[Medical Necessity: A Notoriously Fuzzy and Therefore Dispensable Concept?] / Medizinische Notwendigkeit: Ein entbehrlicher, da notorisch unscharfer Begriff?

The concept of a 'medical necessity' (medN) of interventions is used as a dichotomous attribute with steering and orientating function in various contexts without, however, being precisely defined. We see this lack as a virtue if medN is understood as the dynamic result of transparent, trustworthy, and coherent deliberative procedures on both facts and norms. We suggest using the medN concept relative to health care systems, but independent of economic aspects.

Risk-Adjusted Prevention. Perspectives on the Governance of Entitlements to Benefits in the Case of Genetic (Breast Cancer) Risks.

This article is a revised version of our proposal for the establishment of the legal concept of risk-adjusted prevention in the German healthcare system to regulate access to risk-reduction measures for persons at high and moderate genetic cancer risk (Meier et al. Risikoadaptierte Prävention'. Governance Perspective für Leistungsansprüche bei genetischen (Brustkrebs-)Risiken, Springer, Wiesbaden, 2018). The German context specifics are summarized to enable the source text to be used for other country-specific healthcare systems. Establishing such a legal concept is relevant to all universal and free healthcare systems similar to Germany's. Disease risks can be determined with increasing precision using bioinformatics and biostatistical innovations ('big data'), due to the identification of pathogenic germ line mutations in cancer risk genes as well as non-genetic factors and their interactions. These new technologies open up opportunities to adapt therapeutic and preventive measures to the individual risk profile of complex diseases in a way that was previously unknown, enabling not only adequate treatment but in the best case, prevention. Access to risk-reduction measures for carriers of genetic risks is generally not regulated in healthcare systems that guarantee universal and equal access to healthcare benefits. In many countries, including Austria, Denmark, the UK and the US, entitlement to benefits is essentially linked to the treatment of already manifest disease. Issues around claiming benefits for prophylactic measures involve not only evaluation of clinical options (genetic diagnostics, chemoprevention, risk-reduction surgery), but the financial cost and-from a social ethics perspective-the relationship between them. Section 1 of this chapter uses the specific example of hereditary breast cancer to show why from a medical, social-legal, health-economic and socio-ethical perspective, regulated entitlement to benefits is necessary for persons at high and moderate risk of cancer. Section 2 discusses the medical needs of persons with genetic cancer risks and goes on to develop the healthy sick model which is able to integrate the problems of the different disciplines into one scheme and to establish criteria for the legal acknowledgement of persons at high and moderate (breast cancer) risks. In the German context, the social-legal categories of classical therapeutic medicine do not adequately represent preventive measures as a regular service within the healthcare system. We propose risk-adjusted prevention as a new legal concept based on the heuristic healthy sick model. This category can serve as a legal framework for social law regulation in the case of persons with genetic cancer risks. Risk-adjusted prevention can be established in principle in any healthcare system. Criteria are also developed in relation to risk collectives and allocation (Sects. 3, 4, 5).

[Medical Methods: What Makes them Necessary? Part I: Medical Methods, medical Necessity and its Main Criteria]. / Medizinische Behandlungsmethoden: Was macht sie medizinisch notwendig? Teil I: Medizinische Methoden, medizinische Notwendigkeit und ihre Hauptkriterien.

