The role of the 2011 patients' rights in cross-border health care directive in shaping seven national health systems: Looking beyond patient mobility.

Reports on the implementation of the Directive on the application of Patients' Rights in Cross-border Healthcare indicate that it had little impact on the numbers of patients seeking care abroad. We set out to explore the effects of this directive on health systems in seven EU Member States. Key informants in Belgium, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Malta, Poland and The Netherlands filled out a structured questionnaire. Findings indicate that the impact of the directive varied between countries and was smaller in countries where a large degree of adaptation had already taken place in response to the European Court of Justice Rulings. The main reforms reported include a heightened emphasis on patient rights and the adoption of explicit benefits packages and tariffs. Countries may be facing increased pressure to treat patients within a medically justifiable time limit. The implementation of professional liability insurance, in countries where this did not previously exist, may also bring benefits for patients. Lowering of reimbursement tariffs to dissuade patients from seeking treatment abroad has been reported in Poland. The issue of discrimination against non-contracted domestic private providers in Estonia, Finland, Malta and The Netherlands remains largely unresolved. We conclude that evidence showing that patients using domestic health systems have actually benefitted from the directive remains scarce and further monitoring over a longer period of time is recommended.

The New Political Economy of Health Care in the European Union: The Impact of Fiscal Governance.

We argue that the political economy of health care in the European Union is being changed by the creation of a substantial new apparatus of European fiscal governance. A series of treaties and legal changes since 2008 have given the European Union new powers and duties to enforce budgetary austerity in the member states, and this apparatus of fiscal governance has already extended to include detailed and sometimes coercive policy recommendations to member states about the governance of their health care systems. We map the structures of this new fiscal governance and the way it purports to affect health care decision making.

Reprint of: Dream vs. reality: seven case-studies on the desirability and feasibility of cross-border hospital collaboration in Europe.

Despite being a niche phenomenon, cross-border health care collaboration receives a lot of attention in the EU and figures visibly on the policy agenda, in particular since the policy process which eventually led to the adoption of Directive 2011/24/EU. One of the underlying assumptions is that cross-border collaboration is desirable, providing justification to both the European Commission and to border-region stakeholders for promoting it. The purpose of this paper is to question this assumption and to examine the role of actors in pushing (or not) for cross-border collaboration. The analysis takes place in two parts. First, the EU policies to promote cross-border collaboration and the tools employed are examined, namely (a) use of European funds to sponsor concrete border-region collaboration projects, (b) use of European funds to sponsor research which gives visibility to cross-border collaboration, and (c) use of the European Commission's newly acquired legal mandate to encourage "Member States to cooperate in cross-border health care provision in border-regions" (Art. 10) and support "Member States in the development of European reference networks between health care providers and centres of expertise" (Art. 12). Second, evidence gathered in 2011-2013 from seven European border-regions on hospital cross-border collaboration is systematically reviewed to assess the reality of cross-border collaboration - can it work and when, and why do actors engage in cross-border collaboration? The preliminary findings suggest that while the EU plays a prominent role in some border-region initiatives, cross-border collaboration needs such a specific set of circumstances to work that it is questionable whether it can effectively be promoted. Moreover, local actors make use of the EU (as a source of funding, legislation or legitimisation) to serve their needs.

Dream vs. reality: seven case-studies on the desirability and feasibility of cross-border hospital collaboration in Europe.

Despite being a niche phenomenon, cross-border health care collaboration receives a lot of attention in the EU and figures visibly on the policy agenda, in particular since the policy process which eventually led to the adoption of Directive 2011/24/EU. One of the underlying assumptions is that cross-border collaboration is desirable, providing justification to both the European Commission and to border-region stakeholders for promoting it. The purpose of this paper is to question this assumption and to examine the role of actors in pushing (or not) for cross-border collaboration. The analysis takes place in two parts. First, the EU policies to promote cross-border collaboration and the tools employed are examined, namely (a) use of European funds to sponsor concrete border-region collaboration projects, (b) use of European funds to sponsor research which gives visibility to cross-border collaboration, and (c) use of the European Commission's newly acquired legal mandate to encourage "Member States to cooperate in cross-border health care provision in border-regions" (Art. 10) and support "Member States in the development of European reference networks between health care providers and centres of expertise" (Art. 12). Second, evidence gathered in 2011-2013 from seven European border-regions on hospital cross-border collaboration is systematically reviewed to assess the reality of cross-border collaboration - can it work and when, and why do actors engage in cross-border collaboration? The preliminary findings suggest that while the EU plays a prominent role in some border-region initiatives, cross-border collaboration needs such a specific set of circumstances to work that it is questionable whether it can effectively be promoted. Moreover, local actors make use of the EU (as a source of funding, legislation or legitimisation) to serve their needs.

