[Distances to hospitals performing minimum volume relevant procedures in Germany 2004 to 2006]

In 2004, Germany introduced annual minimum volumes nationwide on five surgical procedures (kidney, liver, stem cell transplantation, complex oesophageal, and pancreatic interventions). In 2006, minimum volumes for total knee prosthesis were added and the five established minimum volumes were almost doubled. Since minimum volumes usually result in the regionalisation of procedures, especially patients from rural areas are impeded by geographical access problems. The aim of our study was to analyse regional and time-related differences in the distances patients travelled to hospitals performing minimum volume relevant procedures between 2004 and 2006 in Germany.

We performed a secondary analysis of data from the Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System (InEK). Using a geographical information system we analysed the distances that patients who underwent one of the six minimum volume procedures travelled to the hospital in the years 2004-2006. We performed t-tests to analyse differences between the 16 German Federal States and the years of observation while correcting for multiple testing.

On average patients travelled between 28.6/28.0 km (2004/2006) for knee prosthesis and 78.9 km for stem cell transplantation (2004) and 97.4 km for liver transplantation (2006). In 2004, distances travelled differed up to a factor of 9.9 [comparing distances travelled to stem cell transplantation of patients of the states of Berlin (30.6 km) and Hamburg (303 km)]. In 2006, the maximum difference (factor 12.2) was observed for oesophageal interventions comparing distances travelled in the states of Bremen (7.2 km) and Saarland (88.8 km). For almost all comparisons there were significant differences of the minimum and maximum distances travelled in one of the Federal States compared to the federal average. Comparing distances travelled in 2004 and 2006 we found only small and inconsistent variations.

We found that geographical access to inpatient care for minimum volume procedures in Germany differs sizably between the Federal States in 2004 and 2006. In spite of doubling the minimum volumes in 2006, the distances patients travelled to hospitals hardly change. This may be caused by an inert implementation of the minimum volume regulation leading to an unchanged number of hospitals providing the respective procedures.