Brussels, 20/01/2011 (Agence Europe) - Following the recommendation of its rapporteur, French UMP MEP Françoise Grossetête, the European Parliament gave its approval, in Strasbourg on Wednesday 19 January, to the compromise on cross-border healthcare negotiated with the Council. The text consolidates, and provides clarification on some points of patients' rights as recognised by European Court of Justice rulings. By no stretch of the imagination, however, can this be called a major step forward.
The rules set out in the new directive state that EU citizens can be reimbursed for healthcare they receive in another member state, as long as the type of treatment and costs would have normally been covered in their own country. Authorities may require that patients seek prior authorisation for treatment requiring overnight hospital stays or specialised healthcare. On the insistence of MEPs, any refusal will need to be justified from a restricted list of possible reasons, which includes certain risks to the patient or general public. Each country must establish a “contact point” to provide information to patients who are considering seeking treatment abroad. Contact points will also provide assistance if problems occur. The rules affect only those who choose to seek treatment in another EU member state, for example, when they face a long waiting list in their home country. The European Health Insurance Card scheme will continue to apply for citizens who require urgent treatment when visiting another EU country (see also EUROPE 10281).
“We can see the light at the end of the tunnel” and the end of a “muddled situation where law was being decided by the European Court of Justice”, said Grossetête. Opening the debate, she hailed a directive which answered patients' questions and which was passed in spite of the opposition of “a number of member states which did not, in reality, want this text”. It is sometimes necessary to go abroad to receive treatment, for example, for highly specialised care, she said. The right to mobility guaranteed by clear legislative provisions is a step forward for everyone (though, clearly, this is not to promote “medical tourism”), she went on. Grossetête was among the many MEPs to acknowledge the work done in this area by UK Conservative John Bowis, MEP from 1999 to 2009. Bowis, who has also been a UK health minister, listened to the debate from the gallery.
Member states will now have to ensure medical provision for all their citizens. Current Council President Emiko Gyori welcomed the adoption of a text which settles the issues of quality, rules for reimbursement, care for rare diseases, and cooperation between member states for care requiring the use of information technology.
Commissioner John Dalli was pleased that the directive states clearly that each member state must invest in its own health facilities so that citizens can receive the best possible care as quickly as possible, thus reducing inequalities in access to healthcare. If waiting lists are too long, patients will be able to seek treatment in anther member states. The directive also provides information for citizens on their rights, ensures the transparency of standards and provides a foundation for cooperation on health matters between states (on a purely optional and voluntary basis).
Several MEPs expressed the view that the aim should be to ensure high quality healthcare in every country of the EU. If the care provided in each member state was sufficient to meet the demand, without any discrimination, the directive would be superfluous. Until that is the case, however, this text is welcome, said German MEP Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, on behalf of the S&D Group. Kartika Liotard (GUE/NGL, Netherlands) said that the directive would not end disparities and that, in fact, it allowed only mobility for the rich. This concern was partially shared by Corinne Lepage (ALDE, France), who was keen that the directive's financial procedures should not work against the interests of less well-off patients. In Portugal, the prime minister himself is reported to have said that the text is a “rich man's directive”: Portuguese MEP José Manuel Fernandez rejected this view, with which he has no truck. (L.G./O.L./transl.rt)