[Evidence-based medicine and public health law: statutory health insurance].
Beyond all differences in terminology and legal principles between the laws governing private health insurance, the governmental financial support for civil, servants and statutory health insurance the fundamental issues to be solved by the courts in case of litigation are quite similar. But only a part of these refer to the quality of medical services, which is the main concern of Evidence-based Medicine (EbM); EbM, though, is not able to contribute towards answering the equally important question of how to distinguish between "treatment" and "(health-relevant) lifestyle". The respective definitions that have been developed in the particular fields of law are only seemingly divergent from each other and basically unsuitable to aid the physician in his clinical decision-making because the common blanket clauses of public health law are regularly interpreted as rules for the exclusion of certain claims and not as a confirmatory paraphrase of what is clinically necessary. If on the other hand medical quality is what lies at the core of litigation, reference to EbM may become necessary. In fact, it is already common practice in the statutory health insurance system that decision-making processes in the Federal Committee being responsible for quality assurance (Bundesausschuss) are based on EbM principles and that in exceptional cases only the courts have to medically review the Federal Committee's decisions.
Dreher
Wolfgang
W
Bundessozialgericht, Kassel. w.dreher@bsg.bund.de
D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine / Q000592:standards*; D005858:Germany; D006801:Humans; D009313:National Health Programs / Q000592:standards*; D011634:Public Health / Q000592:standards*; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care