statistics in a way similar to a basket-of-goods model. But if the legislature introduces elements into the calculation this way, it must ensure that the minimum level of existence is still in fact secured. Benefits must either be calculated so as to compensate any insufficient covering of certain items within the overall amount itself (cf. BVerfGE 125, 175 <238>), or enable the recipient of the benefit to put aside funds to cover varying needs (cf. BVerfGE 125, 175 <229>); or arrangements must be in place to ensure that a claim can be made to compensate for such insufficient covering of needs by other means. cc) The legislature is in compliance with its duty to update benefit amounts to secure a dignified minimum existence if it regularly recalculates and updates them to take into account the development of the actual cost of covering existential needs (cf. BVerfGE 125, 175 <225>; 132, 134 <165 and 166, para. 79>). There must be a prompt reaction to changes in economic conditions, such as price increases or rises in consumption taxes, in order to ensure that current needs are covered (BVerfGE 132, 134 <163, para. 72>). 85 II. By these standards, the provisions submitted for review for the period that is relevant for the decision still satisfy the requirements of Art. 1 sec. 1 in conjunction with Art. 20 sec. 1 GG, in the necessary comprehensive assessment. The legislature has secured, as a legal claim […], the right to benefits to cover standard needs […] to ensure a dignified minimum existence, as well as a review of the amount of these benefits. There is no indication that the benefits have been set at a level that is evidently inadequate (1). The rules for determining the level of benefits currently also satisfy the requirements for an objectively appropriate calculation; the legislature must, however, ensure, in accordance with the reasons of this decision, that discernible risks of underfunding of existential needs will not occur (2). The rules for updating standard needs are consistent with the Constitution (3). There is no violation of other fundamental rights (4). 86 1. The purpose of the review of evident circumstances is purely to examine whether benefits are clearly insufficient for covering the amount that is overall necessary to secure existence and not, as a matter of principle, to look at individual items in the way they are calculated. Accordingly, the determination of benefits to ensure a dignified minimum existence under the challenged provisions does not prove to be evidently inadequate. There is no indication that the overall amount paid to cover standard needs that existential needs would clearly not be covered. 87 The fact that the legislature has linked the updating of the level of benefits to the regularly calculated consumer prices index […] and has not used a special index for household electricity that could have better reflected the unusually high price rises in the period relevant for the decision does also not mean that the legislature has clearly and evidently set the level of benefit too low. The ever-present possibility of reflecting more closely a rise in prices in its effect on the level of benefits meant to ensure a 88 14/29