header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
29 October 2009 / Adam Hundt
Issue: 7391 / Categories: Features , Human rights , Community care
printer mail-detail

To treat or not to treat?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

What happens when migrants can’t pay for treatment? asks Adam Hundt

The NHS (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/306) (the regulations) provide that overseas visitors must be charged for secondary care they receive, unless one of the many exemptions in the regulations applies.

Some types of treatment are exempt from charging, eg for infectious diseases such as TB, or STDs, but not for HIV; some types of patient are exempt from charges, eg refugees or people who have been lawfully resident in the UK for more than 12 months; and some types of nationality are exempt, eg people from countries with a reciprocal agreement with the UK.

Interestingly, both primary and secondary legislation in this area concentrates solely on charging for treatment. No mention is made of withholding treatment but the obvious question, once a charging regime comes into being, is what happens when a patient cannot pay?

The Department of Health issued detailed non-statutory guidance on the implementation of the regulations which addressed this problem to some

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll