Cheap flights carrier Ryanair is apparently to launch two new high-class services that consolidate the airline’s shift in positioning from ‘no frills’ airline to ‘paid extras’.
‘It’s a natural progression from the low cost model that Ryanair has made its own,’ said Skyscanner CEO Gareth Williams, commenting on the announcement.
‘Luxury is now an option and it makes perfect commercial sense. I don’t think it detracts from the company’s no frills positioning at all. Rather, it is helping to ensure that the airline can continue to offer rock bottom prices, subsidised by those who are prepared to pay for non-essential extras.’
Passengers travelling in the new Ryanair Plus class will enjoy luxuries such as sick bags; seat pockets for the sick bags to be stored in; pre-assigned seats so they can sit next to their own children; reclining seats and check-in desks.
Details of the Ryanair Irish Gold class have not yet been confirmed but plans apparently include removing 2.5 cm leg room from all standard class seats to accommodate full length recliner chairs.
Prestwick, Stansted and East Midlands airports will pilot the launch of new executive lounges with refreshments, entertainment and spa facilities and Gordon Ramsay is rumoured to have been invited to craft a gourmet menu for the lounges and in-flight meals in a move echoing Little Chef’s partnership with Heston Blumenthal.
In-flight entertainment plans for Irish Gold class include a scaled down version of Riverdance with Michael Flatley in discussions with the airline to choreograph a version that will work in the standard aisle space.
“We’re huge fans of Ryanair and we’re looking forward to confirmation of all the details of the new services which should be announced later today (April 1st)” added Gareth Williams.
80104014356.pdf
2. The proposed Directive relates specifically to patients being able to choose where they go for treatment. Patients will need to pay up-front and are later reimbursed by their home country (national health insurer or health authority) as long as they have a right to this treatment at home, and up to the level of reimbursement for the same or similar treatment in their national health system.
3. In other words, the Directive is about giving patients more choice on where they get the treatment.
4. If patients can’t get treatment on their National Health System because the waiting list is too long or the treatment does not exisist then it is up to the National Health System of the country to provide prior authorisation to the patient. This will then enable the patient to travel for treatment and they will not need to pay up front. This refers to another law that is already in force – the EU regulation on coordination of social security. The case of Avene that you mention might come under this Regulation if patients were sent there by their heath authority without having to pay up front.
More info on http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/doc/crossborder_brochure_en.pdf
or http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_security_schemes/healthcare/e112/conditions_en.htm
and good luck – you need a wet cloth and headache pills to understand these sites!
The Regulation on coordiantion of social security and can be accessed here:
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_security_schemes/healthcare/index_en.htm
TREATMENT CENTRES IN FRANCE
You may decide to hxxll with trying to get the NHS top pay - you are going anyway and will pay.
Two friends who live down the street were surprised and pleased at how easy it is to get treatment in Europe. They knew I had been there to get help with cancer side effects, and were impressed. So here, straight from the horse’s mouth, is what it’s like to go off abroad for treatment. Both had been passed around from one NHS pillar to another medical post, were fed up with years of waiting and wrong diagnosis, and just wanted to get things done. Now, they almost automatically book to go to France when they need treatment.
“When I wanted to find a prostate specialist when I had to go to Lyon, I merely googled :”Prostate specialists in Lyon” and up came various names, one of whom I called , got on to her secretary, and booked myself in. The cost was less than in London for seeing someone of comparable quality, I was seen immediately and laboratory tests were done on the same day, also at less cost, with the results coming through quite quickly.
When Robin had a problem with ingrowing toenails some years ago, we saw a French doctor within 10 minutes and the antibiotics were produced immediately, all at much less cost than here ( the doctor was in Paris ).
When needing a scan in Lyon, we booked up the appointment to coincide with our holiday in the South of France. No waiting, the scan cost £80 instead of £800 over here, and a doctor explained the results immediately afterwards in very good English. This was not on the EHIC (European Health Insurance Card) as it was pre-booked. However, further tests were done by my friend Dr Degraix, one of the leading ENT specialists in Lyon, and drops were duly administered for the infection which cured it in 7 days, whereas it had taken months of footling around in the U.K and we didn’t get anywhere.
