SHARE
COPY LINK

OPINION AND ANALYSIS

OPINION: Germans’ obsession with Pfizer jab reveals downsides of country’s health system

The near-obsession by Germans - at least those who want the Covid jab - to get the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine and nothing else reveals the downsides and dysfunctionality of country's health system, writes Brian Melican.

Syringes with the vaccine of BioNTech lie on a tray at the district vaccination center in Ludwigsburg, southern Germany,
Syringes with the vaccine of BioNTech lie on a tray at the district vaccination center in Ludwigsburg, southern Germany. Photo: THOMAS KIENZLE / AFP

Another week, another Corona news story in Germany so absurd that it would be laughable if it weren’t so serious.

Yes, in a week in which we see exponential growth in Coronavirus case numbers and over 1,000 mainly unvaccinated people are set to die of Covid, our caretaker health minister gets caught up in a controversy about limiting the use of Biontech/Pfizer in order to make a dent in an excess of Moderna stocks.

The fact that Jens Spahn (whatever else you might say about him) is aware that we have a vaccine which needs using up before it expires and is trying to make sure this happens is, I think, a good thing. In other countries, this might have been a positive story – if it were, outside of the trade press or the Twitter Corona bubble, news at all.

Elsewhere in Europe, the average person doesn’t seem particularly interested in precisely which of the several highly-effective vaccines developed with remarkable speed they are offered against a highly dangerous illness. With us Germans, though, it’s more complicated.

If they do want to get vaccinated at all, Germans want it to be with their own success-story, Pfizer-BioNtech – and nothing else, mistaking receipt of a potentially life-saving vaccine just over 18 months into a pandemic for a trip to the car dealership.

This kind of behaviour started early when Germans, having spent three unbearable months at the beginning of the year complaining about vaccine shortages, soon got very picky indeed about which jab they wanted: in April and May, the no-show rate for Astra Zeneca shot up after Germany’s media, with little else to report on during a seven-month shut-down, filled pages and airtime with endless agonising about a minimally higher (yet still infinitesimal) thrombosis risk as compared to Biontech. 

OPINION: Covid has sent Germany into hysteria again but the remedy is under its nose

‘Rolls Royce rather than a Mercedes’

Those of us who didn’t grow up in Germany find two things incredible about this. Firstly: people were told prior to attendance which vaccine they were going to get; most Brits I know didn’t even think to ask. Secondly: people didn’t even have the courtesy to call and cancel so that someone else might get a jab.

Instead, they were too busy ringing around to see if they could get their precious Biontech elsewhere. I think it says a lot about the country we’re living in in that several friends of mine openly admitted they wanted Biontech because it had the shortest gap between doses, allowing for fully-vaccinated holidays earlier.

Spahn is aware that we Germans mistakenly see vaccination as a branded experience, but rather than challenge this misunderstanding, he pandered to it in the recent press conference, arguing that, with Moderna, Germans would be getting a “Rolls Royce rather than a Mercedes”. The problem, of course, is that this underestimates the role of our deplorable ‘Made in Germany’ chauvinism. Moreover, unless the health minister actually changes the rules on how vaccination works (and, as caretaker, he now has no mandate to do so), all the arguing in the world cannot prevent Germans from going hunting for Biontech.

That’s because healthcare in Germany is organised around the principle of consumer choice. Not all Germans – and, except for Americans, few foreigners who move here – are fully aware of this fact, or of what it means.

For a start, Germans can choose their doctors (freie Artzwahl), and apart from those in a few specialisms, surgeries can take walk-up business; state health insurance policies will cover treatment.

‘Only America gets considerably less bang for it buck than Germany’

This is in stark contrast to many comparable European countries, where comprehensive health coverage goes hand-in-hand with primary care systems requiring patients to consult GPs before seeking specialist treatment. So while there are general practitioners in Germany (Hausärzte/Allgemeinmediziner), many patients simply don’t have one – especially if they are highly mobile and in good health. 

In non-pandemic times, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Until I was in my early 30s, I didn’t have a GP either; if I got an ear infection (I’m a keen swimmer), I’d go straight to the ENT; for rashes, I’d go to the dermatologist. In total, I was probably at a doctor’s surgery around once a year; a GP system would potentially have doubled the number of visits. 

There are considerable drawbacks, however. Until the Pandemic, doctors’ surgeries in Germany were full of people who didn’t need to be there: some would mistakenly self-diagnose and go to the wrong specialist, while others were seeking a third, fourth, or even fifth opinion on a minor complaint.

