A pharmacy weighing a venöse Blutentnahme (venous blood draw) usually asks first whether the practices down the road will treat it as an attack. On the law, working with a local Arztpraxis is lawful and completely ordinary, because German pharmacy law does not prohibit cooperation between a pharmacy and a doctor.
What it prohibits is far narrower. § 11 Abs. 1 ApoG (Apothekengesetz) bans agreements about steering patients, assigning prescriptions and preferring particular medicines, and § 11 Abs. 1a adds the Makelverbot, the ban on brokering prescriptions for a benefit. The trigger is an arrangement or a payment, which is why a conversation, a joint event or a customer being sent to a doctor falls outside it.
That gap costs money, because a pharmacy which treats all contact as forbidden either drops the service or starts it quietly.
The Zuweisungsverbot bans paid steering and not ordinary contact
Most misunderstandings start with a paraphrase, so here is § 11 Abs. 1 Satz 1 ApoG in full:
Erlaubnisinhaber und Personal von Apotheken dürfen, soweit gesetzlich nichts anderes bestimmt ist, mit Ärzten oder anderen Personen, die sich mit der Behandlung von Krankheiten befassen, oder mit Dritten keine Rechtsgeschäfte vornehmen oder Absprachen treffen, die eine bevorzugte Lieferung bestimmter Arzneimittel, die Zuführung von Patienten, die Zuweisung von Verschreibungen oder die Fertigung von Arzneimitteln ohne volle Angabe der Zusammensetzung zum Gegenstand haben.
All four named objects are transactional, and the verbs are Rechtsgeschäfte vornehmen and Absprachen treffen. Nothing there reaches a pharmacy that tells a practice about a service.
The line matters, because § 12 ApoG makes such a transaction void, § 25 ApoG allows a Geldbuße of up to 20.000 euro, and § 299a StGB makes taking a benefit for the Zuführung von Patienten a criminal offence.
A practice carries the same restriction in the other direction
The (Muster-)Berufsordnung, adopted by the 130. Deutscher Ärztetag on 13 May 2026, sets out the mirror duty in § 31. Absatz 1 forbids a doctor from taking a benefit for the Zuweisung von Patientinnen und Patienten, and Absatz 2 reads: "Sie dürfen ihren Patientinnen und Patienten nicht ohne hinreichenden Grund bestimmte Ärztinnen oder Ärzte, Apotheken, Heil- und Hilfsmittelerbringer oder sonstige Anbieter gesundheitlicher Leistungen empfehlen oder an diese verweisen."
A practice that hesitates to name a pharmacy is following that provision rather than expressing hostility, and because the wording is "ohne hinreichenden Grund", a recommendation with a good reason is not prohibited.
Six everyday situations and what makes each one fail
| Situation | What it is | Workable | What makes it fail |
|---|
| Befund goes to the customer's own doctor | The Befund (result report) goes where the customer asks | Yes | The pharmacy choosing, or one address by default |
|---|
| A practice recommends the pharmacy | A doctor answers a patient asking where to go | Yes | Any benefit flowing back, or no hinreichender Grund |
|---|
| A shared information evening | Both speak on a health topic at a local event | Yes | It becoming a sales channel, or a payment beyond a speaker fee |
|---|
| A fee per customer sent over | Money or a benefit in kind, per person | No | The Zuführung von Patienten in § 11 Abs. 1 ApoG, and § 299a StGB |
|---|
| A rack of practice leaflets | Printed matter from one practice, on display | With care | Exclusivity, payment for the space, or a reciprocal deal |
|---|
| Naming one practice for follow up | A pharmacist names a practice after an out of range Befund | Risky | One practice by default rather than the customer's doctor |
|---|
The medical bodies have put their objection on record
In the KBV PraxisNachrichten of 18 June 2026, KBV chairman Dr. Andreas Gassen said pharmacists "hervorragende Pharmazeuten sind, aber keine ärztliche Ausbildung haben", and deputy chairman Dr. Stephan Hofmeister named the cost to practices: "Personen, bei denen nach ärztlicher Anamnese vielleicht gar keine Testung erforderlich gewesen wäre, werden anschließend in die Praxis geschickt (...) Und dort wird dann erneut getestet werden."
