Activities of Andrés PERELLÓ RODRÍGUEZ related to 2008/0142(COD)
Plenary speeches (2)
Explanations of vote
Patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare (debate)
Amendments (10)
Amendment 101 #
Council position
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) This Directive should apply to individual patients who decide to seek healthcare in a Member State other than the Member State of affiliationall types of healthcare. As confirmed by the Court of Justice, neither itsthe special nature of healthcare nor the way in which it is organised or financed removes healthcareit from the ambit of the fundamental principle of the freedom to provide servicesof movement. However, the Member State of affiliation may choose to limit the reimbursement of cross-border healthcare for reasons relating to the quality and safety of the healthcare provided, where this can be justified by overriding reasons of general interest relating to public health. The Member State of affiliation may also take further measures on other grounds where this can be justified by such overriding reasons of general interest. Indeed, the Court of Justice has laid down that public health protection is among the overriding reasons of general interest that can justify restrictions to the freedom of movement envisaged in the Treatiesof general interest relating to public health, such as the risk of seriously undermining the financial balance of a social security system, or the objective of maintaining a balanced hospital service open to all.
Amendment 103 #
Council position
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) Given their specificity, access to and the allocation of organs for the purpose of organ transplantsation should fall outside the scope of this Directive.
Amendment 121 #
Council position
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) The criteria attached to the grant of prior authorisation should be justified in the light of the overriding reasons of general interest capable of justifying obstacles to the free movement of healthcare. The Court of Justice has identified several potential considerations: the risk of seriously undermining the financial balance of a social security system, the objective of maintaining on grounds of public health a balanced medical and hospital service open to all and the objective of maintaining treatment capacity or medical competence on national territory, essential for the public health, and even the survival of the population. It is also important to take into consideration the general principle of ensuring the safety of the patient, in a sector well known for information asymmetry, when managing a prior authorisation system. Conversely, the refusal to grant prior authorisation may cannot be based solely on the ground that there are waiting lists on national territory intended to enable the supply of hospital care to be planned and managed on the basis of predetermined general clinical priorities, without carrying out an objective medical. Prior authorisation may be refused only if the patient is not entitled to the treatment in question, or on the basis of a clinical evaluation, or on the basis of exposure of the general public or the individual patient to a substantial safety hazard. The decision should be based on an objective assessment of the patient's medical condition, the history and probable course of his illness, the degree of pain he is in and/or the nature of his disability at the time when the request for authorisation was made or renewed. In the event of refusal, an appeal procedure should be available.
Amendment 127 #
Council position
Recital 48
Recital 48
(48) The Commission should support the continued development of European reference networks between healthcare providers and centres of expertise in the Member States. European reference networks can improve the access to diagnosis and the provision of high-quality healthcare to all patients who have conditions requiring a particular concentration of resources or expertise, and could also be focal points for medical training and research, information dissemination and evaluation, especially for rare diseases. This Directive should therefore give incentives to Member States to facilitatreinforce the continued development of European reference networks. European reference networks are based on the voluntary participation of their members, but the Commission should develop criteria and conditions that the networks should be required to fulfil in order to receive support from the Commission.
Amendment 137 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) allocation of and access to organs for the purpose of organ transplantsation;
Amendment 139 #
Council position
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q a (new)
(qa) Directive 2010/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation (*) (*) OJ L 207, 6.8.2010 , p. 14.
Amendment 176 #
Council position
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Healthcare that may be subject to prior authorisation shall be set out in a list, by the Member State of affiliation, to be transmitted to the Commission. It shall be limited to healthcare which:
Amendment 180 #
Council position
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) involves treatments presenting a particular risk for the patient or the population or which could raise serious and specific concerns relating to the quality or safety of the care with the exception of healthcare which is subject to Union legislation ensuring a minimum level of safety and quality throughout the Unionincluding situations when those treatments could jeopardise patient safety or when a minimum level of quality of care to be provided cannot be ensured.
Amendment 182 #
Council position
Article 8 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. The Member State of affiliation may refuse to grant prior authorisation for reasons including, but not limited to,only for the following reasons:
Amendment 188 #
Council position
Article 8 – paragraph 5 – point e
Article 8 – paragraph 5 – point e
(e) if thise healthcare is to be provided by healthcare providers that raise serious and specific concerns relating to the respect of standards and guidelines on quality of care and pprovider in question is not authorised, registered, licensed, certified or accredited, to provide or perform the care or treatiment safety, including provisions on supervision, whetherfor which the authorisation has been sought, according to these standards and guidelines are laid down by laws and regulations or through accreditation systems established by the Member State of treatment.