When in France, we are always falling off rocks, pulling muscles diving into swimming pools, getting appalling stomach upsets after yet another 5 course Michelin meal, and always having to see a doctor or go to hospital to get cured. The results are always much better than in the U.K, cheaper and more effective.
It is also definitely worth comparing medical costs on a pre booked basis between here and France, and I haven’t seen or heard much about MRSA or whatever the latest bug is, but the French seem to have that under control”.
.
TREATMENT IN GERMANY
A new guide to German hospitals has just been published, called “Health Made in Germany” by UdoKessler. It contains helpful background for international patients, information about 50 hospitals, and details of staff. www.treatment-in-germany.com.
.
EUROPE – DIPPING YOUR TOES IN
It’s easier than you think to get treatment in Europe – BUT before you go, you must have an EHIC (European Health Insurance Card) to confirm that you are entitled to treatment under NHS in Britain.
This won’t pay for treatment if you elect to go abroad, but it will guarantee, if you fall ill whilst away with another condition, and it is an emergency, that you are entitled to treatment under NHS in UK.
The EHIC is for use in EU countries to pay for basic treatment. Just because you are paying for other treatment, where you are being treated will bill you separately if you present with an emergency.
However, you will also need private medical travel insurance.
How it works is:
The EHIC card gets you the basic treatment (although that can be superb in contrast to what we receive here).
This won’t cost you anything, However, you MUST have medical travel insurance as well – in case you need extras, to be repatriated, etc. which the EHIC card does not cover.
You MUST hand over your EHIC card when being treated, even though you have insurance cover, otherwise you could find your insurance company claiming against YOU for the cost of basic treatment which would otherwise have been covered.
To repeat – before you go abroad, even if you are paying for private treatment:
1. Apply for the EHIC card
2. Take out private insurance
3. Check what you will have to pay for privately with the cancer centre.
To get a card
You can either apply online for this card or get a form at your local Post Office (if you have one!)
So now you have the basics if things go wrong – there is nothing to stop you going off and enjoying yourself. And treatment abroad can be enjoyable.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR FINDING TREATMENT IN EUROPE
If you want
- drugs unavailable in UK
- treatment for side effects
- or don’t want to wait for an operation
This is for you:
On 2 July 2008, the European Parliament issued information about the draft – and I emphasise it is ONLY a draft – Directive on patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare.
This said, in a delightful way, that they didn’t think many patients would want to take advantage of this – how wrong they are. There are rumours about patients having long waits for treatment in Europe, but methinks that the PCTs have put this out as a rumour to make the process so difficult that UK patients give up the struggle. None of the people I speak to have any problems in Europe – if you want treatment within a few days – you get it.
I needed Lymphoedema treatment – which is rare as hens eggs since NHS closed down specialist clinics. I knew I could get this abroad, or at a private hospital in UK. I got my MEP (Member of European Parliament) to write in to support my need for treatment – and two courses were paid for by my PCT at the local private hospital. I think they were scared I would demand to be sent abroad!
So if you need treatment you can’t get here, you will have to fight hard, and not give up, but if you want treatment that can be obtained in Europe, and isn’t provided here – go for it, especially in treatment for hormonal drug side effects, which are handled so well in Europe, and brushed aside in Britain.
The following in an outline of what our rights will eventually be. As discussion goes on, either our NHS cancer services will be forced to improve, or we will get more and more chances to be treated abroad, provided we are prepared to fight for these. Don’t give up. That’s what THEY want you to do, so you don’t cost them a penny. But isn’t health worth a bit of a fight? Eventually either the NHS will be forced to improve, or the EU parliament will insist that we get treated abroad. Remember to copy in your MEP with any letters.
Print this out for your doctor, and if they want more information either contact your MEP, or see contacts at the end.
Questions and Answers on the draft Directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare
Reference: MEMO/08/473 Date: 02/07/2008
What does this proposal mean for citizens and patients?
This draft Directive clarifies the rights of patients to seek healthcare in another Member State as recognised by the European Court of Justice and simplifies their application in practice. Once the proposed Directive is implemented by the Member States, it will have the following practical benefits for citizens:
As long as a treatment is covered under their national healthcare system, patients will be allowed to receive that treatment in another EU country and be reimbursed without prior authorisation. For hospital care however, under certain circumstances, a Member State may decide to introduce a system in which patients require an administrative prior authorisation before seeking care abroad.
