The federal participation law : New requirements for needs assessment with special emphasis on medical rehabilitation services

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

The federal participation law (Bundesteilhabegesetz - BTHG) is one of the largest efforts in the last 15years to reform the legal participation rights of people with disabilities. In particular, anumber of enhancements are planned in the overall benefits law in Part1 of BookIX in the Social Code (Sozialgesetzbuch - SGB), which applies to all rehabilitation carriers including general provisions and standards for needs assessment. This paper deals with the implications of these provisions and interacting standards, based on the draft bill of April 2016.The discussion takes place against the background of the regulatory objectives formulated in the ministerial draft itself, jurisprudential expertise on the effects of the current legal norms of the SGBIX as well as relevant professional political developments and statements by various stakeholders.The analysis shows aclear political commitment to increase the requirements for needs assessment in the overall law of the SGBIX and to express these more effectively. The draft bill seeks not only to modify procedures subsequent to the application for rehabilitation benefits, but also to precisely set out provisions on instruments for needs assessment in anew §13. Common principles for these instruments of needs assessment should increase the cooperation, coordination and convergence among rehabilitation carriers.Nevertheless, with regard to the proposed regulatory texts, there is doubt that the objectives set by the draft bill itself will be achieved. For example, the required common principles for needs assessment are to be agreed upon based on the existing special legislation for the different rehabilitation carriers, without the SGBIX setting its own binding standards or framework principles. In addition, it lacks clear legal guidelines for the professional practice to make use of the bio-psycho-social model of the WHO and the ICF in the process of needs assessment. As aconsequence the ICF cannot serve as alegally standardized reference point.