Ambulante Spezialfachärztliche Versorgung (ASV): eine multiperspektivische Studie zu Status quo, Herausforderungen und Perspektiven

Abstract

BackgroundIn 2012, the so-called ambulatory medical specialist care (ASV) was implemented in accordance with para. 116b of Book V of the German Social Code (SGB V), enabling physicians in outpatient practices and hospitals to treat patients with rare diseases or complex courses of disease in a uniform framework. The implementation, however, is slow. The Joint Federal Committee (G-BA) has therefore commissioned an evaluation of the ASV with the aim to examine the reasons for this and to provide recommendations for further development. MethodsThe health services research study “GOAL-ASV” (Innovation Fund, 01VSF19002) included a multi-perspective design with primary data collection as well as secondary data analyses. Data from the ASV service center and the central association of statutory health insurances and the notification forms of the extended state committees were analyzed. Data from the Robert Koch-Institute, the Federal Joint Committee, the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds and a literature database analysis were used in order to estimate the proportion of insured persons qualifying for ASV. Care was examined by analyzing pseudonymized routine data from the statutory health insurances using selected indicators. Participating and not participating physicians were asked to complete an online survey. ResultsSince the start of ASV, 615,531 insured persons have been treated in this form of care. At the time of analysis, 509 teams were operating, with 26,540 physicians treating 102,898 patients by the end of March 2021 in all indications. This comprises less than 9.8 %. of all approx. 1.05 million eligible patients. Especially in the case of rare diseases, a low willingness of participation can be seen. In addition, there was a relevant proportion of multiple uses of physicians within and outside ASV at 31 percent as well as indications of passive participation of doctors. We found significant regional differences in type and scope of the notification procedure as well as the implementation of teams with 13.4 teams per 1 million inhabitants in Schleswig-Holstein and no team in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Patient benefits (84 %), interdisciplinary (82 %) and cross-sectoral cooperation (75 %) were cited as motivations for participation. The main barriers reported by the respondents were the complex and laborious notification procedure (60 %), the administrative and documentation effort during participation (50 %), insufficient billing figures (49 %), and a small proportion of patients (32 %) with a consecutively unfavorable assessment of the cost to income ratio due to the current reimbursement system. DiscussionNearly ten years after its introduction, the ASV has not become established nationwide. The reasons for this probably are the complex notification procedure and the reimburesement system for rare diseases. In the case of rare diseases, the risk of underuse is becoming apparent. ConclusionStrategies to further develop the ASV should, in particular, simplify the notification procedure and reduce the obstacles during participation. The remuneration system should take more account of the specific care required.