Exploring the scope of practice and training of obstetricians and gynaecologists in England, Italy and Belgium: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: This study explores the scope of practice of Obstetrics and Gynaecology specialists in Italy, Belgium and England, in light of the growth of professional and patient mobility within the EU which has raised concerns about a lack of standardisation of medical speciality practice and training. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 29 obstetricians and gynaecologists from England, Belgium and Italy, exploring training and scope of practice, following a common topic guide. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded following a common coding framework in the language of the country concerned. Completed coding frames, written summaries and key quotes were then translated into English and were cross-analysed among the researchers to identify emerging themes and comparative findings. RESULTS: Although medical and specialty qualifications in each country are mutually recognised, there were great differences in training regimes, with different emphases on theory versus practice and recognition of different subspecialties. However all countries shared concerns about the impact of the European Working Time Directive on trainees' skills development. Reflecting differences in models of care, the scope of practice of OBGYN varied among countries, with pronounced differences between the public and private sector within countries. Technological advances and the growth of co-morbidities resulting from ageing populations have created new opportunities and greater links with other specialties. In turn new ethical concerns around abortion and fertility have also arisen, with stark cultural differences between the countries. CONCLUSION: Variations exist in the training and scope of practice of OBGYN specialists among these three countries, which could have significant implications for the expectations of patients seeking care and specialists practising in other EU countries. Changes within the specialty and advances in technology are creating new opportunities and challenges, although these may widen existing differences. Harmonisation of the training and scope of practice of OBGYN within Europe remains a distant goal. Further research on the scope of practice of medical professionals would better inform future policies on professional mobility.

Recognition of pharmaceutical prescriptions across the European Union: a comparison of five Member States' policies and practices.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, the EU Directive on Patients' Rights in Cross Border Healthcare was approved, including a regulation on mutual recognition of prescriptions. OBJECTIVE: To compare current national policies and practices on prescribing and dispensing, prescription-only medicines (POMs) in European countries in order to identify differences which could, challenge acceptance across borders. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 37 national stakeholders were carried out. Furthermore, data on policies for prescribing and dispensing POMs were gathered based on desk research, and, contacts with relevant authorities via a purposely designed questionnaire. RESULTS: Important differences exist regarding: (1) information requirements for prescriptions to be, legally valid, (2) generic and international non-proprietary name (INN) policies and (3) professionals, legally allowed to prescribe POMs. Moreover, there is a lack of EU-wide access to key information for, validating prescriptions, recognizing the equivalence of products or identifying authorised prescribers. CONCLUSION: Differences in legislation and its application across Europe pose important challenges to be, addressed by policy makers with appropriate actions: (1) a prescribed product may not be dispensed, to a patient who needs it, (2) an inappropriate product (or inappropriate instructions) could be, provided and (3) POMs could be dispensed and consumed or sold, based on false prescriptions.

Cross-border health care in Europe

Patient mobility is high on the political agenda in the EU, with increasing numbers of people crossing European borders. Issues relating to health professional mobility have received less attention, yet this is an important policy issue for the EU considering the scale of and reliance on professional mobility between countries, and existing variations in educational and professional standards. How are health systems in Europe responding to patient and professional mobility, and what are the implications for access and quality of health services? Is greater coordination needed, or do calls for increasing integration reflect a political agenda for increasingly competitive markets in health care? Recent legislative changes which clarify patient entitlements to cross-border care will have important impacts on national and EU-wide health policies. This policy summary provides a review of the current state of issues relating to cross-border health care in Europe. It combines a literature search with evidence gathered by the Evaluating Care Across Borders (European Union Cross Border Care Collaboration) Project to provide an update on the 2005 ‘Policy Brief on Cross-Border Health Care in the European Union’.

