07/09/2006
Patient mobility I: Landmark EU court of justice case
In an unprecedented judgement on 16 May, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) based in Luxembourg ruled that the NHS cannot refuse to refund costs if patients wait longer than clinicians advise, even if national targets are met.
Yvonne Watts, a 74 year old British woman was claiming the right to be reimbursed by the health service for treatment carried out in France. Mrs Wyatts, who suffers from osteoarthritis, needed a hip replacement and had been put on a waiting list of about a year for an operation. When her condition worsened, she travelled to France where she underwent surgery. She was claiming nearly £4,000 (about €5700) back from the National Health Service, which refused to reimburse her. Although the ECJ ruling did not entitle Mrs Wyatts to reimbursement of the cost of operation, it declared that receiving hospital treatment in another Member State fell within the scope of the provisions on freedom to provide services and that a refusal to grant authorisation in advance could not be based solely on the existence of waiting lists without an objective medical assessment of the patient’s medical condition, the history and probable course of the illness, the degree of pain suffered and/or the nature of the disability at the time when the request for authorisation was made or renewed.
The ECJ based its decision largely on its interpretation of article 49 of the Treaty under which "EU citizens" might receive services within the community - but the treaty actually grants no such right. This article only confers the right to provide services, outlawing any restrictions imposed in respect of nationals of Member States. This should open the door to many other cases and clearly demonstrates that the ECJ, if not other European institutions, favours the right of EU citizens to benefit from medical treatment in other Member States.
And while it is clear that in areas like bioethics and the pharmaceutical sector the EU is favouring a stronger role in public health, it is the ECJ that is pushing EU powers forward in the much more politically sensitive area of health care.
For more information: European Court of Justice press release: Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-372/04 - The Queen, on the application of Yvonne Watts v Bedford Primary Care Trust and Secretary of State for Health (16 May 2006)
The ECJ based its decision largely on its interpretation of article 49 of the Treaty under which "EU citizens" might receive services within the community - but the treaty actually grants no such right. This article only confers the right to provide services, outlawing any restrictions imposed in respect of nationals of Member States. This should open the door to many other cases and clearly demonstrates that the ECJ, if not other European institutions, favours the right of EU citizens to benefit from medical treatment in other Member States.
And while it is clear that in areas like bioethics and the pharmaceutical sector the EU is favouring a stronger role in public health, it is the ECJ that is pushing EU powers forward in the much more politically sensitive area of health care.
For more information: European Court of Justice press release: Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-372/04 - The Queen, on the application of Yvonne Watts v Bedford Primary Care Trust and Secretary of State for Health (16 May 2006)
