• Public reporting of the quality of inpatient care may improve quality and accountability. • The described reform introduces a new platform for hospital quality comparisons. • Patient-friendly reporting formats are key for data usability and public trust. • Transparency alone is insufficient without supportive policy frameworks. • Success depends on usability, data quality, and continuous system evaluation. Germany's 2024 Hospital Transparency Act ( Krankenhaustransparenzgesetz ) represents a foundational step in a four-pillar hospital reform strategy to enhance hospital planning, optimize financial incentives, and strengthen rescue and emergency care services. The Act responds to longstanding calls for greater transparency in hospital performance and quality, aiming to empower patients and referring doctors with accessible, independent and reliable information. Central to the Act is the establishment of the Bundes-Klinik-Atlas, a national, publicly accessible digital platform designed to present hospital performance data in an interactive, patient-oriented, and user-friendly format. Drawing on existing statutory quality assurance and hospital remuneration datasets, the Atlas provides information on service-specific case numbers, staffing levels, minimum volume requirements, and relevant certifications, with additional indicators integrated over time. The reform is expected to improve patient empowerment, foster quality improvements through competition, and align Germany with international best practices in healthcare transparency. By making complex data accessible and comprehensible, the Act aims to reduce information asymmetries and support more equitable access to high-quality care. Early implementation shows strong initial public interest and iterative platform refinement, alongside data-quality challenges and political contestation. The Act illustrates both the potential and the limits of hospital public performance reporting, serving as both a model and a cautionary tale. While transparency can support patient choice and accountability, meaningful improvements in care quality depend on user-centred design, continuous updates, robust evaluation, complementary policies, and sustained stakeholder and political support within a clear regulatory framework.
Sule et al. (2026) studied this question.