This point is an important pillar of our therapy concept because it allows those people who cannot afford the valuable ECT treatment from their own means to access it anyway. In the first instance you don’t have a "fundamental" right to claim repayment of the costs of ECT treatment. However, based on the precedent given, there are very promising paths within the framework of the so-called individual case ruling for repayment of the treatment costs.
Together with an associated attorney’s office, we offer what has become a nearly standardised route to success in dealing with health insurance companies. The attorney’s office with which we are associated has many years of relevant experience of many judgments contested with a great variety of health insurance companies. This experience benefits all our patients who decide to go down this route. The prospects of success have been very high up to now and in most cases costs have been refunded.
Contact us. We will support you.
- 1 BvR 347/98 -
It is not compatible with fundamental rights from Art. 2 Sec. 1 GG in connection with the principle of the Social State Principle from Art. 2 sec. 2 sentence 1 GG, to exclude a person having legal health insurance and for whose life-threatening or normally fatal illness no generally recognised treatment according with medical standards is available, from the delivery of a medically-administered treatment method chosen by him, if the prospect of cure is not remote, or if there is a discernable positive effect on the progression of the illness.
This means seriously ill persons may also use alternative medicine!
Seriously ill persons will in future be able to have the costs of alternative methods of treatment refunded. That is the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court.
After the published decision, patients who are suffering from a life-threatening illness do not have to be directed by health insurance companies only to scientifically recognised methods of conventional medicine. If there is more than a "remote prospect" of cure or improvement, than the legal health insurance company must also allow treatments outside its service catalogue, as per the finding of the First Senate (Az: 1 BvR 347/98 – decision of 6th December 2005).
That is how Karlsruhe court found in favour of an 18 year old who was suffering from a severe, incurable muscle disease, "Duchenne muscular dystrophy", which normally leads to loss of the ability to walk in childhood and severely limits life expectancy.
The health insurance company had refused to pay for treatment with high frequency oscillations, the so-called bioresonance therapy , even though doctors had established a clearly more favourable progression of the illness than in comparable cases. The Federal Social Court too refused the claim of several thousand Euro.
The constitutional judges on the other hand pointed out the state’s duty to protect life and health. If the state assumes responsibility for the physical integrity of insured persons through a system of legal health insurance, then precautions in the case of life-threatening or fatal diseases belong in the key duties of service. According to the word of the court, it must therefore be proved in concrete individual cases whether such treatment will have any positive effect on the progress of the illness. (dpa)