Administrative court Social welfare does not have to pay for medicinal cannabis
Social welfare does not have to cover the costs of a man from the canton of Bern for medically prescribed cannabis. This was decided by the Administrative Court in a ruling published on Friday.
02.08.2024, 15:00
02.08.2024, 15:01
SDA
Since August 2022, doctors have been able to prescribe cannabis medicines under their own responsibility using a narcotics prescription. The social welfare recipient from the canton of Bern had such a prescription. Among other things, he suffers from ADHD.
Both the health insurance company and the disability insurance company refused to cover the costs of medical cannabis use in his case. The man therefore turned to social welfare, which also refused to pay the costs. The man lodged an appeal against this, which now ended up before the Administrative Court at second instance.
Expert opinion weighted higher
The man's family doctor wrote in a report that cannabis was the only substance that would help the patient to improve his quality of life.
The court also consulted disability insurance files, in particular a psychiatric report. Its "convincing specialist findings" were weighted higher than those of the family doctor.
The expert came to the conclusion that the man could certainly be treated by other means. In fact, the patient had been smoking cannabis excessively since the age of 15, which had led to a reduction in drive, reduced performance and cognitive impairment, among other things. Against this background, treatment with medicinal cannabis was not appropriate.
The expert opinion also referred to hospital reports in which the man had been diagnosed with "psychological behavioral disorders caused by cannabioids".
No unavoidable costs
Under the given circumstances, medical cannabis did not fall into the category of unavoidable medical costs covered by social welfare, the Administrative Court ruled. In doing so, it upheld a decision by the Oberaargau District Governor's Office.
The decision can still be appealed to the next higher instance within 30 days.
