Normal
Large
Larger
« »

09.01.2012 - Latest Achievement: Reading Speed Testing
Latest achievement: Reading speed testing. For children as well as adults with reading difficulties or after illnesses such as a stroke.
International Reading Speed Text
International Reading Speed Texts (IReST) were developed as part of the EU research project
(AMD-READ). The test is used to measure reading speed and is standardized. The fonts and format of the texts used are very similar to newsprint. The standard values are those of healthy persons between the ages of 18 and 35.
You can find background information and instructions for use here:
iResT reading speed >>
21.12.2011 - Certificate Renewal
The consulting and certifying company certconsult hereby certifies that
Augenlaser-Zentrum
iQGEN
Dr.Otto Georg Maubach
Bonner Str. 16, 50677 Köln
which operates in the field of refractive surgery, laser surgery, intra-ocular implants and cosmetic laser treatment has introduced and implemented a quality management system.
certconsult has conducted an audit which provided evidence that this quality management system meets the requirements of the following standard:
DIN EN ISO 9001:2008
This certificate is valid until:
3/22/2014
Certificate registration number:
09.117.014.03
To certificatet >>
10.09.2011 - INNOVATION allows for more precise measurement of EYE PRESSURE
Now at iQGEN, eye pressure and corneal thickness are measured simultaneously, thus resulting in a more precise measurement of eye pressure.
01.02.2010 - 10 years iQGEN
For the past ten years (2000-2010), Dr. Maubach has successfully performed over 5,000 laser treatments using the most advanced global technologies, and he is a leader of innovative and complex forms of treatment.
24.01.2010 - Wireless internet access
Available now, you can access WIRELESS INTERNET throughout our entire facility.
07.10.2009 - LASIK treatment to fall under the purview of private health insurance according to German Supreme Court (BGH)
Previously, case law regarding private insurance reimbursements for the cost of LASIK treatment was fragmented and inconsistent. On the one hand, case law from the regional courts of Cologne and Munich 1 had rejected a reimbursement obligation for private insurance since it considered the use of LASIK surgery for the correction of myopia as a secondary option in place of the more cost-effective treatment methods (i.e., glasses, contact lenses). Furthermore, the courts held that refunds could not be considered, since the therapies (LASIK treatments) were simply too dangerous when compared to other correction methods, such as wearing glasses. Thus, these courts declared that it was irrelevant whether patients had consented to such treatments after being individually informed about the risks. As such, the courts, to the detriment of the LASIK procedure, made a general assessment about the safety of such procedures and denied claims for cost reimbursement. (District Court, Munich, decision from Jan 1, 2009, 112 C 25016 / 08).
Such decisions, however, were in stark contrast to other court rulings where the courts were far removed from the business centers of large insurance companies, and whose decisions affirmed that a refund obligation did exist for private insurance companies. (Regional Court Münster, decision from Aug 21, 2008, 15 O 21/08, Regional Court Göttingen, decision from July 08, 2008, 2 S 4/08).
According to the German Supreme Court (BGH) decree by consent from July 16, 2009, private insurance companies must now reimburse the costs for LASIK treatments after the patient/policy holder has his appeal against the previous judgment for dismissal approved. Obviously, due to this decree by consent, the insurance industry considers this to be a contentious ruling. Nevertheless, private insurance companies are seeking to avoid further judgment that will ground this obligation more firmly within the law. The Regional Court of Dortmund (decision from Oct 5, 2006, 2 S 17/05) already held that the First Insurance Company from Mannheim was obligated to cover the costs of LASIK, however the decision did not make use of the available possibilities for the patient to appeal the earlier decision, and instead permitted the private insurance company to continue rejecting the cost-reimbursement. It was therefore assumed that private insurance companies would continue to disclaim their obligation to reimburse patients until the German Supreme Court (BGH) rules on the matter and gave specific legal reasons for its ruling.
Meanwhile, the District Court of Berlin-Tiergarten ruled in favor of an obligation for the reimbursement of LASIK treatments (District Court of Berlin-Tiergarten, decision from September, 15 2009, 6 C 337/07). Because the insurance company has already announced that it will appeal the decision, the judgment is not yet legally final and enforceable. However, there is a continuing trend confirming that courts are determining that private insurance companies are obligated to pay the treatment costs for LASIK surgery. Also, there is a growing tendency for the courts to continue to assess the accuracy for billing of eye surgeons, since future cases will focus less on contesting the medical necessity of LASIK surgery, and instead concern themselves with which costs of treatment are appropriate and which are not (see first, District Court of Cologne, decision from May 16, 2002, 122 C 54/).
Given the high investment costs for LASIK practices/clinics, there is a corresponding need for refinancing, which will only be adequately addressed when these clinics can settle denied fees from early invoices. Furthermore, now even the High Regional Court (OLG) of Karlsruhe (12 U 47/08) has made it known that it will also rule in favor of LASIK cost reimbursement. First Health Insurance Company, with its principal place of business in Mannheim, has subsequently recognized the patients claim for reimbursement, in order to avoid a decision with a more binding legal authority. Thus, the decision from Regional Court of Mannheim (04.03.2008, AZ 8 O320/07) was been withdrawn regarding the complaint by the policyholder that the claim had been contested.
