header-logo header-logo

29 October 2009 / Adam Hundt
Issue: 7391 / Categories: Features , Human rights , Community care
printer mail-detail

To treat or not to treat?

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll