[Reimbursement differences in the ambulatory specialized care (ASV) compared to the previous care system. An exemplary analysis in medical oncology treating gastrointestinal malignancies]

Introduction and aim: The ambulatory specialized care (ASV) act (Sect. 116b of the Social Code Fifth Book [SGB V]) is intended to enable patients with a rare disease or a special course of disease or patients needing a highly specialized treatment to get access to outpatient care by office-based as well as hospital doctors. Data concerning care, service performance and fees - in comparison to the usual contract with the statutory insurance or the former Sect. 116b SGB V - are lacking. We explored the question whether differences in reimbursement between ASV and the previous system exist and which factors are influencing them.

Methods: We analyzed ICD-10 diagnoses, performance parameters as well as budgets and service fees in the former care system of medical oncologists in the institutions of three ASV participants of two federal countries treating gastrointestinal malignancies. We compared the results (fees, remuneration) to those from the statutory contract system and the former ambulatory care of hospitals and calculated the differences. Data were analyzed descriptively and analytically using SPSS.

Results: The analyses showed significant differences in the reimbursement rates between both office-based teams due to different budgets in the statutory contract system of the different federal countries. This led to additional remuneration of 12.5 to 49 % in ASV. The increase in fees of the hospital-guided team was exclusively due to the ASV-only fees of chapter 51 of EBM since there were no limitations of budgets even in the former system.

Discussion and conclusion: Exemplified with the ASV subgroup GIT, our study shows for the analyzed medical specialty that the difference in reimbursement in ASV is mostly due to the federal country-specific budgets and that the increase in honoraria can be substantial. Due to differences in budgets and quota systems, there may be different results in other ASV indications and specialist groups as well as in other federal states. Irrespective of these arguments, further aspects need to be taken into account when participation in ASV is considered.