On Tuesday morning, the technician health insurance (TK) had to apologize: “we Want to reassure us, but for now all, and then in peace, homeopathy speak? Yes, our Tweet of the night was not good.”
What had happened in the night? Because the TK had asked – in the middle of the dispute the subject of a conversation partner: “Can you give us a clean, scientific studies that prove the efficacy of homeopathy?”
The question was ill-advised from a many ways: health insurance, paid to the a method, can not pass easily, the burden of proof to a questioner. In addition, it would be at the homeopathy to show its effectiveness – what it has managed in 200 years.
In addition, the question in this case leads in a wrong direction. Because the funds will not cover the costs of homeopathic treatments at all because they are convinced of their effectiveness. But obviously, because part of the customers wishes to the.
Arguments in favour of homeopathy: “in the Trend” and “popular”
“The gentle medicine is the Trend”, it says on the website of the TK. “Many Telecom customers to natural healing procedure. The TK has, therefore, in the case of homeopathy, a special performance.”
The Barmer argues similarly: “homeopathy is not recognized scientifically, but popular and widely-used alternative medical treatment method.”
“Homeopathy is not part of the statutory service catalogue of the health insurance funds. Many patients have done with homeopathic treatment methods, however, have good experiences,” writes the BKK Mobil Oil, which means the method is also incorrectly as “herbal medicine”.
Only three examples do not show that the funds effectiveness, but to popularity.
Dorothee Meusch, spokesperson for the TK, clearly says: “We have no evidence of Efficacy for homeopathy.”
You quoted the legislation, which gives to the special therapeutic approaches (homeopathy, anthroposophy and phytotherapy) to your room in the statutory health insurance. “Methods of treatment, medicines and remedies of the special therapeutic approaches are not excluded” from it on the topic of benefits. The reimbursement of the cost of homeopathy on the move “in the tenths of a percent of our total expenditure,” said Meusch.
Better remuneration for speaking medicine required
The TK spokeswoman stressed the positive aspect that the 60 to 90-minute initial call to the homeopathic doctor talks to the medical practitioner does not pay the cash. “The doctor takes time for the patient, this can be very valuable.” Talk time is measured, otherwise, at the doctor often.
Does not need you to intervene here? Meusch: “We are of the opinion that speech is to be paid at the end of medicine. Currently, the doctor often earns the more, the further he is away from the patient.”
Homeopathy is just a detour, to pay a doctor talks better? No, you should not understand, said Meusch.
The TK had already argued years ago that the reimbursement of homeopathy Use a positive cost-benefit ratio. The idea behind it: The long doctor talks help to avoid the use of expensive drugs and further investigation. The TK also wanted to with Numbers.
Sick leave longer
A 2015 in the journal “Plos One” published a study, for the data of 44.500 TK-Insured persons were evaluated, however, came to a different conclusion: The patients who took homeopathy, incurred within 18 months cost significantly more than a comparable group of patients who did not do this. For one, this was due to more costs for therapy and medication. But the patients who were treated homeopathically were written, no longer sick.
A further investigation is still running: it checks whether TK-Insured persons, suffering from among others migraine, or Asthma, a homeopathic add-on treatment benefit. Results are expected in 2018.
It uses the patient, if Doctors take more time for you, you already know now. So why the talk time is not paid for generally better? Doctors, the feel of a scientifically-based medicine required, their effectiveness is proven, could then schedule it as a longer conversation blocks, and be remunerated accordingly.
Summarized: a Lot of statutory health insurance funds assume the costs for homeopathic treatments because they are popular. The cost of acquisition is, however, no evidence that the method is effective.