Obstacles to the recognition of medical prescriptions issued in one EU country and presented in another.

A study involving the presentation of 192 Belgian or Finnish prescriptions in pharmacies in five other member states was undertaken to assess whether, as envisaged by European Union law, prescriptions issued in one member state are dispensed by pharmacists in another and to identify factors that influence such decisions. Overall, pharmacists were willing to dispense in 108 cases. Detailed results show important differences depending on the country where prescriptions are presented and whether prescriptions were written by International Nonproprietary Name and in English, as opposed to prescriptions written by brand in a national language.

Analysing arrangements for cross-border mobility of patients in the European Union: a proposal for a framework.

This paper proposes a framework for analyzing arrangements set up to facilitate cross-border mobility of patients in the European Union. Exploiting both conceptual analysis and data from a range of case studies carried out in a number of European projects, and building on Walt and Gilson's model of policy analysis, the framework consists of five major components, each with a subset of categories or issues: (1) The actors directly and indirectly involved in setting up and promoting arrangements, (2) the content of the arrangements, classified into four categories (e.g. purchaser-provider and provider-provider or joint cross-border providers), (3) the institutional framework of the arrangements (including the underlying European and national legal frameworks, health systems' characteristics and payment mechanisms), (4) the processes that have led to the initiation and continuation, or cessation, of arrangements, (5) contextual factors (e.g. political or cultural) that impact on cross-border patient mobility and thus arrangements to facilitate them. The framework responds to what is a clearly identifiable demand for a means to analyse these interrelated concepts and dimensions. We believe that it will be useful to researchers studying cross-border collaborations and policy makers engaging in them.

A typology of cross-border patient mobility.

Based on systematic observation and analysis of available evidence, we propose a typology of cross-border patient mobility (rather than the so-called 'medical tourism') defined as the movement of a patient travelling to another country to seek planned health care. The typology is constructed around two dimensions based on the questions 'why do patients go abroad for planned health care?' and 'how is care abroad paid for?' Four types of patient motivations and two funding types have been identified. Combined in a matrix, they make eight possible scenarios of patient mobility each illustrated with international examples.

Purchasing health services abroad: practices of cross-border contracting and patient mobility in six European countries.

OBJECTIVES: Contracting health services outside the public, statutory health system entails purchasing capacity from domestic non-public providers or from providers abroad. Over the last decade, these practices have made their way into European health systems, brought about by performance-oriented reforms and EU principles of free movement. The aim of the article is to explain the development, functioning, purposes and possible implications of cross-border contracting. METHODS: Primary and secondary sources on purchasing from providers abroad have been collected in a systematic way and analysed in a structured frame. RESULTS: We found practices in six European countries. The findings suggest that purchasers from benefit-in-kind systems contract capacity abroad when this responds to unmet demand; pressures domestic providers; and/or offers financial advantages, especially where statutory purchasers compete. Providers which receive patients tend to be located in countries where treatment costs are lower and/or where providers compete. The modalities of purchasing and delivering care abroad vary considerably depending on contracts being centralised or direct, the involvement of middlemen, funding and pricing mechanisms, cross-border pathways and volumes of patient flows. CONCLUSIONS: The arrangements and concepts which cross-border contracting relies on suggest that statutory health purchasers, under pressure to deliver value for money and striving for cost-efficiency, experiment with new ways of organising health services for their populations.

Patient mobility in the European Union: learning from experience

People travel across Europe with greater ease than ever before. On much of the Continent, border checks are a thing of the past. Budget airlines make possible cheap holidays abroad, and some people even choose to work in one country and spend their weekends in another. Finally, more and more people from northern Europe are retiring to the warmth of the Mediterranean. All these developments have implications for health systems. The freedom of movement granted to Europe's citizens by European treaties can only become reality if people know that they will receive high-quality, appropriate care if they fall ill when abroad. Those responsible for delivering health care may see advantages in the opportunities created by the European Union, by sharing capacity in sparsely populated border areas or ensuring access to highly specialized care for people living on small islands. The Europe for Patients project, financially supported by the European Union's Sixth Framework Programme for research, seeks to understand how the opportunities offered by the European Union can be maximized, and how any potential problems can be overcome. This collection of case studies provides a wealth of experience of collaborating across borders in all parts of Europe.