4.3 Article

Does the Electronic Health Card for Asylum Seekers Lead to an Excessive Use of the Health System? Results of a Survey in Two Municipalities of the German Ruhr Area

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16071178

关键词

refugee health; electronic health insurance card; prevention and medical care of refugees; access to healthcare; refugees' use of outpatient and inpatient medical care

资金

  1. DFG Open Access Publication Funds of the Ruhr-Universitat Bochum

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The initial and intermediate-term access of refugees to healthcare in Germany is limited. A previous study showed that the obligation to request healthcare vouchers at the social security offices decreases the asylum seekers' consultation rate of ambulant physicians. The introduction of the Electronic Health Insurance Card (EHIC) for asylum seekers is considered skeptically by some municipalities and federal states, among other reasons due to the fear of an overuse of health care services by asylum seekers. The aim of this study is to further evaluate the data of the authors' initial study with a new focus on inpatient care as well as a differentiation of the ambulant consultation rate into general practitioners and outpatient specialists. Methods: The now-differentiated consultation rate of the initial study as well as the asylum seekers' use of inpatient care are compared to the values of the sex- and age-corrected autochthonous population as given by the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS1). A mean difference test (student's t-test) is used for comparison and significance testing. Results: Asylum seekers who were in possession of the EHIC were significantly less likely to visit their ambulant general practitioners and specialists than the German autochthonous population. Simultaneously, this difference is partly compensated for by their more frequent use of impatient care. Conclusions: There is no indication that the EHIC leads to an overuse of healthcare services.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据