[Rationing in German health care with particular consideration of oncology: view points of German stakeholders--a qualitative interview study].
OBJECTIVE
Germany is at the beginning of a discussion about possible rationing in the health-care system. Cancer treatment, which is often cost-intensive but not always cost-effective, is frequently considered as a field for rationing.


METHODS
Against this background, we conducted semi-structured, guideline-based interviews with different stakeholders of the German health-care system and analysed them with the help of grounded theory techniques. The goal of the study was to collect the experiences and opinions of members of the German Medical Review Board of the Statutory Health Insurance Funds (MDK), leading officials in central administrations of the German health-care sector and health politicians (members of the Parliamentary Committee for Health of the Federal German Parliament, the Bundestag) regarding cost-considerations in treatment decisions in health care with a special focus on oncology.


RESULTS
(1) Cost-considerations have a limited role in the daily routine of the interviewed experts; (2) the interviewed personnel of the MDK were open to discuss rationing, while the group of leading officials was ambivalent and the health politicians rejected rationing and its discussion altogether; (3) the awareness of the opportunity costs of medical services varied with the profession of the interviewee: the members of the MDK saw opportunity costs primarily within the field of medicine, the leading officials noted the opportunity costs for other social services, and the health policy makers interpreted opportunity costs under fiscal budgetary aspects; (4) according to the interviewees, decisions on rationing require a legal basis, which should be based on a broad public discussion and an interdisciplinary debate among experts; (5) defining criteria for rationing was regarded as being outside of the professional competence of the interviewees; however, a preference with regard to the criterion of cost-effectiveness became apparent.


CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study indicate that the strongest opposition to a debate on rationing in Germany does not stem from the medical, but rather from the political sector. The criteria for rationing suggested in the theoretical debate are in need of a context-sensitive examination and specification for the field of oncology. A possible approach to constructively promote the debate on rationing is a stronger focus on social opportunity costs of health care. The exact role of experts in a discourse on rationing, which was emphasised by the interviewees, requires a thorough determination. It is necessary to differentiate between the roles of impartial experts and stakeholders. Decisions on rationing can ultimately only be legitimised politically by parliament.
Abteilung Sozialpolitik, Recht und Soziologie, Institut für Sozialwesen Universität Kassel, Kassel.
J
J
Lange
Institut für Medizinische Ethik und Geschichte der Medizin, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum.
C
C
Gönner
Institut für Medizinische Ethik und Geschichte der Medizin, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum.
J
J
Vollmann
Institut für Ethik, Geschichte und Theorie der Medizin, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München.
O
O
Rauprich
D001294:Attitude to Health; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis / Q000191:economics; D003625:Data Collection; D003695:Delivery of Health Care / Q000191:economics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000458:organization & administration; D005858:Germany; D017048:Health Care Costs / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D015276:Health Care Rationing / Q000191:economics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006291:Health Policy / Q000191:economics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D008495:Medical Oncology / Q000191:economics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D009937:Organizational Objectives / Q000191:economics*