[Guarantee of illness assistance for people seeking asylum: Two-tiered medical system in Germany?]

The Electronic Health Insurance Card for Asylum-Seekers in Berlin: Effects on the Local Health System

BACKGROUND

In debates on asylum-seekers' access to healthcare it is frequently claimed that restrictions are necessary to prevent unduly high health service utilization and costs. Within Germany, healthcare provision for asylum-seekers varies across the different states. Berlin's authorities removed some barriers to healthcare for asylum-seekers by introducing an electronic health insurance card (HIC) in 2016. We used the HIC introduction in Berlin as an opportunity to investigate the effects of improved healthcare access for asylum-seekers on the local health system.

METHODS

The study applied a mixed-methods design. A cost analysis compared expenses for outpatient and inpatient health services for asylum-seekers before and after the HIC introduction, based on aggregate claims data and information on expenses for humanitarian healthcare provision that were retrieved from the Berlin authorities. Semi-structured interviews with 12 key informants explored organizational effects like administrative workloads and ethical dilemmas for staff. We performed a content analysis and used respondent validation to enhance the accuracy and trustworthiness of our results.

RESULTS

The HIC has reduced bureaucratic complexity and administrative workloads; it has enabled unprecedented financial transparency and control; and it has mitigated ethical tensions. All the while, average per person expenses for outpatient health services have declined since the HIC introduction. However, our cost analysis also indicates a rise in the utilization and costs of inpatient care.

CONCLUSION

The HIC introduction in Berlin suggests that the removal of barriers to healthcare for asylum-seekers can create win-win-situations by reducing administrative workloads, advancing financial transparency, and mitigating ethical tensions, whilst cutting the costs of outpatient healthcare provision. Removing barriers to healthcare thus appears to be a more prudent policy choice than maintaining mechanisms of restriction and control. However, high inpatient care utilization and costs warrant further research.

Inequalities in access to healthcare by local policy model among newly arrived refugees: evidence from population-based studies in two German states

Background

Access to healthcare is restricted for newly arriving asylum seekers and refugees (ASR) in many receiving countries, which may lead to inequalities in health. In Germany, regular access and full entitlement to healthcare (equivalent to statutory health insurance, SHI) is only granted after a waiting time of 18 months. During this time of restricted entitlements, local authorities implement different access models to regulate asylum seekers’ access to healthcare: the electronic health card (EHC) or the healthcare voucher (HV). This paper examines inequalities in access to healthcare by comparing healthcare utilization by ASR under the terms of different local models (i.e., regular access equivalent to SHI, EHC, and HV).

Methods

We used data from three population-based, cross-sectional surveys among newly arrived ASR (N=863) and analyzed six outcome measures: specialist and general practitioner (GP) utilization, unmet needs for specialist and GP services, emergency department use and avoidable hospitalization. Using logistic regression, we calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals for all outcome measures, while considering need by adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics and health-related covariates.

Results

Compared to ASR with regular access, ASR under the HV model showed lower needs-adjusted odds of specialist utilization (OR=0.41 [0.24-0.66]) while ASR under the EHC model did not differ from ASR with regular access in any of the outcomes. The comparison between EHC and HV model showed higher odds for specialist utilization under the EHC model as compared to the HV model (OR=2.39 [1.03-5.52]). GP and emergency department utilization, unmet needs and avoidable hospitalization did not show significant differences in any of the fully adjusted models.

Conclusion

ASR using the HV are disadvantaged in their access to healthcare compared to ASR having either an EHC or regular access. Given equal need, they use specialist services less. The identified inequalities constitute inequities in access to healthcare that could be reduced by policy change from HV to the EHC model during the initial 18 months waiting time, or by granting ASR regular healthcare access upon arrival. Potential patterns of differences in GP utilization, unmet needs, emergency department use and avoidable hospitalization between the models deserve further exploration in future studies.

Towards inclusionary and diversity-sensitive public health: the consequences of exclusionary othering in public health using the example of COVID-19 management in German reception centres and asylum camps

The German government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been predominantly considered wellfounded. Still, the practice of mass quarantine in reception centres and asylum camps has been criticised for its discrimination of refugees and asylum seekers. Building on the concept of othering, this article argues that processes of othering are structurally anchored in German asylum regulations and they have further pervaded public health measures against COVID-19. The practice of mass quarantine made the negative consequences of exclusionary othering for public health particularly noticeable. In the light of recent data indicating this measure to be epidemiologically, legally and ethically insufficient, we apply the concept of othering to public health and discuss (1) exclusionary, (2) inclusionary and (3) diversity-sensitive approaches to public health. We finally conclude that a shift of perspective from exclusion to inclusion, from subordination to empowerment and from silencing to participation is urgently required.

An overview of health policies for asylum-seekers in Germany

Health policies for asylum-seekers are a subject of debate across European countries. However, information on current strategies to respond to these populations' health needs is scarce. To facilitate comparative research, this paper renders a detailed overview of Germany's asylum-seeker health policies. Following a description of the historic development and administrative structure of asylum-seeker health care in Germany, we provide a detailed account of asylum-seekers' scope of health entitlements, as it is defined by federal law. We explain the main mechanisms that are used to implement the law on local levels and regulate health care access; namely, the electronic health insurance card and the health care voucher. Financing and billing structures are described, and main points of critique of Germany's asylum-seeker health policies are summarized. Our description highlights fragmentation and internal variations as central features of Germany's asylum-seeker health policies. It explicates how these features are rooted in decentralization, and in the regulation of restricted health benefits through a parallel system, separate from statutory health insurance. As a case-study, Germany's asylum-seeker health policies illustrate the administrative, economic and ethical burdens implied in granting health benefits through a parallel system, and in absence of central health governance. The (re)integration of asylum-seeker health care in statutory health insurance could reduce these burdens and contribute to equitable health care access.