Abstract
Die Verordnung 883/2004 und die Richtlinie 2011/24 haben unterschiedliche Zielsetzungen. Die auf „Aspekte sozialer Sicherheit” ausgerichtete Verordnung behandelt keine gesundheitspolitischen Fragen. Die Richtlinie ist weiter gefasst und zielt darauf ab sämtliche Aspekte der grenzüberschreitenden Gesundheitsversorgung abzudecken, inklusive der Voraussetzungen für Kostenerstattungen. Stiftet die Richtlinie möglicherweise Verwirrung bei Patienten und nationalen Sozialversicherungsinstituten, dadurch dass sie Fragestellungen behandelt, die eigentlich von den Koordinierungsverordnungen bestimmt werden? Ziel dieses Beitrags ist es, die sich ergänzenden Bereiche beider Bestimmungen aufzuzeigen und gleichzeitig auf drei mögliche Konfliktpunkte hinzuweisen: das ehrgeizige Rahmenkonzept der Richtlinie 2011/24, seine mangelnde Wirklichkeitsnähe, und dessen potentielles Vermögen, die Schlüsselstellung der Koordinierungsverordnungen zu untergraben.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
For French statistics, see http://www.cleiss.fr/docs/stats/rapport_stat_2011_partie1.pdf.
- 2.
See Directive 2011/24, art.1.
- 3.
On the contrary, the poorest are subject to more stringent rules with regard to access to care. These rules are set out in the “Residence Directive” 2004/38. The links between this directive and Coordination Regulations are also in need of clarification (see pending case C-140/12, Brey).
- 4.
See also Recital 64.
- 5.
On the topic of reimbursement, see the other contributions of this book.
- 6.
An empirical study emphasizes the weaknesses of the Directive: “Simulation on the EU cross-border care Directive” Brussels, 24 November 2011.
- 7.
See Art. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9.
- 8.
“Shall insure” corresponds to « veiller à ».
- 9.
Art. 5. The information is to be given by the State of insurance.
- 10.
See “Simulation on the EU cross-border care directive”.
- 11.
Health public code, Art. L1111-14.
- 12.
See CNIL report, « Conclusions des missions de contrôles relatives à l’expérimentation du DMP », 2007.
- 13.
See Governmental report: http://www.sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/premiere_partie___diagnostic-2.pdf.
- 14.
See report “Simulation on the EU cross-border care directive”, which gives concrete examples of the failure to exchange medical data.
- 15.
The EESSI data exchange set up by Coordination Regulations, of which the application is constantly postponed, show how difficult it is to combine electronic systems from all Member States.
- 16.
Case C-411/98.
- 17.
Case C-372/04.
- 18.
Reg. 987/2009, Recital 22.
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
- 22.
(a) the patient will, according to a clinical evaluation, be exposed with reasonable certainty to a patient-safety risk that cannot be regarded as acceptable, taking into account the potential benefit for the patient of the sought cross-border healthcare; (b) the general public will be exposed with reasonable certainty to a substantial safety hazard as a result of the cross-border healthcare in question; (c) this healthcare is to be provided by a healthcare provider that raises serious and specific concerns relating to the respect of standards and guidelines on quality of care and patient safety, including provisions on supervision, whether these standards and guidelines are laid down by laws and regulations or through accreditation systems established by the Member State of treatment; (d) this healthcare can be provided on its territory within a time limit which is medically justifiable, taking into account the current state of health and the probable course of the illness of each patient concerned.
- 23.
See “Simulation on the EU cross-border care directive”, p.14.
- 24.
Case C-173/09.
- 25.
See Art. 8(3) of the Directive. See also Art. 2 of the Directive: it “shall apply without prejudice to: (m) Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009”.
References
Driguez LMV (2011) La directive 2011/24/UE relative à l’application des droits des patients en matière de soins de santé transfrontaliers : progrès pour la santé ou pour le marché? October 2011. Europe, Paris
ECJ, Judgement of 3 October 2000, Angelo Ferlini/Centre hospitalier de Luxembourg, C-411/98
ECJ, Judgement of 16 May 2006, Watts, C-372/04
ECJ, Judgement of 5 October 2010, Elchinov, C-173/09
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lhernould, JP. (2014). Access to Healthcare by Cross-Border Patients. In: Hennion, S., Kaufmann, O. (eds) Unionsbürgerschaft und Patientenfreizügigkeit Citoyenneté Européenne et Libre Circulation des Patients EU Citizenship and Free Movement of Patients. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41311-7_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41311-7_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-41310-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-41311-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Science (German Language)