It has been almost three weeks since the state health ministers called on the federal government to act.

They support the institution-related vaccination requirement, which should apply to employees in hospitals and nursing homes, among other things, from mid-March.

But the federal states also asked Federal Health Minister Karl Lauterbach (SPD) very clearly to “immediately coordinate all open implementation issues” with them that result from the legal reform.

Kim Bjorn Becker

Editor in Politics.

  • Follow I follow

Ruediger Soldt

Political correspondent in Baden-Württemberg.

  • Follow I follow

It is unclear, for example, to which facilities the compulsory vaccination regulated in the Infection Protection Act applies, how exceptional cases should be dealt with and to what extent employees who cannot prove a corona vaccination should be consulted.

It is also unclear how the implementation of compulsory vaccination should be regulated and what sanctions will be imposed – in any case, Lauterbach’s homework was not exactly small.

Just under a month before the planned introduction of the controversial regulation, it is unclear how far the minister has worked through the list.

The ministry initially left a query from the FAZ on this matter unanswered.

The federal states, which now feel left alone in implementing the regulation they had decided in the Bundesrat, vented their displeasure on Thursday.

The "basic deficiency" of the law is that the discretion of the local authorities is not clear enough, a spokesman for the Ministry of Health in Brandenburg told the FAZ

Lots of open questions

There is also a lack of clear guidelines as to how the law is to be applied.

“As is so often the case during the pandemic, this leads to a shift in responsibility to the federal states and municipalities.” The Federal Ministry of Health in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania warned that “the federal government must also make its contribution” to good implementation.

Representatives of the municipalities see the federal and state governments as equally responsible.

Both "shirked a consistent decision and instead passed this difficult decision on to the municipal health authorities," criticizes Helmut Dedy, the general manager of the German Association of Cities.

But what exactly are the sensitive points that have to be decided on site from March 15th?

From the point of view of the Saxon Ministry of Health, for example, it is not clear whether those employees in a facility who cannot have any contact with patients and residents “because they work in another building of the same facility, for example”, are also subject to compulsory vaccination.

It is also still unclear what requirements must be placed on a medical certificate if someone wants to be exempt from the obligation to vaccinate for medical reasons.

Basically, the question is how the local authorities react if, for example, a nurse does not present her employer with a vaccination certificate by mid-March.

The so-called "fall ax" variant is in the air, in which a ban on entry would apply to the respective facility on the key date - which brings great clarity to the matter for everyone involved, but makes planning more difficult for the facilities because they often only find out about it in mid-March are allowed to know where they stand with their employees.

In addition, the "hearing variant" is being discussed, according to which, after the reform has come into force, a discussion will be held with the employee concerned before sanctions are imposed.