have to be careful with each other that we don't take off, because the health insurance doesn't pay for everything.
When it is now discussed that the lower social classes are actually not capable at all... <<