Video wound consultations: Assess the actual service and reimbursement framework
Video consultations do not all follow identical billing rules. Check the applicable agreement, provider evidence and clinical suitability.
Editorial review:
Background & source findings
Annex 31b BMV-Ä governs video consultations in German contracted outpatient medical care, including care-assisted consultations and specified case conferences within its scope. Match the actual service to the applicable rules before billing. [1]
The 5 August 2026 version requires end-to-end encryption of content. It provides for peer-to-peer transmission while allowing protected alternatives. Necessary connection metadata must be deleted within three months, not necessarily immediately after the call. Certification evidence is assessed by the specified certification bodies rather than a blanket product endorsement by KBV. [1]
Clinical suitability and understandable patient information remain separate requirements. [1], [2]
Scope & limitations
No provider is rejected solely by brand, and consumer-app use is not automatically billing fraud. Assess the actual service and reimbursement conditions. Video is not sufficient for every clinical question.
In plain language
Fictional example: A care-assisted wound consultation uses the assessed service, but image quality proves insufficient. The team switches to the agreed alternative assessment route.
Practical recommendations
Our recommendation: Establish service type, participants, current provider evidence and any required KV notification. Test image, audio, lighting and connectivity with suitable materials. Define escalation criteria and protect room privacy.
Distinguish the recording rules: the provider must not be able to view or store consultation content; section 3 permits recordings for treatment documentation only with consent. Document clinical findings in the proper record. [1] Connectivity alone does not establish a medically appropriate examination.