VABALOG

Kas Haigekassa peab nüüd kompenseerima välismaised ravikulud?

Euroopa Kohtust tuli mõni päev tagasi huvitav otsus, mis seotud ravikulude kompenseerimisega mõnes teises liikmesriigis tehtud protseduuri eest. The Times vahendab:

The Luxembourg-based court ruled that patients facing an “undue delay” in obtaining treatment on the NHS should be refunded if they choose to have the operation performed elsewhere in the European Union.

But the judges left it up to the UK courts to decide whether Yvonne Watts, 74, did indeed face a medically unacceptable delay before opting to pay some £3,800 to have her hip replaced in France three years ago.

If the NHS is unable to put the genie back into the bottle, the ruling could open the floodgates for a host of similar claims against the NHS and allow patients the chance to shop around for quicker treatment elsewhere in Europe. Mrs Watts’s solicitor suggested today that it might also deter hospital managers from using waiting lists as a budgetary tool.

The Times’i juhtkiri võtab teema mõnusalt kokku:

At face value, yesterday’s ruling by the European Court of Justice in favour of Yvonne Watts would appear to hold potential benefits for NHS patients. If they are denied treatment in timely fashion, they can hop (or not, depending on their incapacity) on to a plane, undergo surgery in Seville, Stuttgart or Stockholm, and recoup the cost from the British taxpayer. The patient wins: Mrs Watts received a new hip two months sooner than the Bedford Primary Care Trust was offering. The NHS does not lose: it bears the same financial cost. Other patients waiting for a replacement hip move up the pecking order. In broader terms, the ruling asserts that a patient must be treated according to clinical need rather than on a schedule imposed arbitrarily or politically, or both, by ministers. If only life and medicine were so simple.

The ruling is an open invitation to lawyers to acquaint themselves with the NHS. It is poorly worded and a bad precedent — and in this country, bad precedent means bad law. And rather than improving patient care, it threatens to make the system excessively complex, diverting doctors and blurring their clinical judgment.

Ma viitan juhtkirjale ka sellepärast, et sealt leiab viited nii juhtumi analüüsile , ajaloole kui Euroopa Kohtu otsuse terviktekstile (PDF).

Esmapilgul võib jääda mulje, et tegu on täiesti Inglismaakeskse juhtumiga, kuid Euroopa Kohtu otsused on avatud uksed ka teiste riikide kodanikele. Inglismaa National Health Service ei erine just eriti näiteks Eesti Haigekassast, mis samuti kasutab järjekordi.

Seega, kui sul on vaja protseduuri, kuid sinu koduriigis on ootejärjekorrad, mis on sinu arsti arvates liiga pikad, siis võid protseduuri lasta teha mõnes teises Euroopa Liidu riigis ja nõuda protseduuri hilisemat kompenseerimist….teoreetiliselt.

Huvitav, kui palju maksvad sarnased protseduurid näiteks Soomes või Rootsis ja kust leiaks Haigekassa vastavad summad. Minu arvates on tegu üpris tähtsa otsusega, ainult et Eesti ajakirjanduses see kajastamist leidnud ei ole.

Kahju…või peaks ütlema hoopis “õnneks”?

(via EU Referndum)

Tagged with: ...

Categorised as: ...