The patient will have to pay the costs to the healthcare provider abroad up front, but will have those costs afterwards reimbursed up to the level of reimbursement for the same or similar treatment in their national health system.
Patients will be guaranteed fair and quick procedures, including for the actual reimbursement of costs, and will have the right to ask for a review of any administrative decision regarding cross-border healthcare.
Patients will have easier access to all relevant information about cross-border healthcare, in particular through national contact points, so that they can make informed decisions about using cross-border healthcare.
Patients will be guaranteed access to their medical records and the protection of their personal data will also be guaranteed in the cross-border healthcare setting.
It will be easier for patients to have a prescription they received abroad obtained after their return to their home Member State. This will to ensure appropriate follow-up to the healthcare provided in another Member State.
As a result of European cooperation in fields such as the European reference networks, patients will have access to highly specialised healthcare that they otherwise may not have.
Patients can be confident about the quality and safety standards of healthcare abroad, which are guaranteed in the same way as they are for domestic patients. The country where treatment is provided is responsible for clinical oversight. This is the case regardless of how this treatment is paid for.
If something goes wrong, patients will be guaranteed redress and compensation and will be provided with assistance by national contact points for cross-border healthcare.
Patients coming from another EU country to benefit from cross-border healthcare will be treated in a non discriminatory way and enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of the country in which they are treated.
Why a specific initiative on cross-border healthcare?
In 2003, Health ministers and other stakeholders invited the Commission to explore how legal certainty could be improved following the European Court of Justice (ECJ) jurisprudence concerning the right of patients to benefit from medical treatment in another Member State.
The Commission’s proposal for a Directive on services in the internal market in early 2004 included provisions codifying the rulings of the ECJ in applying free movement principles to healthcare. This approach, however, was rejected by the European Parliament and the Council. It was felt that the specificities of cross-border healthcare were not sufficiently taken into account.
The Commission, therefore, undertook to explore how best to develop a policy initiative specifically targeting cross-border healthcare as a separate issue.
What are the Directive’s reimbursement rules?
The Directive reflects the following principles: Any non-hospital care to which citizens are entitled in their own Member State, they may also seek in any other Member State without prior authorisation, and be reimbursed up to the level of reimbursement provided by their own system.
Any hospital care that the citizens are entitled to in their own Member State, they may also seek in any other Member State, and also be reimbursed up to the level of reimbursement provided by their own system. If an unpredictable surge of cross-border healthcare risks becoming a serious problem, the proposal provides for a specific safeguard clause. Indeed, in accordance with case law of the ECJ, it allows a Member State to put in place a system of prior authorisation for hospital care, to safeguard its overall system if necessary.
In any event, the Member States may impose the same conditions on seeking cross-border care as they apply domestically, such as the requirement to consult a general practitioner before consulting a specialist or before receiving hospital care.
This proposal does not change the right of Member States to define the benefits that they choose to provide. If a Member State does not include a particular treatment as part of the entitlement of their citizens at home, this directive does not create any new entitlement for patients to have such treatment abroad and be reimbursed.
How does the proposal ensure the quality and safety of cross-border healthcare?
For the moment, there are no clear rules at Community level about how the requirements of appropriate information, quality, safety and continuity of healthcare should be met for cross-border healthcare, or who is responsible for ensuring that they are. This is the case no matter how the care is paid for – whether it is paid for publicly or privately, whether it is undertaken through the regulation on coordination of social security systems or whether it is in relation to the free movement rights described above. Without such clarity, there is the risk of confusion leading to difficulties in ensuring quality and safety of healthcare in cross-border cases.
The proposed directive, therefore, sets out:
that the safety and quality standards that apply are those of the Member States where the care is provided
that such standards should be based on the Council conclusions on “Common values and principles in European Union Health Systems” adopted in June 2006
that it should be for the authorities of the Member State of treatment to ensure correct and continuing application of such standards..
What is the role of the national contact points?
