Allocation decisions of health insurance rehabilitation managers--An explorative case study concerning stroke rehabilitation

We investigated processes of and subjective reasons for resource allocation in three out of four rehabilitation specialists of a regional office of a major health insurance. Decisions of health insurance personnel include approval of and duration of rehabilitation treatment and choice of clinical provider. Insurance specialists are mainly involved in documentation and coordination, whereas decisions mainly follow expert recommendations, mainly of the medical service. Allocation is based primarily on somatic impairment and disability, psychosocial function, motivation and rehabilitation potential are regarded as secondary. Goals and expected results of rehabilitation are neither individually defined nor their achievement evaluated. Decision processes are dominated by routines and agreements. Only exceptionally, defined rules and procedures are applied. Active case management is hampered by a highly specialized internal structure of the investigated insurance fund. The optimal fulfillment of individual requirements for a limited-time rehabilitation treatment is the central criterion for decision making. However, the specialists lack detailed information concerning appropriateness, quality and efficacy of rehabilitation providers, especially when taking patient-related variables into account. Instead, they trust that only high-quality institutions are contracted. Systematic control and feedback of rehabilitation results is not available. The surveyed rehabilitation managers do not include cost aspects in their decision-making. They would regard this as alien to a member- and patient-oriented policy. Improvement potentials with respect to rehabilitation case management are being reviewed.