A new regulation is imminent. ” Decided by the old Bundestag: The newly regulated flat-rate retention fee for GPs goes back to a stipulation by the former Federal Minister of Health, Karl Lauterbach, who wanted to use it to promote primary care for GPs. It was passed by the old Bundestag in January with the Healthcare Reinforcement Act. ” (Quote from KBV)
According to the KBV and GKV heath insurance associations, the newly negotiated flat rate for GPs from 1 January “is intended to promote primary care more strongly.
The retention fee is a basic payment that GPs receive for simply “making their practice available”. In other words, doctors receive the lump sum for caring for patients on their site – regardless of individual services. It is intended to secure GP care.
The following criteria, among others, are listed for the payment of a lump sum:
“Vaccinations”
- To fulfil this criterion, the practices must carry out and charge for enough vaccinations in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarters of a year so that the total corresponds to seven percent of its 1,000 treatment cases. In the 4th quarter, in which flu vaccinations are primarily carried out, the total number of vaccinations to fulfil the criterion must be at least 25 percent. That would be 250 vaccinations in the 4th quarter, for example.
- Each vaccination carried out and billed is counted here (in accordance with Annex 1 of the G-BA’s vaccination guideline) and not the number of vaccinated patients. The criterion includes the regionally agreed GOP of Chapter 89, including COVID-19 vaccinations. The number of vaccinations also counts for multiple vaccinations of patients in a quarter with different vaccines (e.g. influenza, COVID-19 and RSV) or the same vaccine (e.g. TBE).
There is a new discount for GP practices that carry out fewer than ten immunisations per quarter. Their retention fee will be reduced by 40 per cent, as vaccinations are part of basic GP care.
In addition to the obvious pressure to bring more vaccinations to the population, the free choice of treatment also suffers as a result. Doctors must follow a clear service and treatment programme – regardless of whether this contradicts the health needs of their patients.
Of course, the scheme follows the guidelines and interests of the health insurance companies (and the pharmaceutical industry behind them). Actual cures then cost the doctor money: whoever vaccinates, collects; whoever cures, goes broke.
So writes Next Level:
“Those who keep their patients healthy in the long term, for example through species-appropriate nutrition and psycho-emotional balance, have fewer ‘services’, fewer diagnoses, less billing – and lose money. Those who vaccinate and diagnose are rewarded – regardless of whether they are healthy.”
