[The 'Myozyme' decision of the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland and German Law: a constitutional rights and health insurance law perspective].

In November 2010, the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland dismissed a plea seeking reimbursement for treatment of glycogen storage disease type II - a very rare genetic metabolic disease also referred to as acid maltase deficiency (AMD) or Pompe disease -with a drug called 'Myozyme'. The Court held that the medication was not sufficiently effective or, alternatively, there was insufficient evidence for its effectiveness. The Court argued that the cost was out of balance with respect to the effects of the drug and concluded that it would be against the principle of legal equality if taxpayers were required to defray excessive expenses benefiting only an extremely small fraction of the population. Cost-effectiveness, however, cannot be accepted as a standard criterion governing the allocation of health insurance benefits because diversity of individual health must be regarded as a risk which nature has distributed equally among the members of the population. Therefore, it is a manifestation, rather than a violation, of the principle of legal equality that a public health insurance provider should pay for medical treatment in a particular case even if such treatment could not necessarily be administered to all other insured parties as well. At the same time, if cost-effectiveness in public health care is taken into account carefully, the risk of irrational resource allocation may be minimised. (As supplied by publisher).