While a GP system without recourse to second opinions can lead to missed diagnoses, Germany has an army of the worried well who, when told by two specialists that it’s nothing to worry about, will simply keep going until they find one who’ll take them seriously – and, of course, earn a pretty penny for consultations reimbursed by state insurance.

This systemic inefficiency is one of the reasons why Germany has some of the developed world’s highest health spending as a percentage of GDP, but life-expectancy which is middling at best. Only America gets considerably less bang for it buck.

‘Germany feels lie living in a loony bin right now’

Another key principle of healthcare in Germany is that, as well as their doctors, Germans get to choose their treatments to a degree unimaginable elsewhere. As such, those who have spent too long consulting Dr. Google will traipse from practice to practice trying to find someone unscrupulous enough to just give them whatever they want regardless of effectiveness; while rules on prescriptions prevent genuine malpractice, the fact that state health insurance reimburses homeopathic treatments (yes, I know…) means that doctors at least have harmless placebos to hand. 

Certainly, free choice does mean that some patients with rare diseases who would otherwise slip through the net might have a better chance of finding help (provided they know and understand the system). In this pandemic, though, trying to get a population used to picking and choosing its treatments like yoghurts from a supermarket shelf, to just get the jab is proving problematic at best. Essentially, due to its patient-choice led system, Germany neither has a centralised infrastructure for contacting its population in a vaccination drive nor does its population accept being told when to come to get vaccinated and with what.

In the short term, this dysfunctionality actually worked to my advantage in spring: I got vaccinated far earlier than I would have in the UK because I told my Hamburg GP that I would be willing to take any jab whatsoever at a moment’s notice; she knows that I regularly visit a care home and so prioritised me for one of the many unused AZ jabs that same afternoon.

In the long run, of course, the German approach hasn’t worked out for me at all: I’m living in a country which, heading into a winter of Corona havoc, feels increasingly like a loony-bin.

Member comments

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.
For members

ECONOMY

Schuldenbremse: What is Germany’s debt brake and how does it affect residents?

Nothing sums up Germany's cautious relationship with money quite as well as the debt brake - but this little clause in the constitution has recently caused no end of chaos. Here's what you need to know about the so-called 'Schuldenbremse'.

Schuldenbremse: What is Germany's debt brake and how does it affect residents?

What is the debt brake and why did Germany introduce it?

Known as the Schuldenbremse in German, the debt brake is a cap on government borrowing that’s enshrined in Germany’s constitution. It states that the federal government can only take on a certain amount of new debt in each fiscal year.

This is capped at 0.35 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – the amount of money the country produces each year in goods and services. Though GDP varies from year to year, this generally gives the government enough wiggle room to borrow around €9 billion annually.

When it comes to spending on a regional level – i.e. by state governments in Germany – the rules are even stricter. States aren’t allowed to borrow any money to fund their plans and must therefore create balanced budgets that finance spending exclusively through tax income and money from the central government.

But why exactly has Germany decided to tie itself to such strict rules on spending? Well, there are quite a few answers to that. 

Back in 2009, the Grand Coalition of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Social Democrats (SPD), led by Angela Merkel, decided to bring the debt brake into law. At the time, the global economy was struggling to deal with the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis, and Germany was racking up a huge deficit. 

The idea was to bring borrowing back under control as soon as possible and prevent leaving billions of euros in debt for future generations to pay off. It also paid homage to the main edicts of neo-liberalism, creating a streamlined state with little room for generous investments or high social welfare payments. 

Thanks to the ongoing effects of the financial crisis, the debt break only came into force seven years after it was put in the constitution. This means that since 2016, the federal governments have been tied to 0.35 percent cap on borrowing.

That said, there are a few exceptions to the Schuldenbremse: in periods of national emergency, such as natural disasters or pandemics, the government is allowed to put the debt brake to one side. That’s exactly what happened during the Covid pandemic in the years 2020 to 2022, and now it appears it will be put aside for the fourth year in a row. In other words, it has been sidelined for exactly half of the time it has been in place.

READ ALSO: Germany to seek debt rule suspension for 2023

Why has the debt brake been in the news recently?

The debt brake was put in the spotlight in early November when Germany’s Constitutional Court declared tens of billions of earmarked government spending to be ‘unconstitutional’.

