This volume assesses the impact of European Union (EU) policy and law on Member States' health systems and their governance in a number of key areas. In so doing, it builds on two earlier books 1 that sought to assess the changing legal and policy dynamics for health care in the wake of the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) seminal rulings in the Kohll and Decker cases. 2 These books showed that, despite widely held views to the contrary, national health care systems in the EU were not as shielded from the infl uence of EU law as originally thought. 3 The explicit stipulations of Article 152 EC (as amended by the Amsterdam Treaty) that health is an area of specifi c Member State competence, and implicit understanding of the subsidiarity principle where policy is undertaken at the lowest level appropriate to its effective implementation, proved not to be the 'guarantees' of no EU interference in national health care services that they were often held to be. As the raft of legal cases and degree of academic attention that followed have shown, Kohll and Decker were certainly not the 'one-offs' many policy-makers hoped they would be. 4 In fact,

Φινανχινγ οφ ηεαλτη χαρε φορ ΥΚ χιτιζενσ ιν τηε ΕΥ ανδ ϖιχε ϖερσα ισ τηρεατενεδ, ασ ισ αχχεσσ το σοmε χαπιταλ φυνδσ, ωηιλε Βρεξιτ τηρεατενσ οϖεραλλ εχονοmιχ περφορmανχε. Αχχεσσ το πηαρmαχευτιχαλσ, τεχηνολογψ, βλοοδ, ανδ οργανσ φορ τρανσπλαντ αρε αλλ ατ ρισκ, ωιτη α παρτιχυλαρ χονχερν αβουτ ραδιοισοτοπεσ βεχαυσε οφ τηε δεχισιον το λεαϖε Ευρατοm. Ινφορmατιον υσεδ φορ ιντερνατιοναλ χοmπαρισονσ ισ τηρεατενεδ, βψ βοτη εξχλυσιον φροm νετωορκσ ανδ νον−χονφορmιτψ οφ στανδαρδσ. Τηρεατσ το Σερϖιχε Dελιϖερψ ινχλυδε ασπεχτσ δελιϖερεδ τηρουγη Ευροπεαν Ρεφερενχε Νετωορκσ ανδ χροσσ−βορδερ χαρε, εσπεχιαλλψ ιν Νορτηερν Ιρελανδ. Γοϖερνανχε χονχερνσ ρελατε το πυβλιχ ηεαλτη, χοmπετιτιον ανδ τραδε λαω, ανδ ρεσεαρχη. Ηοωεϖερ, ωε ωερε αβλε το ιδεντιφψ α σmαλλ νυmβερ οφ ποτεντιαλ οππορτυνιτιεσ, σηουλδ α γοϖερνmεντ χηοοσε το τακε αδϖανταγε οφ τηεm, ιν αρεασ συχη ασ χοmπετιτιον λαω ανδ φλεξιβιλιτψ οφ τραινινγ. Οϖεραλλ, α σοφτ ϖερσιον οφ Βρεξιτ mινιmισεσ ηεαλτη τηρεατσ ωηιλε φαιλεδ Βρεξιτ ισ τηε ρισκιεστ. Εφφεχτιϖε παρλιαmενταρψ σχρυτινψ οφ πολιχψ ανδ λεγαλ χηανγεσ ωιλλ βε εσσεντιαλ, βυτ τηε σχαλε οφ τηε τασκ ρισκσ οϖερωηελmινγ παρλιαmεντ ανδ τηε χιϖιλ σερϖιχε.

No abstract

How does the European Union (EU) affect health law in its member states.? Having defined ‘health law’, this article takes a multilevel governance perspective of the EU und its legal order, aid considers, through selected examples, the various modes of governance used by the EU applicable in the health law field. The article presents N spectrum of the different types of effect that the EU has on health law: strong effect from health‐specific measures; strong effect from general measures; marginal effect; slow convergence effect; little prospect for effect.

How does the law of the European Union affect health law and policy? At first sight, it seems limited. However, despite its restricted formal competence, the EU has recently become increasingly involved in the health field. Litigation based on EU law has resulted in a 'right to receive health care services' across national boundaries which may have huge practical implications for national health systems. The EU has promulgated legislation regulating clinical research, and the marketing of pharmaceuticals; patients' rights are affected by EU legislation on data protection and product liability; the qualifications of health care professionals are legally recognised across the EU; and the EU has acted to promote public health. This book explores the various impacts of measures of EU law on national health law and policy. Through elaboration of selected examples, the authors show that, within the EU, health law cannot be regarded as a purely national affair.

All forms of Brexit are bad for health, but some are worse than others. This paper builds on our analysis using the WHO health system building blocks framework to assess the likely effects of Brexit on the NHS in the UK. We consider four possible futures: (1) a "No Deal" Brexit under which the UK leaves the EU on 29 March 2019 without any formal agreement on the terms of withdrawal; (2) the Withdrawal Agreement, as negotiated between the UK and EU and awaiting (possible) formal agreement, which provides a transition period until the end of December 2020; (3) if the Northern Ireland Protocol's 'Backstop' comes into effect after the end of that period; and (4) the Political Declaration on the Future Relationship between the UK and the EU. Our analysis shows that a No Deal Brexit is significantly worse for the NHS than a future involving the Withdrawal Agreement, which provides certainty and continuity in legal relations while the Future Relationship is negotiated and put into legal form. The Northern Ireland 'Backstop' has variable impact, with continuity in some areas, such as health products, but no continuity in others. The Political Declaration envisages a future relationship which is centred around a free trade agreement, in which wider healthrelated issues are largely absent. All forms of Brexit, however, involve negative repercussions for the UK's leadership and governance of health, both in Europe and globally, and significant harmful consequences for the ability of parliament and other stakeholders to scrutinize and oversee governmental actions.

No abstract

In the face of “permanent welfare austerity,” the European Union (EU) is increasingly involved in the governance of health care through various “new governance” tools. This development coincides with a growing interest in modernization of welfare, including health care. One of the fundamental critiques of new governance in the EU context concerns the (perceived) inability of new governance to protect the “social” against the “market” in Europe’s constitutional settlement. Using multi‐level governance and constructivist approaches, this article considers whether the EU’s governance of health care via the “Open Method of Coordination” advances a neo‐liberal agenda of health care modernization.