ALM e.V. chairman Dr. Michael Müller argued on 21 May 2026 that a venöse Blutentnahme is "keine isolierte technische Serviceleistung, sondern Teil eines medizinischen und ärztlich verantworteten diagnostischen Prozesses", and SpiFa chairman Dr. Dirk Heinrich added a day later: "Wer Blut entnimmt, muss auch wissen, warum, wofür, unter welchen Bedingungen und mit welcher medizinischen Konsequenz."
None of the three says a pharmacist cannot draw blood competently. All three argue that a laboratory result takes its value from the indication behind it and the interpretation after it, and that is sound. The statute answers part of that, because § 11c ApoG under the Apothekenversorgung-Weiterentwicklungsgesetz (ApoVWG) limits the draw to an approbierter Apotheker with a confirmed ärztliche Schulung, to adults and to diagnostic purposes, and rules out delegating Aufklärung, Anamnese or consent.
Repeat testing is the part a pharmacy can act on, because a result gets repeated when a practice cannot tell where it came from. A Befund on akkreditiertes Labor letterhead, carrying the method, the Referenzbereich and the time of the draw, is a document a practice can use, and an app screenshot is not.
Telling local practices before the first blood draw lowers friction
Much of the conflict comes from sequence, because a practice that first hears of the service from a patient holding a printout is put in an awkward position. A short letter before the service opens, naming the analyses offered, the laboratory, who completed the ärztliche Schulung and that no diagnosis is made in the pharmacy, removes most of that, and contains no agreement, so it stays clear of § 11 ApoG.
The commercial argument runs the other way too, because a pharmacy routing an out of range Befund to a doctor generates an appointment the practice would otherwise have seen later or not at all.
An honest closing point: the legal boundary is narrow and the relationship is wide. Some practices will welcome the service as a pharmazeutische Dienstleistung, some will stay cool, and a few will object on principle, a business problem rather than a legal one.
Advertising a testing service runs into the Heilmittelwerbegesetz
The second flashpoint, advertising, has its own statute. § 1 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 HWG applies the Heilmittelwerbegesetz to Verfahren und Behandlungen wherever the statement concerns the Erkennung von Krankheiten, so a paid testing service sits inside its scope.
§ 3 HWG bans irreführende Werbung, which covers presenting a Befund as a diagnosis. § 11 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 2 HWG bans consumer facing advertising built on recommendations by people working in healthcare, so a quotation from a local doctor on a flyer is a problem in its own right. Copy such as the same tests your doctor runs but without the waiting time collects an HWG complaint and a call from the practice at once.
Questions pharmacy owners ask about working with local practices
Is it allowed to send a Befund to the customer's own doctor
Yes, where the customer names the practice and asks for it, because the choice sits with the customer and no agreement exists between pharmacy and practice. What § 11 Abs. 1 ApoG catches is an Absprache about routing patients, and a written request in the documentation separates the two.
May a doctor recommend our pharmacy for a blood draw
That is answered by the doctor's Berufsordnung rather than by the ApoG, because § 31 Abs. 2 MBO-Ä prohibits recommending a particular pharmacy ohne hinreichenden Grund. A recommendation with a sound reason is permitted, and any benefit flowing back removes that footing.
Can we agree a fee with a practice for customers sent to us
No, and this is the clearest prohibition in the area, because it is the Zuführung von Patienten named in § 11 Abs. 1 ApoG and exposes both sides to § 299a and § 299b StGB. Discounts and benefits in kind count the same way.
Did the ApoVWG change the Zuweisungsverbot
The consolidated text of § 11 ApoG carries the same Absatz 1 as before, because the reform added § 11c ApoG for the venöse Blutentnahme rather than reopening the Zuweisungsverbot. A motion at the Deutscher Apothekertag in October 2024 asked for a statutory clarification, and none has arrived.
What can we safely say in an advertisement for a testing service
Factual description of what is measured, who performs the draw, which laboratory analyses the sample and what the result is not, all of which stays inside § 3 HWG. Comparative claims against practices, doctor testimonials and promises about outcomes draw complaints.
What a pharmacy does before the first appointment
A pharmacy checks its wording with its Apothekerkammer, writes to the practices in its catchment before the service opens, agrees a readable Befund format with its laboratory, and keeps the arrangement clear of payment either way. Pricing sits in the post on self pay services, and the wider argument in reform criticism and opportunities and point of care testing.
This article is general information about German pharmacy law and business practice and is not legal advice. The responsible Apothekerkammer, the responsible authority or a lawyer decides individual cases.
