Is it time to charge patients at the time of treatment?

The estimated cost of the NHS treating people from overseas can be significant, though exact figures can vary. As of recent reports and estimates, the cost to the NHS of treating overseas patients, including both those who should be charged and those who should not, runs into hundreds of millions of pounds annually. The NHS spends a considerable amount on treating overseas visitors and migrants, with estimates suggesting it could be around ￡1.5 billion annually. Not all of this amount is recoverable, but the NHS has mechanisms in place to charge certain categories of overseas patients.

Before Brexit: EU citizens had rights to healthcare in the UK under reciprocal healthcare agreements. The UK could recover costs from the home country of the patient under the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) scheme. Post-Brexit: After the Brexit transition period ended on December 31, 2020, new rules came into effect. EU citizens are no longer automatically entitled to free NHS treatment. Instead, they are charged in the same way as visitors from other countries unless they fall under specific exemptions (such as being part of a bilateral healthcare agreement or holding a valid EHIC issued by an EU country which still covers some urgent treatments). EU visitors and those who have moved to the UK after Brexit are generally subject to NHS charges unless covered by transitional arrangements or specific bilateral agreements. The UK government has been negotiating bilateral healthcare agreements with individual EU countries to replace the previous EU-wide system. These agreements determine how the costs of treatment for visitors from those countries are handled. The UK has introduced the Global Health Insurance Card (GHIC) which replaces the EHIC for UK citizens travelling to the EU. Similarly, EHIC cards issued by EU countries can still be used in the UK for some treatments.

The UK has established or is in the process of establishing reciprocal healthcare agreements with various countries, including those in the EU, to ensure continuity of care and cost recovery. Certain groups are exempt from charges, including refugees, asylum seekers, and victims of human trafficking.

Emergency treatment in accident and emergency (A&E) departments is a chaotic situation for patients regardless of their residency status. The monetary impact of treating overseas patients on the NHS remains a significant concern, and the system for charging non-resident patients has become more stringent post-Brexit. Exact cost estimates and recovery rates can fluctuate based on policy changes and the effectiveness of charging and collection mechanisms. The NHS faces several challenges in recovering costs for treating overseas patients, which include both logistical and policy-related issues. Identifying chargeable patients and determining their eligibility for free care can be complex and time-consuming. Hospitals often lack the necessary administrative resources to efficiently manage the billing and recovery process. Coordination between different departments and services within the NHS can be inefficient, leading to delays and missed charges. Accurately identifying which patients should be charged can be difficult, particularly in emergencies where immediate treatment takes precedence over administrative procedures. Patients may not always have the necessary documentation, and verifying the authenticity of documents can be challenging.

The process of billing overseas patients and recovering costs from foreign health systems or individuals can be protracted. Differences in healthcare systems and reimbursement processes between the UK and other countries can cause delays and complications. The NHS has to navigate various international legal and bureaucratic hurdles to recover costs. Many EU countries operate a two-tier healthcare system where there is a distinction between public and private healthcare services:

Public healthcare systems typically provide basic and emergency care to all residents, including those without insurance. Private insurance often allows for quicker access, a broader range of services, and higher standards of comfort and amenities.

Insured individuals may receive preferential treatment and access to better facilities.

Should Patients Be Required to Show Funding Proof Like in the USA?

The idea of requiring patients to show how their treatment will be funded, similar to practices in the USA, is contentious and involves several considerations. Ensures that healthcare providers are compensated for their services, potentially improving financial sustainability.

Resource Allocation: Helps in the efficient allocation of resources by identifying those who can pay for services, possibly reducing the burden on public funds. This could restrict access to necessary healthcare for those who cannot immediately prove their ability to pay, potentially leading to negative health outcomes. This raises ethical issues about the right to healthcare and the principle of providing care based on need rather than ability to pay. Introducing such a requirement would add significant administrative complexity and could slow down the process of providing care, especially in emergencies.

With the NHS facing significant challenges in recovering costs for treating overseas patients, including administrative inefficiencies and international reimbursement complexities. The two-tier healthcare systems in some EU countries highlight differences in how healthcare funding and access are managed.

?While requiring proof of funding for treatment, as practised in the USA, could improve cost recovery, it also poses serious ethical and practical concerns about access to healthcare and the administrative burden on the NHS, those of you reading this will know the difference in getting treated before, you just try in the states their first words are ‘Are you insured’ if not you only get enough treatment to save your life, one pillow or two.

?