Gabriele S. was involved in a serious road accident, after which her right leg had to be amputated. She relies on a good prosthesis, as the pharmacist works in a pharmacy housed in an old building, with winding corridors and a spiral staircase. She walks thousands of steps every day to get there.
S. is allowed to test the prosthesis extensively, but is then not granted approval for it
Back in 2020, she applied to the Austrian Pension Agency for a high-quality prosthesis. The Austrian Pension Agency sent her to an Austrian Social Insurance for Occupational Risks facility for several days, where she was trained to use a top-of-the-range prosthesis and was able to test it extensively. The Austrian Social Insurance for Occupational Risks’ recommendation: “When walking in tight turns, climbing stairs, and walking uphill and downhill”, the prosthesis she tested enabled “a safe and gentler gait. The smoother movement reduces strain on the spine. The patient demonstrated that she can fully utilise the benefits of the high-quality microprocessor-controlled knee joint (…) particularly in her personal work routine.”
“Doctors, physiotherapists, orthopaedic technicians… they all unanimously agreed that I was a suitable candidate for this prosthesis,” said Gabriele S. on the television programme Bürgeranwalt ("Advocate for the People") on 7 November.
The Austrian Pension Agency ignores experts’ recommendations and speaks of “excessive provision”
In short: the prosthesis is perfect, and Gabriele S. needs it for her work. However, the Austrian Pension Agency ignored this and did not approve the prosthesis for her. She has now tried again and applied for the successor model to the prosthesis she originally applied for. The Austrian Pension Agency ignored the application once more – without giving any substantive reasons. The letter from the Austrian Pension Agency simply states “decision by the medical superintendent”. S. contacted the Austrian Ombudsman Board, which in turn contacted the Austrian Pension Agency. Yet even now, Director-General Wilfried Pinggera has rejected her application: the desired prosthesis would constitute “excessive provision”.
Achitz: For whom, then, are such prostheses developed at all?
For Ombudsperson Achitz, the refusal is completely incomprehensible: “The Austrian Pension Agency’s role is to support Ms S. in carrying out her professional activities and to ensure she remains in employment in the long term. During a night shift, she has to constantly go up and down a spiral staircase. She needs this prosthesis to walk more safely, experience less pain and relieve the strain on her spine. To speak of ‘excessive provision’ in this context is almost cynical. If Ms S. does not receive this prosthesis – then for whom on earth was it designed?”
