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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll