In March 2024, a paper titled ‘Prescriptions of homeopathic remedies at the expense of the German statutory health insurance from 1985 to 2021: scientific, legal and pharmacoeconomic analysis’ was published by Leemhuis & Seifert in Naunyn Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology.[1] The authors’ overarching conclusion was that ‘In aggregate […] abolition of reimbursement of homeopathic medicines in Germany at the expense of the [Statutory Health Insurance] system is well justified’. I write to express my concern that this paper misrepresents the evidence for homeopathic medicines and reaches an unfounded conclusion. The aim of this letter is to critically appraise the methods used by Leemhuis & Seifert and assess the impact on the paper’s findings. Commenting on the legal aspects of marketing and regulation of homeopathic medicines is beyond the scope of this letter. In their paper, Leemhuis & Seifert use the terms homeopathic ‘remedies’ and ‘medicines’ interchangeably, which arguably is misleading. Instead, a clear distinction has been made in this letter such that ‘homeopathic medicines’ refers only to clinically prescribed branded medicinal products, rather than homeopathic remedies that are given as part of individualised homeopathic treatment. No inferences can be made from Leemhuis & Seifert’s study about the cost or effectiveness of remedies prescribed during individualised homeopathic treatment: only non-individualised homeopathic medicines were considered.