The case related to €60 billion of borrowing that was originally intended for tackling the Covid crisis but had later been diverted towards a fund for fighting climate change known as the Climate and Transformation Fund.

In normal cases, moving unspent money around wouldn’t be a problem – but in this case, the specific rules around the debt brake came into play. Utilising the exceptions in the debt brake, the €60 billion was borrowed for the purpose of stabilising the economy during the pandemic – and as such it was only supposed to go towards tackling that emergency.

Wind turbines in Germany

Wind turbines in the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein. Photo: picture alliance/dpa | Christian Charisius

Beyond this amount, which already represents a huge chunk of the national budget, the court decision also invalidated the Economic Stabilisation Fund (WSF). This fund was also originally set up during the Covid crisis and later repurposed as Olaf Scholz’s ‘Doppelwumms’: a €200 billion pot that paid for the energy price breaks and other relief measures in the wake of the Ukraine war. 

READ ALSO:

Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP) announced that the debt brake would be set aside for one more year to allow the government to meet its financial commitments for 2023. However, the budget for next year – and how the significant gaps in funding will be filled – still remain unclear.

The crisis has sparked a major debate among politicians about whether the debt brake is still fit for purpose. 

What do critics of the debt brake say? 

As you might expect, the tight controls on spending aren’t popular with everyone – especially those on the left on the political spectrum. 

Proponents of the debt brake say we should lower the deficit to avoid lumbering future generations with unmanageable debts, but critics of the mechanism make the opposite argument. They say that straightjacketing spending will actually put a strain on future generations as the government will be unable to invest in modern infrastructure and could therefore be hindering growth.

If borrowing is slashed too much and tax revenues don’t increase, projects like the green transformation, upgrading public transport and pushing ahead with digitalisation will inevitably be put on the backburner. The government will be forced to prioritise its urgent day to day spending in the present rather than trying to invest in the future – and it could also be forced to cut vital public services.

Deutsche Bahn train

Deutsche Bahn staff give the sign for an ICE high speed train to leave the main railway station in Stuttgart, southern Germany, on August 11, 2021. Photo by THOMAS KIENZLE / AFP

Other critics argue that the debt brake was appropriate at the time when it was introduced but that times have changed and governments require more flexibility. 

In the early to mid-2000s, Germany was riding high on a booming manufacturing and exports sector fuelled by cheap Russian gas, and had made little attempt to invest in renewable energy. Now, however, with Germany transitioning away from cheap Russian gas while trying to slash the country’s carbon emissions, Germany is faced with numerous expensive challenges at a time when the economy is especially weak – meaning borrowing more or raising more taxes feel like an inevitability. 

READ ALSO: ‘2024 a turning point’: When will Germany’s rail network run on time?

Could the debt brake be reformed in the future?

That’s certainly an idea that’s come from multiple camps – not least Economics Minister Robert Habeck of the Green Party. Speaking at the recent Green Party Conference, Habeck slammed the current rules on borrowing, stating: “With the debt brake as it is, we have voluntarily tied our hands behind our backs and are going into a boxing match.”

According to Habeck, the debt brake should be reformed according to the “green golden rule” to allow borrowing for investments rather than everyday spending. This is an idea that has also been put forward by economists.

Saskia Esken, the co-leader of the SPD, has also spoken out in favour of a reform of the debt brake to avoid putting a drag on growth in the future. 

However, the likelihood of this happening seems low at the moment, even if Greens and SPD politicians – and some members of the CDU – are in favour of it. 

That’s because it takes a two-thirds majority in the Bundestag to change any aspect of the Grundgesetz, or constitution – a much higher bar than the simple majority needed to change a law.

The FDP, who are in the coalition alongside the Greens and SPD, are also fiercely opposed to any reform of the debt brake and want to rein in government spending instead. 

Christian Lindner

German Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP) speaks in the Bundestag. Photo: picture alliance/dpa | Michael Kappeler

Messing with this fiscal rule could also prove unpopular: a recent poll found that 61 percent on Germans were opposed to any reform of the debt brake, as opposed to 35 percent who were in favour of it, and 4 percent who didn’t know. 

It means that in the medium term at least, the government may have to take a scalpel to its previous spending plans, cutting spending on investment projects, public services like healthcare and transport and social welfare such as child and unemployment benefits. Or it may find a way to raise some taxes without upsetting the FDP. 

READ ALSO: How Germany’s budget crisis could affect you

SHOW COMMENTS