That is reported by Spiegel. The federal government is thereby called upon to systematically observe the consequences of statutory insurance coverage of these blood tests. An interdisciplinary expert panel is also to examine the legal, ethical and health-policy foundations on which the statutory health insurers pay for the test. The results of the monitoring are to be presented to the Bundestag by the end of June 2027 at the latest, as stated in the motion (S2).
The test has been covered by the statutory health insurers since 1 July 2022 under certain conditions. It enables pregnant women to have a blood test for the chromosomal disorders trisomy 13, 18 and 21 – the best known is trisomy 21, Down syndrome. The test is lower-risk than an amniocentesis, which leads to miscarriage in fewer than one per cent of cases. However, the NIPT does not provide a diagnosis, only probabilities. Only an invasive examination provides certainty.
The initiative for monitoring had already been introduced in 2024 in the previous parliamentary term. Because of the break-up of the traffic-light coalition, no vote was held at that time. The current motion is supported by MPs from the CDU, CSU, SPD, Greens and Left Party. Shortly before the debate, the initiators agreed with other MPs on an amendment: access for pregnant women to the insurance-funded blood test “must not be made more difficult in the case of a justified medical indication”, the motion states.
Why concern about mass screening is growing
Supporters of monitoring are relying on data from the health insurer Barmer. According to that data, in 2024 an average of almost 50 per cent of pregnant women took up an NIPT, compared with 32 per cent a year earlier. The test was used particularly often in women between 41 and 45 years of age, but also in younger women: in the 18 to 24 age group the rate was around 20 per cent in 2023. “What was originally intended as a targeted examination is increasingly developing into nationwide screening,” said the CSU health politician Stephan Pilsinger in the first reading on 20 March 2026. The movers criticise that the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) does not regulate clearly enough when the test should be used. As a result, it can be recommended independently of medical necessity – also so that doctors can protect themselves. Contrary to expectations, the number of invasive tests has not fallen but risen. In addition, the rate of false-positive findings in everyday practice is four times higher than theoretically expected. After a negative NIPT result, many pregnant women forgo the first-trimester screening, which could reveal further abnormalities.
In the debate on 20 March 2026, which MDR and Tagesschau.de reported on, numerous MPs spoke. The SPD MP Dagmar Schmidt said: “It must not be the case that systematic testing for trisomy 21 takes place.” The CSU MP Emmi Zeulner stressed that the issue was not about restricting “women’s reproductive autonomy” but about “more knowledge and more transparency in a sensitive area”. The Greens MP Paula Piechotta warned against controlling women in a highly personal situation: “Do not prescribe to women what they have to do.”
Support from associations – and open questions
The German Caritas Association and Lebenshilfe expressly welcome the monitoring. Caritas President Eva Welskop-Deffaa said prenatal diagnostics with frequently false-positive results and without therapeutic options create “a fatal pressure to decide”. Lebenshilfe chair Ulla Schmidt explained that current figures proved “that the NIPT has already become a routine examination in pregnancy care”. People with disabilities felt discriminated against. The General Disability Association (ABID) also supports the move. Its chair Marcus Graubner called for a society in which children with trisomy 21 “are not regarded as a stigma but as an enrichment”.
Criticism came from MPs who fear a restriction of self-determination. The AfD MP Martin Sichert stressed in the first reading that the NIPT prevents late abortions, which are experienced as particularly distressing. The SPD MP Carmen Wegge warned that the measures must not lead to more pressure on women. Regardless of the outcome of the review, the ethical question remains central: how free is a decision when a test becomes routine? Thursday’s resolution initially changes nothing about statutory insurance coverage. Rather, it is intended to create the basis for a well-founded debate – with data that are to be available by mid-2027.
