Homeopathy as effective treatment

Where in the source: §2, 'The policy', paragraphs 11–14

Records that homeopathy had been funded and provided through the NHS since 1948, identifies the homeopathic hospitals and their NHS commissioning arrangements, and explains that funding decisions were made within the NHS.

Where in the source: §2, 'The policy', paragraphs 11–15

Describes NHS commissioning, spending on homeopathic products and NHS support for specialist hospitals. These arrangements document the funding and service mechanism, without establishing therapeutic efficacy.

Where in the source: §2, 'The policy', paragraphs 12–15

Documents funded hospital services, prescribing expenditure and referrals, including the Tunbridge Wells closure after falling referrals and a commissioning review. These passages support all three consequences; they do not establish identical provision throughout the UK or until a common closing date.

Where in the source: §4, 'Conclusions', paragraphs 154–157

Concludes that there was no credible evidence of efficacy and recommends that homeopathy should not be funded on the NHS. This is the committee's assessment and recommendation, not evidence that its proposed withdrawal had already occurred.

Where in the source: Appendix, 'Homeopathy (2017)'; 'Policy recommendations' (guidance updated in 2023/2025)

Records the 2017 recommendation not to initiate homeopathy and to deprescribe it because no clear or robust evidence supported its use on the NHS. The updated guidance retains the entry labelled 2017 and directs primary-care prescribing in England; it does not document closure of every UK homeopathic hospital service.

Where in the source: §1.3.3, p. 9; Annex 2, p. 87, 1984 order, articles 1–2

Official HAS assessment reproduces the 12 September 1984 reimbursement order in its annex; that order names the Ministère des Affaires sociales et de la Solidarité nationale and established the reimbursable homeopathic list later withdrawn.

Where in the source: §§1.3.3–1.4.1, pp. 9–10

Explains reimbursement for listed homeopathic medicines dispensed on prescription and distinguishes them from unreimbursed branded products. This establishes the insurance and pharmacy pathway, not universal coverage of all homeopathic products.

Where in the source: 'Première évaluation scientifique en vue du remboursement en France' and preceding paragraph

States that homeopathic medicines had not previously undergone a scientific assessment for reimbursement and that the 2019 review found insufficient evidence of efficacy. This supports the coverage-before-assessment consequence, not a claim that no scientific research had previously examined homeopathy.

Where in the source: §§1.3.3–1.4.2, pp. 9–11

Describes prescription-based reimbursement and reports pharmacy dispensing and insurance claims data. These document actual prescribing and reimbursement, supporting the first two consequences.

Where in the source: Articles 1–2; JORF of 8 October 2019, text 7, NOR SSAS1925246A

Ends reimbursement from 1 January 2021 and repeals the 12 September 1984 reimbursement order.

Where in the source: 'Quel remboursement pour les médicaments homéopathiques ?'

Explains the 2020 transitional reduction in reimbursement and the end of compulsory-insurance reimbursement on 1 January 2021.

Where in the source: 'Grundlagen', 'Ziel', 'Weiterbildungsdauer' and 'Verleihung des ÖÄK-Diploms'

Current official diploma page. It states that the diploma is based on the Medical Chamber's physician-training regulation, defines the objective as learning indications and conducting homeopathic therapy, and requires at least three years and 350 teaching units.

Where in the source: §1, p. 1; §§3–4, pp. 2–3

Official curriculum defines homeopathy as a medical therapy involving remedies tested on healthy people, potentiation and the similarity principle, and states that diploma holders may treat acute and chronic illnesses according to the rules of homeopathic healing. The training contents include diagnostic assessment, remedy selection and treatment monitoring.

Where in the source: Printed p. 36 (PDF p. 39), diploma holders by federal state, row 'Diplom Homöopathie', reference date 31 December 2024

Official training report counts 675 holders of the ÖÄK homeopathy diploma as of 31 December 2024, including 148 in Vienna. This supports the dated count, not a 2026 headcount or therapeutic efficacy.

Where in the source: §1, p. 1; §§3–4, p. 2

The diploma curriculum specifies diagnosis and treatment training, a minimum of three years with 350 units, and its stated aim of treating acute and chronic illnesses. These provisions support the first three credentialing consequences.

Where in the source: 'Weiterbildungsdauer'; 'Grundlagen', specialty restrictions

Confirms the minimum three-year, 350-unit training pathway. The page also states that the diploma does not remove or extend a physician's statutory specialty restrictions.