Source: Attorney Zach, Law Firm for Medical Law, Mönchengladbach
Copyright: MedizinRecht.de, editorial
1 | 2 | »
09.01.2012 - Latest Achievement: Reading Speed Testing
Latest achievement: Reading speed testing. For children as well as adults with reading difficulties or after illnesses such as a stroke.
International Reading Speed Text
International Reading Speed Texts (IReST) were developed as part of the EU research project
(AMD-READ). The test is used to measure reading speed and is standardized. The fonts and format of the texts used are very similar to newsprint. The standard values are those of healthy persons between the ages of 18 and 35.
You can find background information and instructions for use here:
iResT reading speed >>
21.12.2011 - Certificate Renewal
The consulting and certifying company certconsult hereby certifies that
Augenlaser-Zentrum
iQGEN
Dr.Otto Georg Maubach
Bonner Str. 16, 50677 Köln
which operates in the field of refractive surgery, laser surgery, intra-ocular implants and cosmetic laser treatment has introduced and implemented a quality management system.
certconsult has conducted an audit which provided evidence that this quality management system meets the requirements of the following standard:
DIN EN ISO 9001:2008
This certificate is valid until:
3/22/2014
Certificate registration number:
09.117.014.03
To certificatet >>
10.09.2011 - INNOVATION allows for more precise measurement of EYE PRESSURE
Now at iQGEN, eye pressure and corneal thickness are measured simultaneously, thus resulting in a more precise measurement of eye pressure.
01.02.2010 - 10 years iQGEN
For the past ten years (2000-2010), Dr. Maubach has successfully performed over 5,000 laser treatments using the most advanced global technologies, and he is a leader of innovative and complex forms of treatment.
24.01.2010 - Wireless internet access
Available now, you can access WIRELESS INTERNET throughout our entire facility.
07.10.2009 - LASIK treatment to fall under the purview of private health insurance according to German Supreme Court (BGH)
Previously, case law regarding private insurance reimbursements for the cost of LASIK treatment was fragmented and inconsistent. On the one hand, case law from the regional courts of Cologne and Munich 1 had rejected a reimbursement obligation for private insurance since it considered the use of LASIK surgery for the correction of myopia as a secondary option in place of the more cost-effective treatment methods (i.e., glasses, contact lenses). Furthermore, the courts held that refunds could not be considered, since the therapies (LASIK treatments) were simply too dangerous when compared to other correction methods, such as wearing glasses. Thus, these courts declared that it was irrelevant whether patients had consented to such treatments after being individually informed about the risks. As such, the courts, to the detriment of the LASIK procedure, made a general assessment about the safety of such procedures and denied claims for cost reimbursement. (District Court, Munich, decision from Jan 1, 2009, 112 C 25016 / 08).
Such decisions, however, were in stark contrast to other court rulings where the courts were far removed from the business centers of large insurance companies, and whose decisions affirmed that a refund obligation did exist for private insurance companies. (Regional Court Münster, decision from Aug 21, 2008, 15 O 21/08, Regional Court Göttingen, decision from July 08, 2008, 2 S 4/08).
According to the German Supreme Court (BGH) decree by consent from July 16, 2009, private insurance companies must now reimburse the costs for LASIK treatments after the patient/policy holder has his appeal against the previous judgment for dismissal approved. Obviously, due to this decree by consent, the insurance industry considers this to be a contentious ruling. Nevertheless, private insurance companies are seeking to avoid further judgment that will ground this obligation more firmly within the law. The Regional Court of Dortmund (decision from Oct 5, 2006, 2 S 17/05) already held that the First Insurance Company from Mannheim was obligated to cover the costs of LASIK, however the decision did not make use of the available possibilities for the patient to appeal the earlier decision, and instead permitted the private insurance company to continue rejecting the cost-reimbursement. It was therefore assumed that private insurance companies would continue to disclaim their obligation to reimburse patients until the German Supreme Court (BGH) rules on the matter and gave specific legal reasons for its ruling.
Meanwhile, the District Court of Berlin-Tiergarten ruled in favor of an obligation for the reimbursement of LASIK treatments (District Court of Berlin-Tiergarten, decision from September, 15 2009, 6 C 337/07). Because the insurance company has already announced that it will appeal the decision, the judgment is not yet legally final and enforceable. However, there is a continuing trend confirming that courts are determining that private insurance companies are obligated to pay the treatment costs for LASIK surgery. Also, there is a growing tendency for the courts to continue to assess the accuracy for billing of eye surgeons, since future cases will focus less on contesting the medical necessity of LASIK surgery, and instead concern themselves with which costs of treatment are appropriate and which are not (see first, District Court of Cologne, decision from May 16, 2002, 122 C 54/).
Given the high investment costs for LASIK practices/clinics, there is a corresponding need for refinancing, which will only be adequately addressed when these clinics can settle denied fees from early invoices. Furthermore, now even the High Regional Court (OLG) of Karlsruhe (12 U 47/08) has made it known that it will also rule in favor of LASIK cost reimbursement. First Health Insurance Company, with its principal place of business in Mannheim, has subsequently recognized the patients claim for reimbursement, in order to avoid a decision with a more binding legal authority. Thus, the decision from Regional Court of Mannheim (04.03.2008, AZ 8 O320/07) was been withdrawn regarding the complaint by the policyholder that the claim had been contested.
Source: Attorney Zach, Law Firm for Medical Law, Mönchengladbach
Copyright: MedizinRecht.de, editorial
1 | 2 | »
