The G-BA has so far determined xx patient-specific subgroups. xx% of these subgroups have been seen as providing a major additional benefit for the patients and a further xx% as delivering a considerable additional benefit. A minor additional benefit was seen for about xx% of the subgroups, while the additional benefit was not quantifiable for about xx%. The G-BA determined no indication-specific benefit in about xx% of all subgroups. Less benefit compared to the appropriate comparative therapy was seen in xx% of the subgroups.
There are remarkably large differences in the G-BA assessments of extent and probability of additional benefit in various indication areas. These are discussed in the following chapters. It should be noted in particular that indications with high patient numbers receive significantly worse assessments than medicinal products with low patient numbers. Oncological preparations with and without orphan drug status for example are often assessed as having additional benefits. In indication areas such as Central Nervous Diseases (CNS), Cardiovascular Diseases (CV), and Other medicinal products (OTHER) the verdict of no additional benefit is seen more often.