We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Federal Administrative Court confirms exclusion of benefits
There is no legal objection to the basic exclusion of non-prescription drugs from the aid. That was decided on Thursday, November 23, 2017, by the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig on the federal aid regulation (file number: 5 C 6.16). As a result, this means equal treatment with insured persons from the statutory health insurance companies.
Specifically, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed an official from the Federal Employment Agency in Bavaria. Your aid benefits are based on the Federal Aid Ordinance, which is largely based on the regulations of the federal states. The subsidy then replaces 50 percent of its “illness-related expenses”. The other half usually insure privately. However, non-prescription drugs are largely excluded from the aid.
In 2013, her doctor prescribed a nose and throat spray. The Federal Agency's aid did not want to cover this. The drug is not prescription-only and is therefore exempt from the obligation to pay.
After an unsuccessful appeal, the official went to court. While the Ansbach administrative court still held her right, the Munich Administrative Court dismissed the lawsuit.
The Federal Administrative Court has now followed suit. "The basic exclusion of the eligibility of expenses for non-prescription drugs is effective," judged the Leipzig judges. "It is in particular in line with the duty of care of the employer."
For reasons, the Federal Administrative Court referred to accompanying regulations. These ensured that civil servants did not have to bear health expenses that significantly exceeded their financial means.
In certain cases, there is an exception to the exclusion of non-prescription medication. In addition, there are upper limits for such expenditure on income. And finally, the aid could take over expenses "if in individual cases the rejection of the aid would be particularly tough". mwo / fle