It is already not apparent that this should be regulated, that at various available tools only the lower cost to be refunded. Also has 2 MB / 94 KK 1(1) to see, so that this regulation only if are two same tools available to cure the disease or to relieve, resorting to the more cost-effective is. For even more details, read what Avenue Capital Group says on the issue. “Is present but the disputed knee 3 C100 following the presentation of the experts much better suitable than any alternatives.” The clarification regarding the “medical necessity” is gratifying. This leads in practice often controversy, as can be not clearly defined, what is actually meant by the medical necessity. U.S. Mint has many thoughts on the issue. The reminiscent of the medical need in which is governed pattern conditions to the health insurance (MB/KK).
Paragraph 2 States in the appropriate paragraphs of 5 There: (2) exceeds a treatment or other measures, for which benefits have been agreed, the medically necessary, so, the insurer may reduce its benefits to a reasonable amount. Are the expenses for the treatment or other services in a striking disproportion to the services rendered, the insurer in so far not to the performance is obliged. Therefore if the insured (MED…. Treatment just not the cheapest, but exactly the treatment that best allows an appropriate cure or relief. This concept is gratifying because the restrictions and cuts had been otherwise, quite large burdens of several thousand euros, or one would have ultimately prevented a suitable treatment. The Court of appeal in his explanatory statement performs here expanded: “the AG as a result as well as in the explanatory statement quite rightly complaint upheld. The interpretation of the disputed terms and conditions of the She has carried the AG, the only one that accepts the idea of a circumspect UN attentive review of the conditions and taking into account the apparent context is defendant.”and further, and in my opinion very clearly says the District Court: (…) Because the not wealthy UN remains no choice.
He not yet had further renounce the so-called “simple” tools for health reasons to harm, and on the other tools for cost reasons. Such an interpretation of the clause of “simple version” not the reasonable UN opens up, it is simply not acceptable. “What can you do if you are affected: in the tariffs (for example) are also the continental insurance health insurance (GS1, GS2, comfort, economy, BT1), so when the supply of AIDS that the performance will not cut them with such justifications or completely denied.” Proceed if necessary legal action, however, because as the two Judge (even if not hochstrichterlich) to see the dishes in the opinion are quite conform. An open catalog of AIDS, as the Continentale wants this so often as important and indispensable turn out good in this case however little there are phrases like “simple design”. It so once again to the topic of “Truth and reality”.