HOSPEEM response to the Commission questionnaire on the practical implementation of Directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time

Introductory comments

This paper summarises the responses received from HOSPEEM members to the Commission’s questionnaire. As a general remark, HOSPEEM members believe that patients should not be treated by tired staff and that staff are entitled to fair working conditions. While the Working Time Directive has been fully implemented by HOSPEEM members, the Directive and the subsequent rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have caused the hospital and healthcare sector problems and have imposed significant and unnecessary costs on hospital and healthcare employers.

The main problems emerging from the SiMAP and Jaeger judgments are around the interpretation of the term working time for on-call duties and the requirement for immediate compensatory rest. These rulings have caused serious problems in the operation of health systems and have led to Members States recruiting extra staff to prevent gaps in patient services at a large cost without improving productivity.  HOSPEEM members have been both gainers and losers.  In order to resolve the problems caused by the SiMAP and Jaeger judgments, some HOSPEEM members recruited staff from outside Europe as well as healthcare staff from the new Member States.  Losing staff in this way has had a large adverse impact on those health systems.

FULL TEXT: HOSPEEM Answer WTD questionnaire

HOSPEEM response to the first stage of consultation of the social partners on protecting European healthcare workers from blood-borne infections due to needlestick injuries

The Issue

The European Commission has launched a first stage consultation of the European Social Partners (according to article 138 of the EC Treaty) on protecting European healthcare workers from blood-borne infections due to needlestick injuries. The consultation follows the adoption on 6th of July by the European Parliament of a resolution (hereby “the EP Resolution”) that calls the Commission to bring forward a legislative proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2005/54/EC.

The questions that the Commission is asking are:

  1. Do you consider it useful to take an initiative to strengthen the protection of European healthcare workers from blood-borne infections due to needlestick injuries?
  2. Do you think that a joint initiative by the European Social Partners under Article 139 of the Treaty establishing the European Community would be appropriate?

Position Statement

Needlestick injuries, whilst stressful and with the potential for transmission of a blood-borne infections to staff, are not a major cause of incidents in the healthcare sector in Europe. HOSPEEM members believe that there is sufficient legislation, at European and, consequently, national level, to manage and control the incidence of needlestick injuries, provided that legislation is followed.

Effective management of needlestick injuries requires proper risk assessment, effective and regular training and updates and the provision, in those areas identified by risk assessment as being the most at risk, of safer devices that, if properly used, will reduce the transmission of blood-borne infections. It is not necessary, in areas identified as having little or no risk of transmitting bloodborne infection, to introduce more expensive safer devices.

HOSPEEM supports the principle of subsidiarity in this field. It is the responsibility of Member States to determine the details of regulations the framework of which has been set at European level. This is the approach, for instance, taken by Directive 200/54/EC. HOSPEEM would like this approach to be respected.

FULL TEXT: Response to the first stage of consultation of the social partners on protecting European healthcare workers from blood-borne infections due to needlestick injuries

Response to the Consultation regarding Community action on health services

HOSPEEM is pleased that the Commission acknowledges the general interest nature of healthcare services. These irreplaceable services perform special missions and are provided directly or are controlled by the public authorities or entrusted to specific actors who are responsible for them.  They are therefore subject to a process of public regulation under the general supervision of the Member State based on the objectives of the public policies assigned to them with respect to public health.

HOSPEEM would like to underline the important nature of health services and the requirement of access to quality health services for all citizens.  It recalls that it is the responsibility of Member States to define and to organise the services in question as well as the scope of coverage of the health and social needs to be satisfied, in keeping with the principles of subsidiarity and of universal access to healthcare services in the Member States. Furthermore, healthcare services are characterised by asymmetric information between the principal (the patient) and the agent (the doctor). Therefore, we consider as main result that economic allocation of the usual market mechanisms do not apply in this area, but rather resources are planned/organised by the respective authorities.

In view of the diversity of the services concerned and the variety of approaches, organisational and funding methods in the Member States, HOSPEEM welcomes an in depth consultation on these matters.

At the end of this consultation process, the relationship between a possible general framework on services of general economic interest and potential legal initiatives on health services should be answered. Furthermore, any future Community action should include an assessment of the potential impact on national healthcare systems.

FULL TEXT: Response to the Consultation regarding Community action on health services