In opinion surveys, European citizens put health, that is to say, the protection against risks of illness, at the peak of their concern. However, health is not defined in terms of European law. The European Commission has just recommended harmonization, without specifying what could be the ‘right to health' in terms of performance requirements (universal health care, equal access) and resources (contribution rates or taxation, doctors or hospital beds).
Europe therefore refers to each member state with the responsibility to conduct its own health policy. However, the health systems of Member States, whatever the model, are experiencing financial difficulties. The question of the right to health in Europe in these conditions is of particular significance. Should we not achieve a real European harmonization scheme to protect the region?
The two models of health law in Europe, because of difficulties in finding a balance, tend to be closer to a single system, but away from the right to health.
The English model, says Beveridge, from the Beveridge Plan of 1942, ensures the principle of free care to the entire population to ensure universal coverage of diseases which is financed by taxes; it implies a predominant public sector (national health system in which hospitals belong to local authorities and hospital doctors have the status of employees; GPs are under the contract of the National Heath Service or are employed by British local health centers in Sweden and Finland).The system can be centralized, as in Britain, or decentralized as municipalities, like in Scandinavian countries;
Tags: Beveridge Plan of 1942, National Heath Service, health law in Europe
[...] And then 51% of spending goes to health insurance and private hospitals to medical fees and 15% to medicines Weaknesses in the model of health law - The main weakness of the Beveridge model is the length of waiting lists, due to lack of investment and cumbersome system organization, and the difficulty of financing the system by the state as part of a liberalized economy where the state is withdrawing its charges. In 1991, the British health system was therefore a liberal reform, distinguishing between purchasers and providers, subjected to the rules of competition. [...]
[...] In March 2002, the Barcelona European Council adopted the principles of accessibility for all, including quality care and financial viability over time, on the basis of solidarity, equity and universality The remoteness of the ‘right to health': - It would appear that in principle, the right to health is a European acquis, both in terms of goals (‘accessibility for all') and results (‘quality care').Yet, in fact, if health systems are similar, it is in their distance from the realization of this right. [...]
[...] In Britain as in the Scandinavian countries and the countries of Central Europe and in Germany, only the poor (those earning less than 3900 euros per month in Germany) pay to use a public system of binding and declining quality (emergency department in France for example); - Or the right to health is not the right to health. It can not be reduced to a legal concept. It would mean that health is actually considered as the equal of a republican value, as a common good, a social requirement. [...]
[...] Conclusion The right to health is not new in Europe. Additional historical models have attempted to achieve its realization. However, this right to Unofficial Union appears to be questioned today because of financial difficulties of welfare regimes and political choices that are made. It would therefore no longer be a health law. Meanwhile, however, it should be noted that the concept of health itself has [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