Appropriate information for patients is a necessary precondition for improving patients’ confidence in cross-border healthcare as well as achieving a high level of health protection. Often, clear information is felt to be missing. The Directive, therefore, sets out the requirements for information, on all essential aspects of cross-border healthcare, to be provided through national contact points. The form and the numbers of these national contact points are to be decided by the Member States. The Member States should have appropriate facilities to provide information on possibilities for cross-border healthcare and the applicable processes, and to provide practical assistance to patients if needed.
What is the aim of the European reference networks?
This initiative supports the further development of the European reference networks, which will bring together, on a voluntary basis, specialised centres in different Member States. This collaboration has great potential to bring benefits to patients through easier access to highly specialised care. It can also be useful to health systems as it would facilitate the efficient use of resources, for example by pooling resources to tackle rare conditions.
How does e-Health relate to this initiative?
Activities in the field of “e-Health” would be strengthened with this initiative. Information and communication technologies have enormous potential to improve the quality, safety and efficiency of healthcare. The Commission already supports existing e-health projects covering areas such as remote provision of specialist support from large hospitals to smaller local facilities and monitoring of chronic diseases to enable people with chronic conditions to remain active. What is lacking, however, are shared formats and standards that can be used between different systems and different countries. The directive will assist these to be put in place, thus strengthening and enhancing cooperation in e-Health.
What are the existing rules for cross-border health care?
The first discussions about “patient mobility” at EU level were prompted in 1998 after judgements of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Until then, the only EU mechanism enabling patients to receive treatment abroad (other than patients paying for such treatment privately) was the Regulation on the coordination of social security schemes (1408/71). This regulation entitles patients, whose treatment becomes necessary during a stay in another Member State (for example people travelling, studying or working abroad), to the same benefits as patients insured in the host Member State. It also provides for planned treatment in other Member States, subject to prior authorisation.
In 1998, the ECJ established additional principles through its rulings in the cases of Kohl and Decker. In these rulings, the Court made clear that as healthcare is provided for remuneration, it must be regarded as a service within the meaning of the EU Treaty and thus relevant provisions on free movement of services apply.
The Court also ruled that measures making reimbursement of costs incurred in another Member State subject to prior authorisation, are barriers to freedom to provide services, although such barriers may be justified by overriding reasons of general interest. These reasons include a risk of seriously undermining the financial balance of social security systems; the need to ensure provision of a balanced medical and hospital service accessible to all; or the maintenance of a treatment facility or medical service on national territory which is essential for public health.
If the EJC has already addressed this issue, why do we need a new proposal?
The rulings on the individual cases are clear in themselves. However, uncertainty has remained over how to apply their principles more generally. Moreover, there are no Community rules about how quality and safety of cross-border healthcare should be ensured. In many areas uncertainty continues to exist over how the principles established by the ECJ can be applied in practice by patients, health professionals and Member State regulators. These include:
uncertainty about the quality and safety of healthcare provided abroad;
uncertainty about which country is responsible for clinical oversight for cross-border healthcare;
uncertainty about authorisation and reimbursement of cross-border healthcare;
uncertainty about whether Member States have the possibility to regulate and plan their own systems without creating unjustified barriers to free movement;
uncertainty for patients and professionals in trying to identify, compare or choose between providers in other countries;
uncertainty about what happens if patients suffer harm from cross-border healthcare.
This proposal aims to address these concerns and bring legal clarity to all stakeholders.
Why would someone want to receive healthcare abroad?
Citizens usually prefer to receive healthcare close to where they live. However, in specific situations it may be more efficient or beneficial to receive healthcare abroad. This may be the case for patients who live in border regions as the healthcare provided abroad is just closer to their home.
Sometimes there is more capacity or expertise available in another Member State, such as for certain highly specialised treatments, or healthcare can be provided faster due to spare capacity of healthcare providers abroad. And for some Europeans it is more convenient to receive care away from their home country because their family and friends live in another Member State.
Whatever the reason, the European Court of Justice has recognised that patients have the right to receive healthcare in another Member State and be reimbursed for that healthcare for up to the amount they would have received in their own country.
How common is cross-border health care?
On average 1% of public healthcare budgets is spent on cross-border healthcare annually. That is about €10 billion per year. Cross-border health care is more frequent:
in border regions
smaller Member States
for the treatment of rare diseases
in areas attracting large amounts of tourists.
