Patients Rights Directive discussed in IMCO Committee

While the ENVI Committee is the lead on this Directive, the IMCO has enhanced cooperation. Enhanced cooperation of this means that the lead Committee cannot proceed with a final report on their reading of the Directive until those committees with enhanced cooperation have submitted their opinion and amendments.

As this Directive is based in internal market legislation (the delivery of services) rather than on health or patients legislation, the IMCO had a claim that the Directive should, in fact, be handled by them and not the ENVI committee. This argument, about who should be handling the Directive, was very apparent in the summer of 2008 after the release of the Directive and has obviously continued until now.

The Chair of the Committee, Mrs Arlene McCarthy MEP (PES) introduced the topic and said that the ENVI committee had refused to hold a working group with IMCO and EMPL.

When Ms Vergnaud MEP (PES) took the floor as the rapporteur of IMCO’s opinion, she said that although she had a few problems with the substance and form of the Directive, her main complaints were with the fact that the Directive is being dealt with in ENVI and not IMCO.

Regarding the content of the Directive, she wants:

 Prior authorisation to be mandatory
 Further discussion on the definition of hospital care
 Mobility of health professionals to be in the Directive
 More on continuity of care and follow up treatments
 Clarity to the "vagueness" of the Directive.

Alexander Graf Lambsdorf MEP (ALDE) echoed Ms Vergnaud. This anger with the decision that allowed the ENVI committee to take the lead on the Directive was quite apparent in other MEPs’ speeches. Mrs Roithova MEP (EPP-ED) claimed that under Article 95 of the Treaty, the Directive should be in the IMCO committee.

A general feeling was that the EMPL and ENVI Committees were progressing too quickly and that the IMCO should try to slow it down. Heide Rhule MEP (Greens) felt unhappy with the EMPL timetable and said she was sceptical as to whether they could come up with a first reading agreement. This was a view shared by Ms Gebhardt MEP (PES).

The debate then went to the other members of the Committee and they were asked to give their opinion. Colm Burke MEP (PPE-ED) drew attention to the concern about standards being different across Europe. Many shared concerns about prior authorisation being the exception and not the rule. Ms Gedhardt said that the Directive needs to be one thing or the other, at present it is a hybrid between a health services and patient mobility Directive and ends up being neither. Ms Rhule said that investment in national health is what is needed not mobility.

The internal market objectives where also pushed quite heavily: "The health services market is a growth area, we need to look at the whole thing," said one MEP and, "we need to strike a balance between internal market objectives and high quality public health," said another.

Ms Vergnaud said that she felt "reassured" about the feeling in the IMCO and that they did have a role. The Chair said that they would talk to ENVI and try to organise a way in which they could work together.

For EPHA, although the legislative base of this Directive is indeed free movement of services and therefore technically the remit of the IMCO, due to the public interest nature of the topic and the need to keep ’health’ at the core of decision-making on health services the ENVI Committee is in fact the appropriate Committee to take this forward.

EPHA Related Articles

Directive on Patients’ Rights in Cross-border Healthcare