German Court Rules Cannabis Therapy Can Be ‘Medically Necessary’ for Chronic Pain
Table of Contents
A landmark ruling in Germany has affirmed that cannabis therapy can be considered a medically necessary treatment, even when conventional methods have failed or caused unacceptable side effects. The decision, handed down by the Hamburg Regional Court on August 1, 2022, centers on the case of a police officer with private health insurance seeking coverage for cannabis-based pain management following a work-related injury.
The case highlights the growing legal debate surrounding access to cannabis for medical purposes and sets a precedent for how insurers must evaluate such treatments. While the ruling isn’t legally binding, it provides significant guidance on the criteria for determining “medical necessity” in the context of cannabis therapy.
A Decade of Pain and Treatment
The plaintiff, a police officer, sustained a shoulder injury in 2007 that required surgery but continued to cause debilitating pain. After years of conventional treatment, he began exploring alternative therapies, eventually turning to cannabis preparations in 2013. Initially self-administered, his cannabis use came under the supervision of his physicians – a family doctor and an orthopedist – between 2013 and 2020.
In 2019, the officer formally requested partial coverage from his health insurer for the costs of his cannabis therapy, presenting the necessary prescriptions. Under the terms of his insurance plan, he was entitled to a 30% reimbursement, with the remaining 70% covered by social aid. However, the insurer initially refused to pay, citing a specialist opinion that deemed the cannabis treatment medically unjustified.
Legal Battle and Shifting Positions
The officer subsequently sued the insurer, prompting a second specialist opinion – which also came back negative. Despite this, the parties reached a temporary settlement where the insurer agreed to cover 15% of the costs pending the outcome of the main proceedings. Simultaneously, the officer’s aid agency initially denied coverage but later reversed course and was legally obligated to pay by an administrative court.
During the trial, the insurer even questioned the existence of the officer’s initial injury and subsequent pain. However, the court dismissed this argument as inconsistent with the insurer’s previous actions and adherence to principles of good faith in insurance contracts. A court-appointed expert’s review of medical reports confirmed the officer’s injuries and the presence of a chronic pain syndrome.
Defining ‘Medical Necessity’
The core of the legal dispute revolved around the definition of “medically necessary” treatment. The court emphasized that this term establishes an objective standard, independent of the specific agreement between a doctor and patient. According to the judges, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the therapy was justifiable based on the objective medical findings at the time of treatment.
“Absolute or irrefutable certainty is not necessary,” the court stated, “a ‘degree of certainty that is useful for practical life and that silences doubts without ruling them out entirely’ is sufficient.”
Why Cannabis Therapy Was Deemed Justifiable
The Hamburg Regional Court ultimately found that, in this case, classifying cannabis therapy as medically necessary was justifiable. The court-appointed expert concluded that cannabis offered a viable option for alleviating the officer’s pain, particularly given the failure of other treatments.
The court noted that the officer had exhausted conventional pain management options based on the World Health Organization (WHO) grading scheme, or those options were deemed unsuitable due to significant side effects like liver damage, strong sedation, or the risk of addiction. Furthermore, the treating physicians had adequately diagnosed the underlying condition and thoroughly documented their rationale for the chosen therapy.
The judges rejected the insurer’s argument that a lack of extensive research invalidated the treatment, citing a 1997 ruling by the Federal Court of Justice that observational data can be sufficient to demonstrate the equivalence of a therapy compared to conventional methods, especially when no equivalent treatment is available. The court also dismissed concerns about potential negative effects on the officer’s mental health, emphasizing that the assessment of medical necessity must focus on the specific illness being treated.
Future Considerations and Conflicting Rulings
The court’s judgment applies to the officer’s treatment as it stood at the time of the hearing. The insurer retains the right to reassess benefit requirements or the officer’s health status in the future. An appeal of the ruling was possible within six months.
It’s important to note that this ruling isn’t isolated. In November 2023, the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court reached a different conclusion, refusing to reimburse cannabis therapy costs for a patient with brittle bones, citing the availability of sufficient alternative treatments. Similarly, the Federal Social Court, in a November 2022 ruling, underscored the need for doctors to provide a particularly thorough assessment when seeking reimbursement for cannabis therapy from statutory health insurers.
This evolving legal landscape underscores the ongoing debate surrounding cannabis as a legitimate medical treatment and the challenges insurers face in navigating this complex issue.