Even in these instances, cross-border care still represents only a very small fragment of total healthcare spending. The aim of this initiative is not to encourage cross-border healthcare as such. Most of the time healthcare is best provided close to where the patient lives. People prefer to have healthcare as close to home as possible, and our surveys show that the vast majority of patients throughout the EU are content with the care provided by their domestic system – over 90% across the EU as a whole.
Most of those who state they are not content still prefer to have their healthcare within their own country. But when receiving healthcare abroad is beneficial it should be possible, safe and of good quality. Procedures for reimbursement should be clear and responsibilities should be clearly defined and allocated.
How will this directive be implemented?
The proposed Directive provides a general framework for the application of cross-border healthcare patient rights, which the Member States will then implement as fits best with their systems, at national, regional or local level. This proposal will be sent to both the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers of the European Union for adoption. After adoption a Comitology committee will be established to further specify the measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive.
Further technical implementation measures may also be adopted at Community level (in agreement with the Member States), for example to define, for the purposes of this Directive a list of treatments, other than those requiring overnight accommodation, which would be subject to the same regime as hospital care.
Questions and Answers on the draft Directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare
What does this proposal mean for citizens and patients?
This draft Directive clarifies the rights of patients to seek healthcare in another Member State as recognised by the European Court of Justice and simplifies their application in practice. Once the proposed Directive is implemented by the Member States, it will have the following practical benefits for citizens:
As long as a treatment is covered under their national healthcare system, patients will be allowed to receive that treatment in another EU country and be reimbursed without prior authorisation. For hospital care however, under certain circumstances, a Member State may decide to introduce a system in which patients require an administrative prior authorisation before seeking care abroad.
The patient will have to pay the costs to the healthcare provider abroad up front, but will have those costs afterwards reimbursed up to the level of reimbursement for the same or similar treatment in their national health system.
Patients will be guaranteed fair and quick procedures, including for the actual reimbursement of costs, and will have the right to ask for a review of any administrative decision regarding cross-border healthcare.
Patients will have easier access to all relevant information about cross-border healthcare, in particular through national contact points, so that they can make informed decisions about using cross-border healthcare.
Patients will be guaranteed access to their medical records and the protection of their personal data will also be guaranteed in the cross-border healthcare setting.
It will be easier for patients to have a prescription they received abroad obtained after their return to their home Member State. This will to ensure appropriate follow-up to the healthcare provided in another Member State.
As a result of European cooperation in fields such as the European reference networks, patients will have access to highly specialised healthcare that they otherwise may not have.
Patients can be confident about the quality and safety standards of healthcare abroad, which are guaranteed in the same way as they are for domestic patients. The country where treatment is provided is responsible for clinical oversight. This is the case regardless of how this treatment is paid for.
If something goes wrong, patients will be guaranteed redress and compensation and will be provided with assistance by national contact points for cross-border healthcare.
Patients coming from another EU country to benefit from cross-border healthcare will be treated in a non discriminatory way and enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of the country in which they are treated.
Why a specific initiative on cross-border healthcare?
In 2003, Health ministers and other stakeholders invited the Commission to explore how legal certainty could be improved following the European Court of Justice (ECJ) jurisprudence concerning the right of patients to benefit from medical treatment in another Member State.
The Commission’s proposal for a Directive on services in the internal market in early 2004 included provisions codifying the rulings of the ECJ in applying free movement principles to healthcare. This approach, however, was rejected by the European Parliament and the Council. It was felt that the specificities of cross-border healthcare were not sufficiently taken into account.
The Commission, therefore, undertook to explore how best to develop a policy initiative specifically targeting cross-border healthcare as a separate issue.
What are the Directive’s reimbursement rules?
The Directive reflects the following principles: Any non-hospital care to which citizens are entitled in their own Member State, they may also seek in any other Member State without prior authorisation, and be reimbursed up to the level of reimbursement provided by their own system.
Any hospital care that the citizens are entitled to in their own Member State, they may also seek in any other Member State, and also be reimbursed up to the level of reimbursement provided by their own system. If an unpredictable surge of cross-border healthcare risks becoming a serious problem, the proposal provides for a specific safeguard clause. Indeed, in accordance with case law of the ECJ, it allows a Member State to put in place a system of prior authorisation for hospital care, to safeguard its overall system if necessary.
