Equal Access To Healthcare In Europe

This volume grows out of the belief that diversity needs recognition and support from a favourable social environment. More precisely, the different members of diverse societies need recognition and support. This monograph is intended to provide a comparative perspective on the challenges faced in selected European countries (Croatia, Germany, Poland, Slovenia and the UK) with regard to equal access to healthcare and ways of handling them. The authors of the chapters comprising this volume, each within their specialty and in their own way, attempt to identify the different forms and dimensions in which we can be different and the barriers to our flourishing in, and with our differences.

"The synthesis presented in this comparative report describes the main differences in the health status of women and men in European countries and examines how healthcare and long-term care systems respond to gender specific needs in ensuring equal access"--Ed.

This publication contains the text of Recommendation Rec (2001)12 adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in October 2001, together with an explanatory memorandum. This recommendation aims to protect and improve the health of people living in poverty by proposing a multi-sectoral approach which promotes preventive action and the creation of supportive environments. This approach seeks to avoid stigmatisation, since measures adopted to improve access for the socially vulnerable also serve the general population.

The right to equal access to health care is a fundamental principle that is part of human rights. For victims of a violation of the right to equal access to health care, it is important that a judicial or quasi-judicial human rights body can adjudicate their complaints in this regard. Justiciability contributes to the protection and realization of the right to equal access to health care and further determines the meaning of this right. The justiciability of the human right to equal access to health care is complex. It is one of the economic, social, and cultural rights, and ever since the emergence of these rights, their justiciability has been a contentious issue. Moreover, in practice, it is much more difficult for an alleged violation of an economic, social, or cultural right to be subject of review by a court of law or a quasi-judicial procedure than it is for a civil or political right. Nevertheless, over the last two decades, several developments have strengthened the justiciability of rights. This book analyzes the justiciability of the human right to equal access to health care. It examines how cases concerning unequal access to health care would be dealt with by judicial and quasi-judicial human rights bodies and distills the elements that can be expected to play a role in the assessment of such cases. First, the book provides for an extensive analysis of the legal framework of the right to equal access to health care, its entitlements, and the corresponding State obligations. Subsequently, it addresses what arguments are brought forward and how such rights are adjudicated in practice by the various judicial and quasi-judicial human rights bodies. Furthermore, the case law of three human rights bodies - the European Committee of Social Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Human Rights Committee - is examined in detail in order to analyze how these bodies assess cases concerning discrimination and how elements of economic, social, and cultural rights are taken into account under the various equality and non-discrimination provisions. Finally, the different criteria and elements that can be expected to play a role in the justiciability of cases are presented. (Series: School of Human Rights Research - Vol. 53)

Patient mobility across Europe is markedly increasing and new generations will actively ask to be treated by the health-care system that best meets their needs. At a political level, the EU issued the EU Directive no. 24/2011/CE of 9th March 2011 concerning the application of patients’ rights in cross-border health care and has contributed to improving the level of freedom of choice for the European citizen, but it does not seem to have increased actual patient mobility across Europe. Freedom to choose is necessary to grant the people of Europe the same access to public-sector health-care services. The latter is a key instrument for an efficiently functioning “single market” ensuring real mobility within the EU. The aim of this book is to study the current European health care market and discuss the hypothesis of a European right of citizenship with reference to health-care services. It examines patients' mobility from several perspectives: determinants of patient mobility, governance of cross-border mobility at EU level as concerns patients and health-care professionals, policy implications, and case studies. It is intended for health researchers, decision-makers and professionals concerned with health-care provision and patient mobility. The goal is to provide, through scientific and methodological rigor, new informative tools useful for the implementation of new policies in the health-care sector in order to implement effective health-care integration in the European Union.

No two markets for voluntary health insurance (VHI) are identical. All differ in some way because they are heavily shaped by the nature and performance of publicly financed health systems and by the contexts in which they have evolved. This volume contains short structured profiles of markets for VHI in 34 countries in Europe. These are drawn from European Union member states plus Armenia Iceland Georgia Norway the Russian Federation Switzerland and Ukraine. The book is aimed at policy-makers and researchers interested in knowing more about how VHI works in practice in a wide range of contexts. Each profile written by one or more local experts identifies gaps in publicly-financed health coverage describes the role VHI plays outlines the way in which the market for VHI operates summarises public policy towards VHI including major developments over time and highlights national debates and challenges. The book is part of a study on VHI in Europe prepared jointly by the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies and the WHO Regional Office for Europe. A companion volume provides an analytical overview of VHI markets across the 34 countries.

During the last 25 years, life expectancy at age 50 in the United States has been rising, but at a slower pace than in many other high-income countries, such as Japan and Australia. This difference is particularly notable given that the United States spends more on health care than any other nation. Concerned about this divergence, the National Institute on Aging asked the National Research Council to examine evidence on its possible causes. According to Explaining Divergent Levels of Longevity in High-Income Countries, the nation's history of heavy smoking is a major reason why lifespans in the United States fall short of those in many other high-income nations. Evidence suggests that current obesity levels play a substantial part as well. The book reports that lack of universal access to health care in the U.S. also has increased mortality and reduced life expectancy, though this is a less significant factor for those over age 65 because of Medicare access. For the main causes of death at older ages -- cancer and cardiovascular disease -- available indicators do not suggest that the U.S. health care system is failing to prevent deaths that would be averted elsewhere. In fact, cancer detection and survival appear to be better in the U.S. than in most other high-income nations, and survival rates following a heart attack also are favorable. Explaining Divergent Levels of Longevity in High-Income Countries identifies many gaps in research. For instance, while lung cancer deaths are a reliable marker of the damage from smoking, no clear-cut marker exists for obesity, physical inactivity, social integration, or other risks considered in this book. Moreover, evaluation of these risk factors is based on observational studies, which -- unlike randomized controlled trials -- are subject to many biases.