拟议的病人流动指令和欧盟跨境医疗保健改革

W. Sauter
{"title":"拟议的病人流动指令和欧盟跨境医疗保健改革","authors":"W. Sauter","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1277110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper provides a discussion of the Commission's July 2008 proposal for a Directive on the application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare (the proposed patient mobility Directive). It does so against the background of an overview of the preceding patient mobility case law of the European Court of Justice that is based on the freedom to provide services of Article 49 EC, from Kohll and Decker in 1998 to Watts in 2006. The findings are that the proposed patient mobility Directive is not a full codification of the case law as it leaves out certain guarantees developed by the Court, while it adds some new elements of harmonisation. The Court had in principle accepted public interest justifications for prior authorisation requirements with respect to hospital treatment and focused on developing substantive and procedural guarantees of patients' rights such as the criteria for \"undue delay\", in which case authorization for treatment abroad must be granted. The Commission takes a different approach, by both requiring Member States to actually demonstrate the need for a prior authorization regime and at the same time itself providing evidence that this is in most cases unlikely to be warranted. Because the criteria for \"undue delay\" would no longer be used to determine when authorizations must be granted there will be no clear EU standard to apply if any authorisation requirements survive. The main innovation of the proposal are new patients' rights to accountability and transparency which apply not just to mobile patients but to all patients in each Member State. This represents a first step from negative integration (liberalisation) to positive integration (harmonisation). Moreover transparency and accountability will generate pressure for further change, not just in relation to the cross-border provision of services, but more broadly across the healthcare sector.","PeriodicalId":73765,"journal":{"name":"Journal of health care law & policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Proposed Patient Mobility Directive and the Reform of Cross-Border Healthcare in the EU\",\"authors\":\"W. Sauter\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1277110\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper provides a discussion of the Commission's July 2008 proposal for a Directive on the application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare (the proposed patient mobility Directive). It does so against the background of an overview of the preceding patient mobility case law of the European Court of Justice that is based on the freedom to provide services of Article 49 EC, from Kohll and Decker in 1998 to Watts in 2006. The findings are that the proposed patient mobility Directive is not a full codification of the case law as it leaves out certain guarantees developed by the Court, while it adds some new elements of harmonisation. The Court had in principle accepted public interest justifications for prior authorisation requirements with respect to hospital treatment and focused on developing substantive and procedural guarantees of patients' rights such as the criteria for \\\"undue delay\\\", in which case authorization for treatment abroad must be granted. The Commission takes a different approach, by both requiring Member States to actually demonstrate the need for a prior authorization regime and at the same time itself providing evidence that this is in most cases unlikely to be warranted. Because the criteria for \\\"undue delay\\\" would no longer be used to determine when authorizations must be granted there will be no clear EU standard to apply if any authorisation requirements survive. The main innovation of the proposal are new patients' rights to accountability and transparency which apply not just to mobile patients but to all patients in each Member State. This represents a first step from negative integration (liberalisation) to positive integration (harmonisation). Moreover transparency and accountability will generate pressure for further change, not just in relation to the cross-border provision of services, but more broadly across the healthcare sector.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of health care law & policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of health care law & policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1277110\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of health care law & policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1277110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

本文讨论了欧盟委员会2008年7月提出的关于在跨境医疗保健中应用患者权利的指令(拟议的患者流动指令)的建议。这是在对欧洲法院先前的病人流动案例法的概述的背景下进行的,该案例法是基于第49条EC提供服务的自由,从1998年的Kohll和Decker到2006年的Watts。研究结果表明,拟议的患者流动性指令并不是对判例法的完整编纂,因为它遗漏了法院制定的某些保证,而增加了一些新的协调要素。法院原则上接受了在医院治疗方面要求事先批准的公共利益理由,并侧重于制定对病人权利的实质性和程序性保障,例如"不当延误"标准,在这种情况下,必须批准在国外进行治疗。委员会采取了不同的办法,一方面要求会员国实际证明需要事先授权制度,另一方面本身提供证据,证明在大多数情况下不太可能有必要这样做。由于“不当延迟”的标准将不再用于确定何时必须授予授权,因此如果任何授权要求仍然存在,将没有明确的欧盟标准适用。该提案的主要创新之处在于新的患者问责权和透明度,这不仅适用于流动患者,而且适用于每个会员国的所有患者。这代表了从消极整合(自由化)到积极整合(协调)的第一步。此外,透明度和问责制将产生进一步变革的压力,不仅在跨境提供服务方面,而且在更广泛的整个医疗保健部门。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Proposed Patient Mobility Directive and the Reform of Cross-Border Healthcare in the EU
This paper provides a discussion of the Commission's July 2008 proposal for a Directive on the application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare (the proposed patient mobility Directive). It does so against the background of an overview of the preceding patient mobility case law of the European Court of Justice that is based on the freedom to provide services of Article 49 EC, from Kohll and Decker in 1998 to Watts in 2006. The findings are that the proposed patient mobility Directive is not a full codification of the case law as it leaves out certain guarantees developed by the Court, while it adds some new elements of harmonisation. The Court had in principle accepted public interest justifications for prior authorisation requirements with respect to hospital treatment and focused on developing substantive and procedural guarantees of patients' rights such as the criteria for "undue delay", in which case authorization for treatment abroad must be granted. The Commission takes a different approach, by both requiring Member States to actually demonstrate the need for a prior authorization regime and at the same time itself providing evidence that this is in most cases unlikely to be warranted. Because the criteria for "undue delay" would no longer be used to determine when authorizations must be granted there will be no clear EU standard to apply if any authorisation requirements survive. The main innovation of the proposal are new patients' rights to accountability and transparency which apply not just to mobile patients but to all patients in each Member State. This represents a first step from negative integration (liberalisation) to positive integration (harmonisation). Moreover transparency and accountability will generate pressure for further change, not just in relation to the cross-border provision of services, but more broadly across the healthcare sector.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
When Not to Ask: A Defense of Choice-Masking Nudges in Medical Research. REFUTING THE RIGHT NOT TO KNOW. FAIR BENEFITS AND ITS CRITICS: WHO IS RIGHT? DO ETHICS DEMAND EVALUATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH LAWS? SHIFTING SCIENTIFIC SANDS AND THE CASE OF YOUTH SPORTS-RELATED TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY LAWS. Fragmentation in Mental Health Benefits and Services: A Preliminary Examination into Consumption and Outcomes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1