The patient mobility saga continues – Ruling of the Court of Justice of European Union in the case of Elena Petru
نویسنده
چکیده
From October 2013, European Union member states are obliged to adopt the new European rules allowing patients to search for health care abroad at the costs of the national authorities. The so-called cross-border care Directive (2011/24/EU) facilitates therefore patient mobility in the European Union (1). But only in case a certain treatment option is not (timely) available, or not equally effective in the country of residence, and when the treatment requested is among the benefits of the home member state. This new regime incorporates previous cross-border care rulings of the European Union’s Court of Justice, which are the main reason of this new Directive. Whereas member states are still in the process of transposing the Directive into national law, a new ruling from this Court has further triggered patient mobility with considerable consequences to low income countries.
منابع مشابه
Is It More Important to Address the Issue of Patient Mobility or to Guarantee Universal Health Coverage in Europe?; Comment on “Regional Incentives and Patient Cross-Border Mobility: Evidence From the Italian Experience”
This paper discusses whether European institutions should devote so much attention and funding to cross-border healthcare or they should instead prioritise guaranteeing universal health coverage (UHC), inequalities and tackling the effects of austerity measures. The paper argues through providing the evidence in both areas of research, that the priority at European level from a public health an...
متن کاملPatient mobility in European Union: health spas in Ischia, Italy.
In a new case on patients seeking medical services abroad, the Leichtle case, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) confirmed its previous rulings on patient mobility. According to the Court, patients in the European Union have a (conditional) right to receive health care abroad, whereas the sickness fund should reimburse the costs of treatment and travel expenditures. As such, the Court has stre...
متن کاملRegional Incentives and Patient Cross-Border Mobility: Evidence from the Italian Experience
Background In recent years, accreditation of private hospitals followed by decentralisation of the Italian National Health Service (NHS) into 21 regional health systems has provided a good empirical ground for investigating the Tiebout principle of “voting with their feet”. We examine the infra-regional trade-off between greater patient choice (due to an increase in hospital services supply) an...
متن کاملEvolution of the European Court of Human Rights encountering with challenges of the right to life: A Case Study of Fundamental Abortion and Mortality Votes
The right to life is one of the fundamental human rights that has been recognized and guaranteed in all religious texts and in many international documents, including the European Convention on Human Rights. Nevertheless, at the same time as the ease of meaning, its conceptual difficulty has been challenged by various lawyers. This Include the death penalty, suicide, Otanazi, abortion as the mo...
متن کاملPreliminary References to the Court of Justice of the EU and the Right to a Fair Trial under Article 6 ECHR
According to art.267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the courts of the Member States may—and sometimes must—refer questions about the validity and interpretation of EU law to the Court of Justice of the EU so that it can make a binding ruling. This article reviews the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the demands that art.6 of the European ...
متن کامل