1 / 14

The Patients’ Directive The final countdown?

Christian Horemans Expert International Affairs Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres christian.horemans@mloz.be www.mloz.be. The Patients’ Directive The final countdown?. The European landscape The directive: a SWOT-analysis Conclusion. Structure. The European landscape (1) .

tracy
Télécharger la présentation

The Patients’ Directive The final countdown?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Christian Horemans Expert International Affairs Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres christian.horemans@mloz.be www.mloz.be The Patients’ DirectiveThe final countdown?

  2. The European landscape The directive: a SWOT-analysis Conclusion Structure

  3. The European landscape (1) • Cross-border health care has different “faces”: • Regulations 883/2004 and 987/2009 • Reimbursements according to the decisions of European Court of Justice • Cross-border projects: • To facilitate patient mobility • To facilitate collaboration between hospitals

  4. The European landscape (2) • Lack of transparency! • No complete data about: • How many patients travel to other Member States for treatment? • For which treatment? • For which reasons? • … • Today: development of policy in patient mobility without fact & figures

  5. The European landscape (3) • And now: the Patients’ Directive… • July 2008: presentation proposal of directive by European Commission • April 2009: vote in EP (first reading) • June 2010: compromise in European Council • September 2010: • Communication from the Commission to the EP • EP ENVI committee discussion on the draft report of Ms Grossetête on cross-border healthcare • October 2010: vote in the ENVI committee • January 2011: vote in EP (second reading) SWOT-analysis

  6. SWOT – Strengths (1) • Codification of European jurisprudence • BUT: different opinion of definition between Commission, council, EP • Commission: only authorisation for hospital care • Council & EP: authorisation for hospital & some non-hospital care • European reference networks • Mutual recognition of prescriptions • EU prescription template (EP) • Interoperability of ePrescriptions (EP)

  7. SWOT – Strengths (2) • Data collection for statistical and monitoring purposes • Necessary to have a clear idea of what cross border care represents in Europe • Council: deleted the article from the initial proposal • EP: introduced a new article (art. 19a) • National points of contact • EP: explicit role for health insurance funds (!), patient organisations, healthcare providers • EP: too ambitious concerning the medical information • More collaboration around eHealth and health technology assessment • Commission: role for Commission in establishment and management of network on HTS • Council: no way => the network may receive EU aid

  8. SWOT – Weaknesses (1) • Complexity • New procedure of authorisation makes the legal framework even more complex • Difficult for the patients AND for the health insurance funds • To avoid legal uncertainty: • EP: need for “closed” lists (Council: open lists) • List of health care for which the patient needs an authorisation • List of reasons to refuse an authorisation • EP: No possibility to limit the application of the rules of reimbursement (Council: possibility to limit) • Risk of new jurisprudence? => Still uncertainty about: • Prior authorisation for non-hospital care? • Commission vs Council & EP • Motivation of authorisation procedure? • Commission vs Council & EP

  9. SWOT – Weaknesses (2) • Unrealistic proposals: • The “voucher” (art. 7a - EP): • Written confirmation of maximum amount that will be paid • Sounds good, but impossible to organize • Rare diseases (art. 8, 6c – EP): • No authorisation needed + reimbursement according tariffs in member state of affiliation or in member state of treatment • Better solution: more flexible conditions based on regulation 883/2004, decided by Administrative Commission • Clearing house (art. 9, §3b – EP): • A European platform to facilitate reimbursements under Directive • Reimbursement is a task of the national competent institution!

  10. SWOT - Opportunities • More transparency and legal security for the patients • Uniform rules for all Member States • Information about procedures and treatments • Awareness on patient mobility in Member States • May lead to a discussion based on “facts & figures” • In BE: creation of Observatory on Patient Mobility • Support for cooperation in cross-border healthcare at regional and local level • To stimulates cross-border projects • BUT: a bit of a paradox if it serves to avoid the complexity of directive/regulation…

  11. SWOT - Threats • Directive could create high expectations, feeling of “everything is possible”, BUT: • Big risk of no or limited reimbursement • Legal framework of cross-border healthcare becomes too complex • Only specialists see “clear” • Risk of new cases for the European Court • Member States will look for ways to simplify • Proposals that has not been thought trough (like the “voucher”) • Risk for frustration for the patient and/or the insurers • Bad PR for Europe – “it doesn’t work – it’s too complicated”

  12. The next step • Search for compromise during last months of Belgian Presidency • The last big points of discussion: • Authorisation procedure • Quality & safety standards • Role of European Commission • They expect that Belgium will succeed…

  13. Conclusions • Positive evolution for the patient, but risks • Legal framework becomes more complicated • 2 parallel systems: regulation - directive • Unrealistic proposals should be removed from the final text • “Voucher” • Rare diseases • Clearing house • Transposition to national legislation by 2014 • new source of legal problems?

  14. christian.horemans@mloz.be

More Related