OBJECTIVES: "Medical necessity" (MedN) is a fuzzy term. Our project aims at concretising the concept between medical ethics, social law, and social medicine to support health care regulation, primarily within Germany's statutory health insurance system. In a previous publication we identified MedN as a tripartite predicate: A specific clinical condition requires a specific medical intervention to reach a specific medical goal. Our two-part text searches for and discusses criteria to classify medical methods as generally medically necessary (medn), provided a non-trivial clinical condition and a relevant, legitimate, and reachable goal actually exist. In this paper we present the first part of our results. METHODS: Based on an extensive ethical, sociolegal and sociomedical body of literature, and starting with an non-controversial case vignette (thrombolysis in acute stroke), we generally followed a critical reconstructive approach. First we defined the term "medical method". In several interdisciplinary rounds, we then collected and discussed criteria from three sources: methods to develop clinical practice guidelines as compendia of indication rules, the National Model of Prioritisation in Swedish Health Care, and the HTA Core Model of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment as an instrument of political counselling. RESULTS: We identified general clinical efficacy and benefit as the 2 main "medical" criteria of MedN. As a third - epistemic - criterion, the corresponding bodies of evidence are always to be considered. Since clinical and prioritising guidelines grade their recommendations, the question arises whether MedN should be conceptualised as a dichotomous or finer graded predicate. In accord with German social law we advocate for the binary form. Further discussions focused on multifactorial MedN-configurations, the range of the term, and the variability of evidence requirements. CONCLUSIONS: No matter how the content of MedN is conceptualised, it seems impossible to include its criteria in an algorithm. So deliberative effort is indispensable at any stage of developing a programme to classify medical methods as medically necessary.

[Medical Methods: What Makes them Medically Necessary? Part II: Further Criteria, Overuse, Moving Thresholds, and Grey Zones]. / Medizinische Behandlungsmethoden: Was macht sie medizinisch notwendig? Teil II: Weitere Kriterien, Übermaßverbot, wandernde Grenzen und Grauzonen.

OBJECTIVES: "Medical necessity" (MedN) is a fuzzy term. Our project aims at concretising the concept between medical ethics, social law, and social medicine to support health care regulation, primarily within Germany's statutory health insurance system. In Part I, we identified efficacy, (net)benefit, and the corresponding bodies of evidence as obligatory criteria of MedN. This is the second part suggesting and discussing further criteria. METHODS: See Part I RESULTS: (Part II): As further MedN-criteria we critically assessed a method's effectiveness and acceptance in routine care, its potential beneficiaries, theoretical fundament, cost, and being without alternative as well as patients' self-responsibility, cooperation, and preferences. Since MedN has both lower and upper bounds, we had to consider certain cases of mis- and overuse, due for instance to "indication creep" or "disease mongering". CONCLUSIONS: The additional criteria neither establish MedN (when met singly or together) nor exclude it (when not met). If MedN is rejected in view of the 3 obligatory criteria then further information does not overturn the verdict. If a method is already assessed as being medn then further criteria do not make it "more or less necessary". Though we advocated for a binary MedN-concept (Part I) we are nonetheless convinced that not all medical methods deemed medn are equally medically relevant. Respective differences within the range of MedN could be assessed by techniques to prioritise medical conditions, methods, and aims.

[Entitlement to prophylactic treatment in cases of genetic predisposition for breast cancer : Interdisciplinary perspectives]. / Leistungsanspruch auf prophylaktische Behandlung bei genetischer Prädisposition für Brustkrebs : Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven.

Genetic tests can detect the predisposition to various diseases. The demand for gene diagnostics and corresponding prophylactic measures is increasing steadily. In the German healthcare system, however, legal uncertainties exist as to whether a mere risk of disease is reason enough to bear the costs for prophylactic measures. When medically effective prophylactic measures are available in certain cancer diseases, such as in hereditary breast cancer, the current practice of deciding in individual cases appears to be insufficient.The fact that persons with a high or very increased risk of breast cancer are precluded from a standard care procedure raises questions concerning ethical justification as well as medical plausibility. Moreover, it is remarkable that the statutory healthcare system treats persons at risk differently. In some cases there is a regulated way of reimbursement for preventive measures for persons at risk (factor V Leiden mutation) and in other cases there are only case-by-case decisions. Finally, in light of social regulations for persons at high and very increased risk this article considers the need of optimization regarding the risk communication in the decision-making process and the crucial question of budgetary impact for the German healthcare system.From a medical, ethical and legal perspective, a social regulation for persons at high and very increased risk of disease is inevitable and the consequences should be discussed in advance.