The Politics of Evidence Use in Health Policy Making in Germany—the Case of Regulating Hospital Minimum Volumes

Abstract

This article examines the role of scientific evidence in informing health policy decisions in Germany, using minimum volumes policy as a case study. It argues that scientific evidence was used strategically at various stages of the policy process both by individual corporatist actors and by the Federal Joint Committee as the regulator. Minimum volumes regulation was inspired by scientific evidence suggesting a positive relationship between service volume and patient outcomes for complex surgical interventions. Federal legislation was introduced in 2002 to delegate the selection of services and the setting of volumes to corporatist decision makers. Yet, despite being represented in the Federal Joint Committee, hospitals affected by its decisions took the Committee to court to seek legal redress and prevent policy implementation. Evidence has been key to support, and challenge, decisions about minimum volumes, including in court. The analysis of the role of scientific evidence in minimum volumes regulation in Germany highlights the dynamic relationship between evidence use and the political and institutional context of health policy making, which in this case is characterized by the legislative nature of policy making, corporatism, and the role of the judiciary in reviewing policy decisions.

What is context in knowledge translation? Results of a systematic scoping review

“…As the complexity of interventions increases due to the growing number of stakeholders either affecting or being affected by them, the interventions are surrounded by a more intricate web of attitudes, incentives, relationships, rules of engagement and spheres of influence [ 7 ]. The persisting emphasis on content over context in the evolving field of KT may oversimplify the complex process of using evidence in policymaking and understanding the society [ 77 ]. Some scholars argue that this common observation in public health can be attributed to the dominance of experts primarily from medical sciences [ 78 – 80 ].…”

Mapping the Qualitative Evidence Base on the Use of Research Evidence in Health Policy-Making: A Systematic Review

“…For example, we found that large numbers of studies drew on qualitative methods to study the role of research relative to other competing influences in cases of real-world policy change, to examine how evidence use is influenced by political and governance contexts, and to explore how researchers, research organizations and other external stakeholders influence processes of evidence use. Studies took on issues as diverse as, for instance, strategic uses of research evidence in service of political and corporatist interests, 62 the phenomenon of “imposed” evidence use, in which decision-maker attention to research evidence is compelled through external pressure, top-down regulation, and the like, 63 and even the performative “production” of the evidence-based policy paradigm itself, 64 among a range of other topics.…”

Impact of suspending minimum volume requirements for knee arthroplasty on hospitals in Germany: an uncontrolled before–after study

“…In Germany, MVRQs are implemented for seven hospital procedures as of 2020: Complex oesophageal interventions, complex pancreatic interventions, kidney transplantation, liver transplantation, stem cell transplantation, total knee arthroplasty, and infants with birth weight < 1250 g. Table 1 gives details on their introduction and minimum volumes [11,12]. A further two procedures, for lung and breast cancer, are currently under debate.…”