Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-09-25-Speech-4-017"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080925.4.4-017"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I welcome very much the statement that has been made, certainly, by Council on this particular directive and the limits and context of it. As Parliament’s rapporteur on the update of the coordination of social security, and indeed its rapporteur on the implementing regulation, I have a very specific interest in this because questions about reimbursement – how it is provided, what information is given, the speed and method of it etc. – come within the scope of that particular regulation. I think that when we are talking about issues such as health care for people who are on holiday elsewhere in the European Union, we should remember that comes under the European Health Card and under the coordination of social security. That is clear.
What this directive is aiming to do is to pick up some of the issues which are not necessarily dealt with in that particular regulation, and I think we need to be careful where the dividing line is on that. The question of prior authorisation has of course been an extremely important one. I think we need to be clear that we are not talking necessarily about an absolute right of patients to move and be treated within the European Union under their national systems, in terms of their national systems reimbursing them. It is a qualified right and I think we need to be clear on that.
I think we also need to be clear that what this directive is proposing, as I understand it, is that what will be paid for is care that will be available under the national system, not new or different treatments, so that again qualifies the right that we are talking about in terms of this particular directive.
There is no question that prior authorisation needs to be managed better, and that not only the patients but also the administrations involved need to understand what that is and how it should operate speedily in terms of medical need. That is the criterion set down by the Court: medical need. Administrations therefore need to reflect that, not necessarily their own cost basis.
There is a lot to be welcomed in this directive, and issues around best practice, issues about quality, legal certainty, who is responsible, are also important. As John Bowis has mentioned, we also need to take steps forward on questions, for example, about continuing care or prescriptions which may not be valid in one Member State because of their own systems. But we also need to be careful – and this applies to the implementing regulation on 883, as it does to this – that we should not be in the business of helping patients make a profit by playing different systems off against each other. I do not think that health-care systems benefit from that whatsoever.
I want to make clear on behalf of my group that increasing the amount of cross-border care is not of itself a goal. Mrs Roth-Behrendt said that most patients wish to be treated at home and have the quality and speed of treatment there, so increasing the amount in itself, as I say, is not a goal. A lot of claims are being made about the effects of trying to increase the amount of cross-border care which I think we need to be wary of, and I am glad the debate has reflected that.
There are people who are arguing that this introduces competition, that this drives up national standards, and that we even need to open the market as a reason for actually increasing and encouraging cross-border health care. However, this Parliament has made its position very clear: health is not a service like car insurance. It has a very particular role and its users are not simply consumers, but people in need and potentially vulnerable.
Many of those who tell us that increasing cross-border health care is a good thing will also reassure us that it only covers 2-3%. I want to know what the estimates are for the future and what the effect of this will be on the 98% of people who do not move and currently do not want to."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples