Health care in the European Union

Free choice of the country belong to the European Union for Health Care

The Court of Justice of the European Communities gradually widened the principle of freedom for private individuals so they will be looked after in the country of their choice while being made refund the expenses by their case of affiliation.

Law inquire

In particular, it reduced the range of article 22 of the rules 1408/71 which lays out that before going to look after in another country, the private individual must obtain the authorization of the case of which he raises (form E-112), agreement which determines the assumption of responsibility of the cost of the care (concretely, the case of the country of the care is directly made refund the expenses by the case of the country of affiliation).

Article 22 specifies that the authorization can be refused when the treatment is possible in the Member State of residence, except if it cannot be exempted within a time "normaly proposed" taking into account the situation of the disease and its probable evolution. This exception was interpreted by the Court in an advantageous direction to the patients and in a recent law decision it gave reason to a British person who has had a hip replacement in France.

As it did not have the authorization of the sickness insurance center, he had to discharge cost of the operation and care and once returned to the United Kingdom had required refunding of it from its sickness insurance center which had refused its application. The Court of Justice estimated that the withdrawal period in the United Kingdom was too significant, that the authorization could not thus be refused and that the patient was in her right (2). (CJCE, 16/05/2006, aff.C-372/04, The Queen, at the request of Yvonne Watts / Bedford Primary Care Trust and Secretary of State for Health).

Because, the Court recalls, the health care concerns the field of application of the Community rules on freedom to provide services and any obstacles with this freedom not justified (by the general interest or the law and order) must be censured.

It does not matter the operating mode of the national system, and the disparity of costs of the treatment from one state to another.

It falls, says the Court, that the national health service must consider mechanisms of assumption of financial responsibility of hospital care given in another Member State with patients to which the aforementioned service would not be able to provide the necessary treatment within an acceptable time" (point 122).

The patient who was authorized to receive a hospital treatment in another Member State or who received a nonfounded refusal of authorization, " is entitled to the assumption of responsibility by the qualified institution of the cost of the treatment according to dispositions of the legislation of the State of treatment, as if it concerns this one"(130).