Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine how access to health care for (rejected) asylum seekers in an eastern German state is structured and experienced and to consider the implications for their human rights. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on 12 in-depth interviews with rejected black African asylum seekers and also draws on ethnographic research undertaken at a grassroots refugee organisation and asylum homes. The analysis of the interview data are framed by theorisations of “everyday practices” as “tactics” of resistance to an imposed order. Findings – Accomplishing health care access involved a range of structural barriers and humiliating interactions with administrative and health care staff, which had adverse consequences for their health status and were injurious to their human rights and dignity. The study participants used a range of oppositional and discursive tactics in an effort to secure certain (health) outcomes, mediate social relations and resist their domination as asylum seekers. Research limitations/implications – Further research should focus on the cumulative micro-level effects of asylum policies on health care access and how they create health inequities and violate asylum seekers’ rights and dignity. Practical implications – Policy priorities should include the provision of human rights education as well as training and support for administrative and health staff. Originality/value – There is limited qualitative research on the health care experiences of asylum seekers in Germany. This paper makes policy recommendations and identifies areas for further research and human rights advocacy.

Teleconsultation services have the potential to improve quality of care in rural communities. However, practical problems in the operation of the service have to be taken seriously as they threaten sustainability of the intervention. Adequate training in phone-based clinical reporting appears to be essential. Teleconsultation staff should be compensated for additional workload through a reduction of other work-related tasks.

Migration-and ethnicity-related categories are a core feature of public health systems internationally, particularly in health reporting on communicable infectious diseases. The specific categories and classifications used differ from country to country and are subject to controversy and change. The article compares categorization practices in health reporting in the UK and Germany with regard to tuberculosis. Tuberculosis has been framed as a 'migrants' disease' in recent decades and new categories were introduced to collect and report epidemiological data. We reconstruct the genesis, change and power effects of categories related to im/migrants and ethnic minority groups. In both countries, migration-related categorizations entail constructions of im/migrants as 'carriers of disease'. However, the categories also connect with discourses on human rights, prevention, treatment and care for migrants as vulnerable

No abstract

No abstract