Competition authority sues against eye screening in dm drugstores

Bad Homburg. The drugstore chain dm recently launched early medical screening programs in a few of its stores. The services are being implemented by cooperating telemedicine and testing providers.

The German Competition Authority is now taking legal action against one of these offers: The eye screening with AI evaluation – for signs of glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy or AMD – of the dm partner Skleo Health and its advertising violate applicable law on several occasions, according to the Bad Homburg market observers.

Lawsuits against dm and Skleo will now be filed at the Düsseldorf and Karlsruhe regional courts, according to a statement from the association on Monday. First, the screening violates the German Alternative Medicine Practitioners Act (Heilpraktikergesetz), as the "trained employees" employed by dm to assist with eye tests and eye examinations are not authorized to practice medicine.

The medical devices used were “operated by personnel not qualified for their use, contrary to their intended purpose”.

Misleading statements about the quality of care?

Furthermore, the results report containing specific findings to be sent to customers by email is “a medical service that must be billed according to the rules of the medical fee schedule.”

At dm, however, the price is only €14.95. Furthermore, the advertising of the eye screening on the dm website is also objectionable, the statement goes on to say.

The competition authorities consider phrases such as "early detection" or "timely treatment" to be misleading, suggesting to customers "that a reliable test result would be available after the screening and that diseases could thus be effectively prevented." However, a personal ophthalmological examination is essential for this.

Finally, there was also a violation of the general prohibition on advertising for distance treatments according to Section 9 of the German Medicines Advertising Act.

On this issue, the German Competition Authority had already secured a landmark ruling against the private Ottonova health insurance company four years ago, according to which only those remote treatments may be advertised for which "according to generally accepted professional standards, personal medical contact with the person being treated is not necessary." (cw)