In any event, the Member States may impose the same conditions on seeking cross-border care as they apply domestically, such as the requirement to consult a general practitioner before consulting a specialist or before receiving hospital care.
This proposal does not change the right of Member States to define the benefits that they choose to provide. If a Member State does not include a particular treatment as part of the entitlement of their citizens at home, this directive does not create any new entitlement for patients to have such treatment abroad and be reimbursed.
How does the proposal ensure the quality and safety of cross-border healthcare?
For the moment, there are no clear rules at Community level about how the requirements of appropriate information, quality, safety and continuity of healthcare should be met for cross-border healthcare, or who is responsible for ensuring that they are. This is the case no matter how the care is paid for – whether it is paid for publicly or privately, whether it is undertaken through the regulation on coordination of social security systems or whether it is in relation to the free movement rights described above. Without such clarity, there is the risk of confusion leading to difficulties in ensuring quality and safety of healthcare in cross-border cases.
The proposed directive, therefore, sets out:
that the safety and quality standards that apply are those of the Member States where the care is provided
that such standards should be based on the Council conclusions on “Common values and principles in European Union Health Systems” adopted in June 2006
that it should be for the authorities of the Member State of treatment to ensure correct and continuing application of such standards..
What is the role of the national contact points?
Appropriate information for patients is a necessary precondition for improving patients’ confidence in cross-border healthcare as well as achieving a high level of health protection. Often, clear information is felt to be missing. The Directive, therefore, sets out the requirements for information, on all essential aspects of cross-border healthcare, to be provided through national contact points. The form and the numbers of these national contact points are to be decided by the Member States. The Member States should have appropriate facilities to provide information on possibilities for cross-border healthcare and the applicable processes, and to provide practical assistance to patients if needed.
What is the aim of the European reference networks?
This initiative supports the further development of the European reference networks, which will bring together, on a voluntary basis, specialised centres in different Member States. This collaboration has great potential to bring benefits to patients through easier access to highly specialised care. It can also be useful to health systems as it would facilitate the efficient use of resources, for example by pooling resources to tackle rare conditions.
How does e-Health relate to this initiative?
Activities in the field of “e-Health” would be strengthened with this initiative. Information and communication technologies have enormous potential to improve the quality, safety and efficiency of healthcare. The Commission already supports existing e-health projects covering areas such as remote provision of specialist support from large hospitals to smaller local facilities and monitoring of chronic diseases to enable people with chronic conditions to remain active. What is lacking, however, are shared formats and standards that can be used between different systems and different countries. The directive will assist these to be put in place, thus strengthening and enhancing cooperation in e-Health.
What are the existing rules for cross-border health care?
The first discussions about “patient mobility” at EU level were prompted in 1998 after judgements of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Until then, the only EU mechanism enabling patients to receive treatment abroad (other than patients paying for such treatment privately) was the Regulation on the coordination of social security schemes (1408/71). This regulation entitles patients, whose treatment becomes necessary during a stay in another Member State (for example people travelling, studying or working abroad), to the same benefits as patients insured in the host Member State. It also provides for planned treatment in other Member States, subject to prior authorisation.
In 1998, the ECJ established additional principles through its rulings in the cases of Kohl and Decker. In these rulings, the Court made clear that as healthcare is provided for remuneration, it must be regarded as a service within the meaning of the EU Treaty and thus relevant provisions on free movement of services apply.
The Court also ruled that measures making reimbursement of costs incurred in another Member State subject to prior authorisation, are barriers to freedom to provide services, although such barriers may be justified by overriding reasons of general interest. These reasons include a risk of seriously undermining the financial balance of social security systems; the need to ensure provision of a balanced medical and hospital service accessible to all; or the maintenance of a treatment facility or medical service on national territory which is essential for public health.
If the EJC has already addressed this issue, why do we need a new proposal?
