ArticleHNO2018
[Cochlear implants in the social courts].
Article in HNO, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Direct cost of cochlear implants in Germany - a strategic simulation.Health economics review · 2022Article
- Lifetime cost of unilateral cochlear implants in adults: a Monte Carlo simulation.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince the indication for receiving a cochlear implant (CI) has widened (single-sided deafness [SSD], electric acoustic stimulation [EAS], bilateral CI, CI for long-term deafness), more and more patients come into consideration for such a treatment. Hence, disputes increasingly arise between patients and their insurance companies concerning the question of whether surgery and follow-up treatment have to be paid for by statutory health insurance.
objectiveThis work provides an overview of judgments rendered by the German social courts. We investigated whether and in which cases it is advisable for a patient to go to court, and how long the proceedings may take. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe looked for judgments in the two biggest commercial legal databases and in the database of the German social courts, using combinations of the search parameters "Cochlear," "Cochlea," "Implant," and "Implantat." Three verdicts were attained by directly contacting the court; another one was mentioned in an article. The reviewed judgements were issued between 2003 and 2017.
resultsA total of 12 judgments were found. The patients won in all but one of the main proceedings. The case that was lost concerned exceptional circumstances. One patient didn't get the desired interim measure, but won in the main proceedings. The proceedings took between 1 year and 8 months, and 9 years and 5 months.
conclusionDespite the amount of time the patient has to invest, taking legal action is worthwhile. The proceedings at the social courts are generally exempt from charges. In most cases, the statutory health insurance is ordered to pay for a CI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.