Research ExplorerPublicationsWer sollte über Anträge zur medizinischen Rehabilitation ent...

Wer sollte über Anträge zur medizinischen Rehabilitation entscheiden? Eine kritische Betrachtung der Vorschläge des Sachverständigenrates

Standard

Wer sollte über Anträge zur medizinischen Rehabilitation entscheiden? Eine kritische Betrachtung der Vorschläge des Sachverständigenrates. / van den Bussche, H; Dunkelberg, S.

In: REHABILITATION, Vol. 42, No. 6, 12.2003, p. 350-3.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

van den Bussche, H & Dunkelberg, S 2003, 'Wer sollte über Anträge zur medizinischen Rehabilitation entscheiden? Eine kritische Betrachtung der Vorschläge des Sachverständigenrates', REHABILITATION, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 350-3. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2003-812544

APA

van den Bussche, H., & Dunkelberg, S. (2003). Wer sollte über Anträge zur medizinischen Rehabilitation entscheiden? Eine kritische Betrachtung der Vorschläge des Sachverständigenrates. REHABILITATION, 42(6), 350-3. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2003-812544

Vancouver

van den Bussche H, Dunkelberg S. Wer sollte über Anträge zur medizinischen Rehabilitation entscheiden? Eine kritische Betrachtung der Vorschläge des Sachverständigenrates. REHABILITATION. 2003 Dec;42(6):350-3. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2003-812544

Bibtex

@article{6e3e9bebd3b24fa29449d0025d8d39c1,
title = "Wer sollte {\"u}ber Antr{\"a}ge zur medizinischen Rehabilitation entscheiden? Eine kritische Betrachtung der Vorschl{\"a}ge des Sachverst{\"a}ndigenrates",
abstract = "Summary. In Germany the allocation of rehabilitation services depends on a decision of one of the social insurance funds. This decision is taken on the basis of an assessment of the application file by a physician of the fund. The general practitioner who may be the best informed professional as to the patients' disability, has no decision power in this allocation process. In 2001, however, the prestigious Advisory Board to the Ministry of Health proposed to leave the allocation to the general practitioner or another physician in office practice, thus restricting the role of the fund to verifying the appropriateness of the decision of the GP. This proposal is reviewed on the basis of the results of a survey among all general practitioners in the four L{\"a}nder of Hamburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Sachsen-Anhalt (n = 2110; response rate of 46%) done between 1999 and 2001. Furthermore, several steps and measures are proposed in view of increasing the involvement of the GP in the allocation process and of improving the communication between the funds and the general practitioners.",
keywords = "Eligibility Determination, Expert Testimony, Family Practice, Germany, Humans, National Health Programs, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Rehabilitation, Resource Allocation",
author = "{van den Bussche}, H and S Dunkelberg",
year = "2003",
month = dec,
doi = "10.1055/s-2003-812544",
language = "Deutsch",
volume = "42",
pages = "350--3",
journal = "REHABILITATION",
issn = "0034-3536",
publisher = "Georg Thieme Verlag KG",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Wer sollte über Anträge zur medizinischen Rehabilitation entscheiden? Eine kritische Betrachtung der Vorschläge des Sachverständigenrates

AU - van den Bussche, H

AU - Dunkelberg, S

PY - 2003/12

Y1 - 2003/12

N2 - Summary. In Germany the allocation of rehabilitation services depends on a decision of one of the social insurance funds. This decision is taken on the basis of an assessment of the application file by a physician of the fund. The general practitioner who may be the best informed professional as to the patients' disability, has no decision power in this allocation process. In 2001, however, the prestigious Advisory Board to the Ministry of Health proposed to leave the allocation to the general practitioner or another physician in office practice, thus restricting the role of the fund to verifying the appropriateness of the decision of the GP. This proposal is reviewed on the basis of the results of a survey among all general practitioners in the four Länder of Hamburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Sachsen-Anhalt (n = 2110; response rate of 46%) done between 1999 and 2001. Furthermore, several steps and measures are proposed in view of increasing the involvement of the GP in the allocation process and of improving the communication between the funds and the general practitioners.

AB - Summary. In Germany the allocation of rehabilitation services depends on a decision of one of the social insurance funds. This decision is taken on the basis of an assessment of the application file by a physician of the fund. The general practitioner who may be the best informed professional as to the patients' disability, has no decision power in this allocation process. In 2001, however, the prestigious Advisory Board to the Ministry of Health proposed to leave the allocation to the general practitioner or another physician in office practice, thus restricting the role of the fund to verifying the appropriateness of the decision of the GP. This proposal is reviewed on the basis of the results of a survey among all general practitioners in the four Länder of Hamburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Sachsen-Anhalt (n = 2110; response rate of 46%) done between 1999 and 2001. Furthermore, several steps and measures are proposed in view of increasing the involvement of the GP in the allocation process and of improving the communication between the funds and the general practitioners.

KW - Eligibility Determination

KW - Expert Testimony

KW - Family Practice

KW - Germany

KW - Humans

KW - National Health Programs

KW - Quality Assurance, Health Care

KW - Rehabilitation

KW - Resource Allocation

U2 - 10.1055/s-2003-812544

DO - 10.1055/s-2003-812544

M3 - SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz

C2 - 14677106

VL - 42

SP - 350

EP - 353

JO - REHABILITATION

JF - REHABILITATION

SN - 0034-3536

IS - 6

ER -