The rulings on the individual cases are clear in themselves. However, uncertainty has remained over how to apply their principles more generally. Moreover, there are no Community rules about how quality and safety of cross-border healthcare should be ensured. In many areas uncertainty continues to exist over how the principles established by the ECJ can be applied in practice by patients, health professionals and Member State regulators. These include:
uncertainty about the quality and safety of healthcare provided abroad;
uncertainty about which country is responsible for clinical oversight for cross-border healthcare;
uncertainty about authorisation and reimbursement of cross-border healthcare;
uncertainty about whether Member States have the possibility to regulate and plan their own systems without creating unjustified barriers to free movement;
uncertainty for patients and professionals in trying to identify, compare or choose between providers in other countries;
uncertainty about what happens if patients suffer harm from cross-border healthcare.
This proposal aims to address these concerns and bring legal clarity to all stakeholders.
Why would someone want to receive healthcare abroad?
Citizens usually prefer to receive healthcare close to where they live. However, in specific situations it may be more efficient or beneficial to receive healthcare abroad. This may be the case for patients who live in border regions as the healthcare provided abroad is just closer to their home.
Sometimes there is more capacity or expertise available in another Member State, such as for certain highly specialised treatments, or healthcare can be provided faster due to spare capacity of healthcare providers abroad. And for some Europeans it is more convenient to receive care away from their home country because their family and friends live in another Member State.
Whatever the reason, the European Court of Justice has recognised that patients have the right to receive healthcare in another Member State and be reimbursed for that healthcare for up to the amount they would have received in their own country.
How common is cross-border health care?
On average 1% of public healthcare budgets is spent on cross-border healthcare annually. That is about €10 billion per year. Cross-border health care is more frequent:
in border regions
smaller Member States
for the treatment of rare diseases
in areas attracting large amounts of tourists.
Even in these instances, cross-border care still represents only a very small fragment of total healthcare spending. The aim of this initiative is not to encourage cross-border healthcare as such. Most of the time healthcare is best provided close to where the patient lives. People prefer to have healthcare as close to home as possible, and our surveys show that the vast majority of patients throughout the EU are content with the care provided by their domestic system – over 90% across the EU as a whole.
Most of those who state they are not content still prefer to have their healthcare within their own country. But when receiving healthcare abroad is beneficial it should be possible, safe and of good quality. Procedures for reimbursement should be clear and responsibilities should be clearly defined and allocated.
How will this directive be implemented?
The proposed Directive provides a general framework for the application of cross-border healthcare patient rights, which the Member States will then implement as fits best with their systems, at national, regional or local level. This proposal will be sent to both the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers of the European Union for adoption. After adoption a Comitology committee will be established to further specify the measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive.
Further technical implementation measures may also be adopted at Community level (in agreement with the Member States), for example to define, for the purposes of this Directive a list of treatments, other than those requiring overnight accommodation, which would be subject to the same regime as hospital care.
More Information
Questions and Answers on the draft Directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare can be found at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/473&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
Or phone the Commission’s office in London: 020 7973 1992).
Other Contacts
John Bowis – Conservative spokesman on Health at European Parliament jbowis@europarl.eu.int
Europa Donna – European Coalition on Breast Cancer www.europadonna.org
See also Klinik Bad Sulza (Germany) and French medical spas under France.
HEALTH TREATMENT IN EUROPE
Following on from posting under ‘Treatment in Europe’, the latest news from Brussels is that various health ministries are fighting cross-border health treatment tooth and nail. I suspect our NHS is strongest protester.
Latest is that the law was initially proposed in December last year, but was withdrawn after widespread controversy. The draft law enables citizens of one EU country to go abroad to another member state to seek treatment. Patients in the EU would be allowed to receive non-hospital treatment outside their home country without pre-approval from their doctor or health authority. The patient’s home healthcare service will then have to pay the bill – but only up to the amount the treatment would cost in the home state. When the cost of treatment is larger, the patient will have to top up the difference.
Proving how out of touch they are with the general public in UK, the protestors say this new law “would potentially favour higher income groups. Firstly, the fact that people would spend money on treatments abroad, and then be reimbursed later, and secondly, that the system would operate on a top-up basis – patients could get a certain proportion of the cost of a treatment reimbursed by the NHS, but make up the difference themselves. Both these features would tend to lead to the diversion of resources towards higher income groups. Put simply, if the well-off use up the NHS budget buying services abroad, there will be less money left for those who cannot afford to top up the difference”.
