The Berlin Regional Court has ruled against the popular doctor appointment booking platform Doctolib for misleading conduct. The judge thus sided with the consumer protection association vzbv as plaintiff: the platform, according to the ruling, misled statutory-insured patients by not only offering appointments for insured patients but also those for self-payers.
“Who specifically searches for appointments for statutory-insured individuals rightly expects that only practices that bill through the statutory health insurance and do not charge the patient any money will be suggested,” says Susanne Einsiedler, legal advisor at vzbv. But this is not the case with Doctolib: “The first search results often turn out to be appointments only for private patients and self-payers.” The searchers only find this out after they select a practice and an appointment and continue through the booking process.
Doctolib is an online platform through which patients can book appointments in medical practices. As of last April, according to the company, 25 million users in Germany used the platform, i.e., about one third of the population.
In court the issue was the following: When searching for an appointment on Doctolib, a filter “€ Statutory” is offered. The explanation reads: “Show only appointments with statutory insurance.” But when the filter is activated, appointments are also suggested in which the practices charge an out-of-pocket payment. Thus, in a case presented before the court, for example: “We are a private practice; legally insured patients can COME to us ONLY as self-payers. This means that you generally will not be reimbursed by statutory health insurance and must bear the costs yourself. Please bring €200 in cash in advance if you are a self-payer.”
Not yet legally binding
The Berlin Regional Court ruled: The charge of misleading conduct was justified. The filter “€ Statutory” creates the expectation of only showing appointments covered by the statutory health insurance. vzbv publicly released the verdict on Thursday; it had already been handed down in November. The decision is not yet legally binding. Doctolib has appealed. “Our search function accurately reflects the legally anchored patient choice, and in our opinion cannot be classified as misleading – this solely due to the clear and repeatedly displayed notices,” a spokesperson said in response.
At the same time, vzbv views appointment portals positively at first: they can help people obtain doctor appointments quickly and with little phone calls. Yet the increasing reliance of practices on these portals also creates problems: some practices are no longer reachable by phone at all and only offer digital appointment bookings. For everyone who does not use the appropriate digital devices or does not wish to share their data with one of the portals, the care becomes worse.
Moreover, the filters repeatedly cause trouble: at the first step, seekers are often shown a flood of potential appointments that, upon closer inspection, prove to be unsuitable—such as because new patients are not being accepted or the service one was actually looking for is not available.
Politically, the issue of appointment scheduling and the sometimes long waiting times remains unresolved. The black-red coalition is currently focusing on reducing the number of doctor visits with negative incentives. A central demand of consumer protection remains unheard: the appointment system must not disadvantage any group of patients.
