The Eu’S Patients’ Rights Directive Inward Practice

Tamara Hervey, Professor of Law in addition to Head of Law School, University of Sheffield

In a calendar week inwards which Europe’s media lastly piece of employment upwardly to a migration floor where the scale of human tragedy is in addition to thence painful every bit to live barely comprehensible, it seems almost crass to write well-nigh whatsoever other human face of migration than those seeking refuge inwards Europe from devastating state of war in addition to civil unrest.

 

But life goes on nonetheless, in addition to this calendar week too sees the European Commission’s publication of its Report on the so-called ‘Patients’ Rights Directive’.  The information inwards the Report – piece incomplete (a fact noted repeatedly yesteryear the Report itself) – confirms that this is something of a misnomer.  The underlying aim of the Directive was e'er going to live obfuscated yesteryear political compromise.  Although it was styled the ‘Patients’ Rights Directive’ from its outset proposal, to distinguish it from a politically unacceptable ‘Free drive of wellness services directive’, a to a greater extent than accurate championship would in all probability live the ‘Securing National Health Systems inwards the Single Market Directive’.

Most Member U.S. lead hold instantly formally transposed the Directive.  Some 26 Member U.S. failed to transpose the Directive on time, yesteryear 25 Oct 2013. By summer/autumn 2014, fifteen Member U.S. had yet to produce in addition to thence (see Commission press releases here in addition to here). The Report notes that 5 nevertheless lead hold non done so, though is coy every bit to which five.  Incidentally, the number of dissever implementing instruments ranges from 116 (Germany) to 1 (Italy, Netherlands).  The footstep of transposition in addition to the number of instruments propose that the ways inwards which this Directive interacts amongst laws concerned amongst national wellness systems are complex, in addition to that at that topographic point may good live political opposition remaining inwards many Member States.  Empirical implementation studies inwards several Member U.S. confirm this suspicion (special number of Contemporary European Studies, forthcoming, on file amongst the author).  Perhaps mindful of this, the Commission Report implies that piece transposition may live complete, faithful implementation may non be.

The information inwards the Report on the utilization yesteryear the Member U.S. of the exceptions to the prior potency ‘rule’ is 1 instance of ‘Patients’ Rights’ beingness something of a misnomer for the Directive.  The Directive explicitly extended the evolving jurisprudence of the CJEU on what constitutes an ‘objective populace interest’ justifying a Member State to require prior potency earlier it pays for cross-border wellness care, to several grounds that had yet to live covered yesteryear the CJEU.  These include, beyond infirmary care, help involving expensive infrastructure or equipment, treatments that are deemed ‘risky’ for the patient or population, in addition to the splendidly nebulous healthcare ‘ provided yesteryear a healthcare provider that, on a case-by-case basis, could laissez passer on rising to serious in addition to specific concerns relating to the character or security of the care, amongst the exception of healthcare which is discipline to Union legislation ensuring a minimum grade of security in addition to character throughout the Union’ (Article 8 (2) (a)-(c).  The underlying upshot of these provisions of the Directive is to render protection for national wellness systems from unplanned patient mobility, which could disrupt national settlements inwards price of financing in addition to prioritizing wellness care.  Only vii Member U.S. lead hold non availed themselves of the prior potency opportunity.  The European Commission is critical of the footing on which xiv of the other Member U.S. lead hold done so, pointing out that ‘it is unclear for patients precisely which treatments are discipline to prior authorisation’.  Perhaps the Commission is setting upwardly the possibility of hereafter infringement proceedings, or, to a greater extent than likely, is signalling that opportunities for farther litigation brought yesteryear migrant patients could run into a sympathetic ear inwards at to the lowest degree 1 of the EU’s institutions.

A minute instance of the Directive beingness to a greater extent than well-nigh national governments’ entitlements, in addition to the ask to protect national wellness systems from patient migration, than well-nigh patients’ rights, is the reimbursement rules inwards the Directive.  Member U.S. may impose the same formalities on patients seeking cross-border wellness help every bit the formalities imposed if a patient seeks wellness help inside the Member State concerned (Article 7 (7)).  The Report confirms that 12 Member U.S. rely on this provision to maintain inwards identify ‘gatekeeping’ functions of GP or household unit of measurement doctors.  The Commission flags an overtly discriminatory practise of 5 of these 12 Member U.S. – insisting that the referral must live from a GP or household unit of measurement medico inwards the abode Member State. 

A pregnant proportion of the Report considers the ‘National Contact Points’ (NCPs) – the machinery yesteryear which the Directive envisages that patients volition larn of their ‘rights’ nether the Directive.  The Commission notes several pieces of inquiry (for instance here) suggesting that NCPs are failing to run into this objective inwards practice.

Overall, the Report shows that few of Europe’s patients lead hold an appetite for cross-border wellness care.  In the 17 Member U.S. that reported information on requests for authorisations, entirely 560 such applications were made.  The xx Member U.S. that reported information on reimbursements nether the Directive reported fewer than xl 000 reimbursements (31 000 were made yesteryear Denmark, amongst a population of 5.6 million). Even taking into concern human relationship patient drive nether the well-established social security regulations (Regulation 883/2004/EC), rates of patient mobility for planned help stay low.  Although the Report nods to the obvious reasons why that mightiness live in addition to thence (costs, inconvenience, wishing to live treated inwards a familiar place, linguistic barriers), the tone of the Report suggests that the Commission’s watch is that patient mobility nevertheless remains a lost chance inwards the EU.  Citing a ‘patient organisation’, the Report notes ‘patients lead hold high expectation … the prevailing sentiment is that the National Contact Point must live a gateway to healthcare, non a gatekeeper blocking access’ (p 8).

One instance where patients may good assay wellness help inwards unopen to other Member State is where the patient volition non live able to access the handling sought inwards the abode Member State.  Aspects of the electrical flow legal arrangements propose that the full general regulation that the wellness professional person (gatekeeper) is discipline to the constabulary applicable inwards the Member State inwards which she is established is non e'er respected.  For instance, the implementing legislation on the usual recognition of prescriptions (Directive 2012/52/EU) does non brand explicit that full general regulation inwards the context of differences inwards regulatory arrangements (which medicines are prescription-only, which are banned altogether) betwixt the Member State of establishment of a wellness professional person issuing a prescription next a remote consultation amongst a patient inwards unopen to other Member State.  One practical instance of this failure to embody full general principles of European Union constabulary into the legislation is the seat of Women on the Web, who lawfully number prescriptions for Misoprostol, which pharmacists inwards Northern Republic of Ireland or the Republic of Republic of Ireland produce non fill, fifty-fifty though Misoprostol is authorised for marketing inwards those countries.

The Report ends amongst unopen to observations on the ‘governance’ aspects of the Directive – provisions on transparency, on sharing expert practice, in addition to on meliorate utilization of resources through voluntary cross-border collaboration.  The broader context hither is of class the pregnant disruption to national wellness help systems imposed yesteryear the EU’s austerity measures.  In price of ‘patients’ rights’ inwards the EU, those measures are considerably to a greater extent than pregnant than the ‘Patients’ Rights Directive’.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 21
Photo credit: pickereurope.org

Share this post