Health and access to health care are considered a human right. "Regular" immigrants such as work migrants in Germany have the same entitlement to health care coverage through the statutory health insurance as the majority population. This, however, is not the case for refugees and asylum seekers. According to paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefit Act, their entitlement is restricted to care for acute pain, pregnancy and childbirth, as well as immunizations in the first 15 months. Additional care can be financed on a case-by-case basis. Care provision is regulated in different ways by the communities; it is further complicated by different regulations at the federal state levels and by differences in knowledge of the physicians on how entitlement restrictions can be circumvented on a case-by-case basis. Thus, entitlement and access to care of asylum seekers and refugees is driven by chance in 3 respects: when they are assigned to a federal state, when they are assigned to a community, and when they are treated by a doctor with more or less knowledge of the legal regulations. Restrictions on entitlement to health care are associated with higher health care expenditure. They may also lead to delayed treatment of life-threatening conditions. Furthermore, they may negatively affect social integration of asylum seekers. Therefore, the restrictions of entitlement in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefit Act need to be lifted immediately. Asylum seekers should be granted the same entitlements to health care as the majority population in the whole of Germany.

Germany has experienced different forms of immigration for many decades. At the end of and after the Second World War, refugees, displaced persons and German resettlers constituted the largest immigrant group. In the 1950s, labor migration started, followed by family reunification. There has been a constant migration of refugees and asylum seekers reaching peaks in the early 1990s as well as today. Epidemiological research has increasingly considered the health, and the access to health care, of immigrants and people with migration background. In this narrative review we discuss the current knowledge on health of immigrants in Germany. The paper is based on a selective literature research with a focus on studies using representative data from the health reporting system.Our review shows that immigrants in Germany do not suffer from different diseases than non-immigrants, but they differ in their risk for certain diseases, in the resources to cope with theses risk and regarding access to treatment. We also identified the need for differentiation within the immigrant population, considering among others social and legal status, country of origin and duration of stay. Though most of the studies acknowledge the need for differentiation, the lack of data currently rules out analyses accounting for the existing diversity and thus a full understanding of health inequalities related to migration to Germany.

Background: Germany has a statutory health insurance (SHI) that covers nearly the entire population and most of the health services provided. Newly arrived refugees whose asylum claim is still being processed are initially excluded from the SHI. Instead, their entitlements are restricted and parallel access models have been implemented. We assessed differences in realized access of healthcare services between these access models. Methods: In Germany's largest federal state, North Rhine-Westphalia, two different access models have been implemented in the 396 municipalities: the healthcare voucher (HcV) model and the electronic health card (eHC) model. As refugees are quasi-randomly assigned to municipalities, we were able to realize a natural quasiexperiment including all newly assigned refugees from six municipalities (three for each model) in 2016 and 2017. Using claims data, we compared the standardized incidence rates (SIR) of specialist services use, emergency services use, and hospitalization due to ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC) between both models. We indirectly standardized utilization patterns first for age and then for the sex. Results: SIRs of emergency use were higher in municipalities with HcV (ranging from 1.41 to 2.63) compared to emergency rates in municipalities with eHC (ranging from 1.40 to 1.71) and differed significantly from the expected rates derived from official health reporting. SIRs of emergency and specialist use in municipalities with eHC converged with the expected rates over time. There were no significant differences in standardized hospitalization rates for ACSC. Conclusion: The results suggest that the eHC model is slightly better able to provide refugees with SHI-like access to specialist services and goes along with lower utilization of emergency services compared to the HcV model. No difference between the models was found for hospitalizations due to ACSC. Results might be slightly biased due to incompletely documented service use and due to (self-) selection on the level of municipalities with municipalities interested in facilitating access showing more interest in joining the project.

No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionIn many countries, including Germany, newly arriving refugees face specific entitlement restrictions and access barriers to healthcare. While entitlement restrictions apply to all refugees who seek protection in Germany during the first months, the barriers to access depend on the model that the states and the municipalities implement locally. Currently, two different models exist: the healthcare voucher model (HcV) and the electronic health card model (eHC). The aim of the study is to analyse the consequences of these two different access models on newly arrived refugees’ realised access to healthcare.Methods and analysisThe random assignment of refugees to municipalities allows for a quasi-experimental design by comparing realised access to healthcare among refugees in six municipalities in North Rhine-Westphalia which have implemented HcV or eHC. We compare realised access to healthcare using ambulatory care sensitive conditions and health expenditure as outcome indicators, and use of emergency care, preventive care, psychotherapeutic or psychiatric care, and of therapeutic devices as process indicators. Results will be adjusted for aggregated information on age, sex, socioeconomic structure of the municipalities and density of general practitioners or specialists.Ethics and disseminationWe cooperated with local welfare offices and the statutory health insurance for data collection. Thereby, we were able to avoid recruiting large numbers of refugee patients immediately after arrival while their access and entitlement to healthcare are restricted. We developed an extensive data protection concept and ensured that all data collected are fully anonymised. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and summarised in reports to the funding agency.

No abstract

Background Access to healthcare is restricted for newly arriving asylum seekers and refugees (ASR) in many receiving countries, which may lead to inequalities in health. In Germany, regular access and full entitlement to healthcare (equivalent to statutory health insurance, SHI) is only granted after a waiting time of 18 months. During this time of restricted entitlements, local authorities implement different access models to regulate asylum seekers’ access to healthcare: the electronic health card (EHC) or the healthcare voucher (HV). This paper examines inequalities in access to healthcare by comparing healthcare utilization by ASR under the terms of different local models (i.e., regular access equivalent to SHI, EHC, and HV). Methods We used data from three population-based, cross-sectional surveys among newly arrived ASR (N=863) and analyzed six outcome measures: specialist and general practitioner (GP) utilization, unmet needs for specialist and GP services, emergency department use and avoidable hospitalization. Using logistic regression, we calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals for all outcome measures, while considering need by adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics and health-related covariates. Results Compared to ASR with regular access, ASR under the HV model showed lower needs-adjusted odds of specialist utilization (OR=0.41 [0.24-0.66]) while ASR under the EHC model did not differ from ASR with regular access in any of the outcomes. The comparison between EHC and HV model showed higher odds for specialist utilization under the EHC model as compared to the HV model (OR=2.39 [1.03-5.52]). GP and emergency department utilization, unmet needs and avoidable hospitalization did not show significant differences in any of the fully adjusted models. Conclusion ASR using the HV are disadvantaged in their access to healthcare compared to ASR having either an EHC or regular access. Given equal need, they use specialist services less. The identified inequalities constitute inequities in access to healthcare that could be reduced by policy change from HV to the EHC model during the initial 18 months waiting time, or by granting ASR regular healthcare access upon arrival. Potential patterns of differences in GP utilization, unmet needs, emergency department use and avoidable hospitalization between the models deserve further exploration in future studies.