Health insurance pays women no laser treatment against male hair

Health insurance pays women no laser treatment against male hair / Health News
LSG Mainz orphaned by sclerosis by electrocoagulation
(Jur). The statutory health insurance companies have to pay women so far not the removal of a "male" body hair with laser. This was decided by the Landessozialgericht (SG) Rhineland-Palatinate in Mainz in a ruling announced on Friday, 18 March 2016 (Ref .: L 5 KR 226/15).
According to the findings of the General Court, the applicant has "body hair according to the male distribution pattern, in particular a strong facial hair". In the opinion of the treating gynecologist, the patient is therefore under "strong suffering". Because of an increased risk of thrombosis a hormone treatment was eliminated.

Image: vege - fotolia

At her health insurance she applied for the costs of hair removal by laser epilation. The health insurance company rejected this with the indication that it was a new treatment method that was not yet part of the catalog of benefits of the health insurance companies. In particular, the lasting effect of laser treatment has not yet been finally clarified. Instead, she proposed a hair sclerotherapy by so-called electrocoagulation.

The woman did not agree and complained. Like the Mainz Social Court, the LSG also dismissed the lawsuit.

The reason given by the LSG was that laser epilation was a new treatment method to which the so-called Joint Federal Committee had not yet made a recommendation. The committee is a joint body of physicians and other service providers as well as the health insurance companies, which decides on the scope of benefits of the statutory health insurance and also evaluates new methods for this purpose.

Here is still missing such a rating, so the LSG. Therefore, the health insurance would not pay the treatment. Exceptions are only possible with deadly or other particularly serious illnesses. In addition, with electrocoagulation an already verified alternative is available, according to the LSG in its judgment of 18 February 2016, which has already been published in writing. (Mwo)