Federal Association of German Private Clinics eV
Berlin (ots)
According to the private hospital operators, the planned hospital reform should include more incentives and freedom for better treatment quality and efficiency. This would achieve a more effective and sustainable modernization of health care than through bureaucratic restrictions and detailed regulations.
At their federal congress, which took place in Munich on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Association of Private Hospitals in Bavaria (VPKA), the representatives of the approximately 1,300 German hospitals and rehabilitation/prevention facilities, organized in the Federal Association of German Private Hospitals (BDPK), spoke to each other private sponsorship against an anti-competitive attitude in health policy. The freedom to choose between several providers is an important value of healthcare, as competition constantly drives clinics to become better and to innovate. “Competition is not the patient’s enemy, but his closest ally,” said BDPK President Dr. Catherine Nebel.
The clinic representatives agreed that the reform should not be based on the size and number of specialist departments in the hospitals, as planned, but rather on their specialization and the quality of the treatment processes. BDPK Vice President Thomas Lemke, CEO of Sana Klinken AG, appealed to the legislator not to continue to regulate health care with negative restrictions, but instead to create a positive incentive system: “Incentives for outpatient treatment belong in the funding guidelines of the federal states. If it’s only about beds, you can’t change the structures,” says Lemke. BDPK board member Kai Hankeln, CEO of Asklepios Kliniken GmbH & Co. KGaA, is convinced: “Everyone involved must accept that productivity and efficiency are important. We need district-based structural changes and smaller clinics should be converted into outpatient centers. Everything else would be a waste of money!” Another appeal was made by BDPK board member Dr. York Dhein, CEO of Mediclin AG, to politicians: “Just like the hospitals, the rehabilitation facilities are in a precarious situation due to years of underfunding and are facing a cold structural change with the threat of closures. It is therefore urgently necessary to include rehabilitation in the discussion about hospital reform.”
In a video message to the congress participants, Federal Minister of Health Karl Lauterbach promised that the concerns of hospitals and rehabilitation/prevention facilities would be taken seriously: “The clinics will be better secured in the future. We will ensure that none of them go offline due to insolvency.” In the panel discussion, Prof. Dr. Tom Bschor, head of the government commission for modern and needs-based hospital care. The word “closure” does not appear in the recommendations of the government commission, he assured. In addition, the members of the Commission never assumed that their proposals would be implemented one-to-one in a reform. Using the example of specialist hospitals, he made it clear that the commission papers are “cautious, forward-looking recommendations”: “Specialist hospitals are absolutely relevant for care in Germany. They should not be demolished and rebuilt elsewhere,” said Bschor. For the field of psychiatry, a separate statement from the government commission can be expected in the foreseeable future.
Dr. Christos Pantazis, member of the Bundestag Health Committee and hospital policy spokesman for the SPD parliamentary group, who was connected to the congress online. He reported that the introduction of a separate “Level F” for specialist hospitals was currently being discussed. Bernhard Seidenath, health policy spokesman for the CSU parliamentary group and chairman of the committee for health and care in the Bavarian state parliament, made it clear that the federal states will have a say in the reform. You could accept recommendations from the federal government, but in the end there would have to be regional decisions.
A scientific external view of the current reform process in Germany was given by Prof. Stefan Scholtes from the Cambridge Judge Business School in a short presentation. According to a basic formula for change management, the beginning of a reorganization is the “shared dissatisfaction” of all those involved. This results in the agreed formulation of long-term goals and, based on this, the gradual and consensual implementation of the measures. According to Scholte’s assessment, this principle is only being followed to a limited extent in the German hospital reform, which is why there is a need for optimization in the political approach.
In addition to the hospital reform, the procedure for remuneration negotiations in rehabilitation and pension facilities was a central topic at the BDPK Federal Congress 2023. BDPK board member Dr. York Dhein, CEO of Mediclin AG, explained in his introductory speech that the existing massive liquidity problems and the enormous cost pressure are clear signs that the existing rehabilitation reimbursement system is in urgent need of reform. The complex remuneration negotiations with the different legal framework conditions of the German pension insurance and the statutory health insurance are outdated and grueling. The conflict-ridden negotiations with the individual health insurance companies have played a significant part in the increasingly desolate financial situation of the rehabilitation and pension facilities. The clinics would therefore have to prepare for the visit to the arbitration boards before the negotiations begin. Following on from this, Dr. Laura Mayer from the law firm Seufert presented the legal framework and challenges of the arbitration board procedure and Dr. Norbert Hemken, Managing Director of the Rehab Center by the Sea, explained practical courses of action based on his own experiences. In the discussion that followed, Prof. Dr. Claus Loos, chairman of the rehabilitation arbitration board in Bavaria, the problem of the lack of a legal basis for remuneration negotiations. He is looking forward to the framework recommendations that are being developed, which are also intended to regulate the principles of remuneration. The discussion made it clear that appealing to the arbitration boards should bring a quick out-of-court decision and save the long and tedious way via the social courts. Lawsuits against arbitration board decisions are associated with the risk of a suspensive effect, which, due to current legislation, is at the expense of the rehabilitation facilities and puts them in further financial difficulties. The BDPK member institutions therefore appealed to the legislature at their federal congress to abolish the “suspensive effect”.
The Federal Association of German Private Clinics (BDPK) has been representing the interests of more than 1,300 privately owned hospitals and rehabilitation clinics for over 70 years. As a leading association operating throughout Germany, it is committed to high-quality, innovative and economical patient care in hospitals and rehabilitation clinics.
Press contact:
Katrin Giese, Antonia von Randow
Press spokeswoman for the Federal Association of German Private Clinics
Friedrichstrasse 60, 10117 Berlin
Phone: 030 – 2 40 08 99 – 0; mailto:[email protected] www.bdpk.de
www.rehamachtsbesser.de
Original content from: Bundesverband Deutscher Privatkliniken eV, transmitted by news aktuell
