Partly “fear and terror”
Patient representative wants to abolish some self-pay options
April 4, 2024, 7:57 a.m
Listen to article
This audio version was artificially generated. More info | Send feedback
Health insurance companies do not cover individual health services, but doctors are happy to offer them. The Federal Government’s patient representative now wants to have some of them banned. Certain methods of early cancer detection would do more harm than good to young women.
The Federal Government’s patient representative, Stefan Schwartze, is calling for certain self-pay services – so-called individual health services (IGEL) – to be banned. “I demand very clearly: Services that are described as harmful by medical societies have no place in doctors’ offices and should be banned, even within the framework of Igel,” the SPD politician told the editorial network Germany.
Specifically, he mentioned the ultrasound examination for the early detection of cancer in the ovaries and uterus. This investigation is one of the best-selling services, Schwartze said. However, it is one of the offers that is harmful because there are often false-positive results, resulting in unnecessary further examinations and interventions. “Here, young women are unnecessarily put into fear and terror. This examination is therefore also rejected by the gynecological societies,” he reported.
According to Schwartze, the traffic light coalition is also preparing legal and financial relief for victims of medical errors. Discussions with Federal Justice Minister Marco Buschmann about reforming the Patient Rights Act are on the right track. “There is movement in the matter,” he said. Work is also underway on the hardship fund promised in the coalition agreement.
Complexity of the human body
“Those affected usually fail to prove that the damage was caused solely by a medical error,” said Schwartze. This full proof is extremely difficult in practice. “That’s why I’m committed to ensuring that the overwhelming probability is sufficient in the future. This does justice to the complexity of the human body and has long been valid in countries with comparable legal systems, for example in Austria or Switzerland,” he emphasizes.
The hardship fund is not intended to replace liability law, but rather occurs when people have suffered serious damage to their health after treatment and have therefore gotten into financial difficulties. If it is determined in court that there really was a treatment error, the person responsible must pay the money back to the fund. “However, if it was a fateful development, then the general public should pay for it, not those affected themselves,” he said.