I"m pretty sure you are able to arrange treatment in another EU country and have it covered.
People did this in France when the UK was part of the EU so there must be a path
1 Like
Differences of opinion can be difficult to manage with medical professionals. In 2011 I was at a conference in Lille organised by ESHRE, and a part of the proceedings was live discussion of a paper that included data. The subject was about whether a particular marker was useful for measuring ovarian reserve, and 2 groups discussed and argued for opposite points of view off the same data set. These were opinion leaders, some with their own clinics, and not just a bunch of medical students.
While it doesnât help you, itâs not unusual that despite what we hope, evidence isnât always definitive. I find it âsurprisingâ that a dose of x-rays too low to do harm could have any significant effects on a condition, for example.
2 Likes
But seriously is that not exactly what you should and could hope for in a presentation to professional scientists? . A scientific consensus is arrived at not by negotiation or compromise or force of personality but by the people teasing out the shortcomings in the data .That gives the researcher pointers for the next stage of firming up on the data . Having been in the business (not medicine, another science ) of course the loudest voice of the oldest Prof initially holds sway until the evidence is irrefutable .
TBH consensus is sometimes arrived at by force of personality and determination unless the evidence is completely overwhelming. In this case both sides had firmly held opinions and some numbers from a study werenât going to make a difference.
Eventually the marker (AMH) was accepted and adopted pretty much universally.
Iâm still consulting, though the day job has gone. Often development requires a bit of gut-following because the numbers sometimes only hint at whatâs happening.
My father who was a university professor used to say there is nothing worse than an academic argument as no one dies.
Well Morse and Lewis may have disagreed, they made a career out of solving who was the murder.
This is the answer I got from Braveâs AI Leo:
Yes, it is legally possible under EU Directive 2011/24/EU, but with important practical caveats.
The legal basis
Under the EU cross-border healthcare directive, a French patient has the right to seek planned treatment in Germany and be reimbursed by the French system. Crucially, the directive states that a member state shall not refuse authorization or reimbursement on the grounds that the treatment method is not available in the home country. This is the key legal hook for Dupuytrenâs radiotherapy, which is ânon disponibleâ in France.
The two routes
With prior authorization (S2 form) Without prior authorization
When required Hospitalization â„ 1 night, or use of major medical equipment (radiotherapy likely qualifies) Standard ambulatory care only
Payment Direct settlement in Germany, or upfront + reimbursement Upfront payment, then claim via form S3125
Reimbursement basis German rates (if S2) or French rates (if reimbursed) French rates only, capped at actual cost
The practical problem
Hereâs where it gets difficult:
Prior authorization is almost certainly required. Radiotherapy uses major medical equipment, so the CPAMâs medical service (mĂ©decin conseil) must approve the request before treatment.
The medical service may refuse. Even though the EU directive prohibits refusing solely because the treatment isnât available in France, the mĂ©decin conseil can assess whether the treatment is medically necessary and proportionate for the patientâs specific condition. If they consider the evidence insufficient (mirroring the NICE/French position), they can deny authorization on medical grounds.
Reimbursement is capped at French rates. Even if authorized, the patient is reimbursed at the rate France would pay for an equivalent treatment â not the full German cost. The difference is out of pocket (or covered by a mutuelle).
What a patient should do in practice
Get a detailed medical file from their French hand surgeon or rheumatologist, documenting the Dupuytrenâs stage, progression, and why radiotherapy is indicated.
Request prior authorization (S2) from their CPAM, citing EU Directive 2011/24/EU.
If refused, they can appeal to the commission de recours amiable (CRA), and ultimately to the Tribunal administratif. The CJEU case-law (Watts, Menzel, Vanbraekelang) is favorable to patients in such disputes.
Alternatively, go without prior authorization (if the treatment can be structured as ambulatory/outpatient), pay upfront in Germany, and claim reimbursement on return via form S3125. The médecin conseil will still review the claim, but the legal threshold for refusal is arguably higher.
Bottom line
The right exists in law, but the French medical serviceâs discretionary power to assess medical necessity is the main obstacle. In practice, success depends heavily on the quality of the medical justification and the willingness of the individual mĂ©decin conseil to recognize radiotherapy as a proportionate treatment. There is no published data on how many such requests have been granted or denied in France for Dupuytrenâs specifically.
No I am not confused, this is what somebody told me when they worked in a senior position at LBC.
Does it really matter if he has an addiction, probably not, but the guy is a right self righteous tw@t.
Although I do agree with him on Brexit.
As is absolutely everyone on that station. The whole lot of them love the sound of their own voices far too much. Although I did actually have some meetings at Global last week so I shouldnât slag them off too much, unfortunately it was the day of their charity drive so they extracted a large donation from me. I did suggest Ashley could take a few less helicopter rides and save all the bother of asking listeners for money but it didnât seem like they were keen to pass it on when he was next in.
2 Likes
How does being in a senior position make a difference? Possibly less reliable than the person who empties the waste bins in the offices. Itâs still just malicious gossip.
2 Likes
Thatâs unfair on Matt Frei, and Lewis Goodall.
The rest I donât rate. Especially Fick Nerrari and the guy whoâs on in the evening whose name escapes me⊠The one who recently stood as a Tory MP and who physically attacked an old man on Brighton promenade. Those two can definitely get in the sea.
They probably said it was malicious gossip about Jimmy Saville, until it wasnâtâŠ
But as I said it probably doesnât matter if he is, there have been many functioning alcoholic MPâs in the past.
A very fair point! The only thing is with the others, it feels like they know that it is their point of view, and maybe they are trying to convince you.
With OâBrien he thinks only he can ever be right. He literally bullies people. He is the âJeremy Kyle of Radio with his bullying style. But clearly a lot of people like that sort of thing.
Well someone seemed to think alcoholism was important enough to make a point of it. Who was that?
2 Likes
Because somebody was making a comparison about themselves to him..
Do keep upâŠ
And now conflating paedophilia with alcoholism! Iâm am not waving a flag for James OâBrien , as I donât care at all about him. Just that I intensely dislike casual slander.
8 Likes
So was David Lammy when he was on LBC, took a serious dislike to him.
It would be libel not slander. And I trust my source, which is why I was confident saying it.
And I am not conflating them, I am saying that people turn a blind eye to many things when itâs good for business.
And I see a lot of potentially libellous statements on here, but I donât think the audience is big enough for it to be worthy of law suits..
Imagine, people with big egos who like the sound of their own voices hired as talk show presenters.
Who knew?
6 Likes
Yes, youâre right. Slip of brain cell.
I am keeping up.
The person who first mentioned James O Brienâs alleged alcoholism was you.
You justified the allegation with MMTM (my mate told me)
You then said that some alcoholics were capable of functioning well and it probably wasnât important whether or not anyone was an alcoholic.
So, you have gone from from introducing a point, a possibly insuting point in an ad hominem attack, on the evidence of MMTM, to saying the point being introduced is irrelevant.
I bet those grapes are sour anyway.
2 Likes