Where in the source: Arzt im Ländle 09/2018, p. 14, opening diploma chronology

Regional Austrian Medical Chamber publication listing the chronology of ÖÄK complementary-medicine special diplomas and dating the homeopathy diploma to 1994.

Where in the source: Arzt im Ländle 09/2018, p. 14, opening diploma chronology

Dates the ÖÄK homeopathy diploma to 1994, documenting the start of the credentialing episode rather than the beginning of homeopathic practice in Austria.

Where in the source: Hauptverband statement of 11 April 2017, pp. 1 and 10–11; 'Rechtliche Grundlagen zur Kostentragung'

Official parliamentary attachment states that homeopathy is a physician service in Austria and that the Medical Chamber awards homeopathy diplomas, while also stating that the Supreme Health Council did not recognize homeopathy as a scientifically established healing method and that homeopathic medicines generally lacked sufficient evidence for reimbursement. This is the social-insurance body's 2017 position, not a withdrawal by the credentialing carriers.

Where in the source: Arzt im Ländle 09/2018, p. 14, review working group and 'Beschlüsse des ÖÄK Vorstandes im April 2018', first bullet

Reports a review of complementary-medicine diplomas followed by the April 2018 board decision to retain the existing diplomas as qualifications for structured training. The article includes homeopathy in that diploma group. This documents retention after review and supports uncorrected status.

Where in the source: 20 September 2017; opening paragraphs before 'EASAC recommends that'

Summarizes EASAC's evidence review: no known disease has robust, reproducible evidence of homeopathic efficacy beyond placebo, and the central scientific claims are inconsistent with established chemistry and physics. This scientific assessment is separate from the Austrian credentialing carriers' decisions.

Where in the source: Executive summary, pp. xviii–xx; §6.1, p. 173

Provides a newer external scientific assessment, including low-certainty possible benefits for specific outcomes and substantial uncertainty elsewhere. It evaluates clinical effectiveness for Australian health-policy purposes and does not document a change to Austrian physician credentials.

Where in the source: Library record: author, issue date and abstract

Government-library record for Portaria 971, which approved PNPIC and explicitly included homeopathy among the practices to be implemented in SUS. The record links the order and the full PNPIC policy; the latter was inspected and is registered separately for its detailed provisions.

Where in the source: 2018 leaflet, p. 2: PNPIC introduction and 'Homeopatia'

Ministry publication states that Portaria 971 incorporated homeopathy into PNPIC/SUS, describes expansion of access to integrative services, and identifies homeopathy as one of the policy's therapeutic systems.

Where in the source: §4.2, H1–H4/H6, pp. 35–43; §5, pp. 57–59

Sets out service, funding, medicine-access, training and communication provisions and allocates federal, state and municipal responsibilities. These establish the administrative mechanism specified by the policy.

Where in the source: §4.2, H1, pp. 35–36

Provides for homeopathic care in primary and specialist services, supporting the first two policy consequences. The provision does not measure how fully those services were delivered.

Where in the source: §4.2, H3, pp. 38–39

Provides for expanded public production and access to prescribed homeopathic medicines, supporting the third consequence as a policy provision.

Where in the source: §4.2, H4, pp. 39–41, and H6, pp. 42–43

Specifies support for professional education and dissemination of homeopathic information, supporting the fourth consequence as a policy provision.

Where in the source: Entry 'Portaria de Consolidação nº 2, de 28 de setembro de 2017, anexo XXV'; index reviewed in September 2026

Current Ministry legislation index for the PNPIC framework and its subsequent consolidations and expansions. The index supplies legislative context; it does not itself establish an efficacy-based correction or the extent of delivered homeopathic care.

Where in the source: §1.2, pp. 16–18; §5.1–5.3, pp. 57–59

Records local public homeopathic services before PNPIC, unequal medicine access, and the policy's division of implementation responsibilities. Its claims of reduced hospital and emergency interventions are policy assertions, not demonstrated effects.

Where in the source: 'Política Nacional de Práticas Integrativas e Complementares em Saúde', opening three paragraphs; updated 30 October 2025, reviewed September 2026

Bahia's Health Secretariat describes PNPIC as in force nationally and includes homeopathy among its current practices. This supports continued inclusion in the policy framework alongside the Ministry's legislation index, without establishing uniform delivery across Brazil.

Where in the source: Summary, p. 1; §§3.1–3.2, pp. 6–7

Concludes that there is no robust, reproducible evidence that homeopathy is effective beyond placebo for any known disease and that its scientific claims are inconsistent with established chemistry and physics. This is an external scientific assessment, not a Brazilian policy withdrawal.