Thomas von Ostrowski, board member of the Professional Association of Prenatal Doctors (BVNP), sees a problem in the unclear definition of who the tests should be paid for. He warns: “Under no circumstances should the NIPT be understood as a screening test for trisomy 21.” In his view, however, this could happen in view of the unclear specifications. The G-BA decision stipulates that the new GKV benefit will come into effect if other tests have indicated a trisomy – or if a woman and her doctor are convinced that the test in her personal situation is necessary.
Angelika Wolff, an expert on counseling for pregnant women and pregnancy conflicts at Diakonie Germany, says when asked: “We expect that carrying out the NIPT could well become widespread.” .
A spokeswoman for the committee emphasized that the G-BA never made the decision easy for itself. In addition to the main argument that the test is a safe alternative to invasive examinations, the fact that the inclusion of the blood test in the statutory health insurance scheme will end an imbalance also plays a role. So far, it was a question of financial resources, whether women could use the test or were dependent on invasive procedures.
Experts see the key – and also the greatest difficulty – in communication and information. The G-BA spokeswoman refers to the brochure for insured persons, which must be included in the consultation. This describes which statements are possible with the blood test and which are not and how reliable the test results are. In addition, a conspicuous result must first be further clarified.