Abstract
BACKGROUND: Access to health services for asylum seekers is legally restricted in Germany. The law is subject to interpretation, therefore the chance of receiving care is not equally distributed among asylum seekers. What services are provided to whom is ultimately decided by health professionals and government employees. The respective prioritization processes and criteria are not transparent. We sought to understand how legal restrictions are translated into daily practices and how this affects the health system. We aimed to outline the complex process of cost coverage for health services for asylum seekers and provide insights into common decision-making criteria. METHODS: We conducted an ethnographic exploration of routines in two outpatient clinics in two federal states over the course of three months, doing participant and non-participant observation. Additionally, we interviewed 21 professionals of health care and government organizations, and documented 110 applications for cost coverage of medical services and their outcome. In addition to qualitative data analysis and documentation, we apply a system-theoretical perspective to our findings. RESULTS: To perform legal restrictions a cross-sectoral prioritization process of medical services has been implemented, involving health care and government institutions. This changes professional practices, responsibilities and (power) relations. Involved actors find themselves at the intersection of several, oftentimes conflicting priorities, since "doing it right" might be seen differently from a legal, medical, economic, or political perspective. The system-theoretical analysis reveals that while actors have to bring different rationales into workable arrangements this part of the medical system transforms, giving rise to a sub-system that incorporates migration political rationales. CONCLUSIONS: Health care restrictions for asylum seekers are implemented through an organizational linking of care provision and government administration, resulting in a bureaucratization of practice. Power structures at this intersection of health and migration policy, that are uncommon in other parts of the health system are thereby normalized. Outpatient clinics provide low-threshold access to health services, but paradoxically they may unintentionally stabilize health inequities, if prioritization criteria and power dynamics are not made transparent. Health professionals should openly reflect on conflicting rationales. Training, research and professional associations need to empower them to stay true to professional ethical principles and international conventions.