On the face of it, this is true – BUT – on another posting on this site, a patient describes how a scan that would have cost him £800 in UK, if done privately, actually cost him £80 in France. The £800 was quoted him at an NHS hospital – so are the NHS frightened they are going to lose out of a juicy revenue stream?
And they should actually consult patients. Ask around, and it is shameful the number of patients who pay for private treatment in UK by taking out loans or mortgages. A family, faced with Mum or Dad having to have cancer treatment, wants the best for their parent – and it is often the kids who insist that they go privately.
As the news says, Health Minister Alan Johnson was forced to announce a review of the policy last month after a series of high profile cases where patients wanted to top up. They also bought up the old chestnut of unfair treatment, which could lead to unfair queue-jumping by the well-off, marking the end of the way we run healthcare in this country.
Does anyone in Whitehall actually know what goes on in the NHS? Queue-jumping is rife; ordinary patients are going to Court to get drugs to save their sight, etc. Behind all this do-gooding is the fear that patients will return and start to demand the same treatment in UK that Europeans receive – at the same cost. And this will make some hospital administrators very worried for their jobs.
After all, if run privately, no hospital would allow expensive equipment to lie idle the way the NHS does. The private Cromwell Hospital’s radiotherapy unit is open 12 hours a day, starting 0730. The Royal Marsden says their unit is open 0900-1700.
And, with all this talk about poorer people not being able to pay for top-ups if they went abroad, the NHS should ask why it is you can have a scan in Lyon for £80, that would cost £800 in UK?
More info on this from Open Europe’s briefing on the EU Health Directive:
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=80
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d482ab41-da27-4fec-999c-4ecc8a87bec9)
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Simonsays 01.11.09 at 11:19 pm
I think that if I am the one paying for the treatment I should be able to feel that I am getting what I am paying for. Because if I was not I would be going somewhere that makes me feel like progress is being made. Not all countries have national health care systems and I believe they should. Then no one has to suffer just because they cannot afford the treatments.
Peto 01.25.09 at 3:31 pm
http://www.aukcianaruby.sk/email/dem/logo.gif
http://www.asteclick.com/img_prodotti/2348773c6b3b2b6.jpg
4]iPhone 3G – 16GB
Trhová hodnota: 569,00
5]kúpené za 0,07
3]U si niekedy vsadil ZADARMO ?
Darček pre Teba 10 EUR!
Poui tento kód 10EUREFER
v priebehu registrácie.
Odhaľ ako nakúpiť aj za pár centov »
Dartz 01.25.09 at 5:47 pm
Healthcare is affordable AND good in France!? It’s a shame I don’t know Jaques about the language, if I did, I’d move out of the US and straight into France.
I just suffer most of the time, I’m actually well trained in first aid, but not certified. Why I’m not certified? It protects me from lawsuits if I screw up.
Zordani 02.02.09 at 2:56 pm
France has always been such a haven for people that are in dire need of medical support. Maybe it’s got something to do with the way their social security and social principles are so much better developed there, as opposed to here, I don’t know.
jamesb 02.08.09 at 4:24 pm
Well to be honest, I do have family that live in many countries around the world and the ones living in Europe do tend to have access to the best health care. In the US for example there are many people without insurance or with plans that do not cover extensive cancer treatment. They do however often have the best hospitals and doctors.
zordani 02.08.09 at 9:24 pm
It’s a good thing to know that we can travel to Europe and get the care we deserve without paying a penny – if we can’t get it here. France has the best health care in Europe, in my opinion, so it’s definitely worth a look at.
Oigen 02.08.09 at 9:25 pm
I’m thinking that Europe might actually be a better idea to get cancer treatment, as opposed to our old NHS facilities here. Now don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I’m ungrateful or something, it’s just that I find it a little bit unsuitable when it comes to after care.
sanju123 02.09.09 at 2:37 am
With so much advancement all around and especially in the field of health care and medical facilities, it is sad state of affair that worlds top countries are lacking in good services.It is good to learn that things are pretty nice in France. What about cost of living otherwise at this place?
Annabelle 02.09.09 at 8:51 am
I’m hoping I’ll avoid this and never have to think about treatment and after care, but if something bad happens, I’ll definitely go for France. I’ve read all sorts of great reviews of the health care system there, and I know how my grandma suffered here, so I’m not making that mistake.