Cross-border scheme allows NHS patients reimbursements for surgery in Ireland
IRISH people living in Britain impacted by Northern Ireland's spiralling hospital waiting lists may soon see relief under a new cross-border healthcare initiative.
The scheme, which officially launched Monday, allows NHS patients who have been waiting over two years for non-urgent procedures to access private treatment in the Republic of Ireland and claim reimbursement.
The initiative, backed by a £10 million fund, is part of a broader effort by Northern Ireland's Department of Health to reduce waiting times, which are currently the worst of anywhere in Britain.
In the first phase, eligible patients can travel south for operations and be reimbursed up to the amount the procedure would cost the NHS in Northern Ireland. Future stages of the scheme are set to include treatment options across other EU countries, although no date has been confirmed for that expansion.
"The second phase, allowing treatment in the wider EU, will move forward," a spokesperson for the Department of Health confirmed, according to the BBC. "But how far the scheme can go will depend on the uptake during the initial rollout."
The department is under a lot of financial pressure, grappling with a projected £600 million budget shortfall. This includes meeting rising healthcare demands and implementing long-overdue pay increases for frontline health workers.
The reimbursement scheme is part of a wider £215 million action plan to tackle Northern Ireland's healthcare backlog. These include £85 million for urgent and critical cases, £80 million to build capacity within the system and £50 million to reduce the growing list of routine operations.
One new approach includes 'mega clinics' aimed at treating around 20,000 patients currently waiting for procedures in ophthalmology, orthopaedics and general surgery. Operations such as hip and knee replacements, hernia repairs, and colonoscopies are among the priorities for clearing four-year-long delays.
This cross-border initiative provides an opportunity for patients in Northern Ireland and Irish residents in Britain affected by similar delays to receive the care they need while alleviating pressure on the overburdened NHS.
See More: Medical Care, Nhs, Northern Ireland, Waiting Lists
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Independent
14 minutes ago
- Irish Independent
Trinity College Dublin to divest from links with Israeli universities and firms
The board of the prestigious Dublin university, home to over 20,000 undergraduate and postgraduate students, made the decision to divest from Israeli links on Wednesday. Pro-Palestinian activists have called on other Irish universities to follow suit. Last May, students formed an encampment at Trinity in protest against a 214,285 euro fine imposed on the students' union after a series of demonstrations about fees and rent, and the university's ties to Israel. Following engagement with the protesters, the college dropped the fine and said it would complete a divestment from Israeli companies that have activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and appear on the UN blacklist. The students dismantled the camp after Trinity said it would 'endeavour' to divest in other Israeli companies, noting that its supplier list contains just one Israeli company which remained in place until March this year for contractual reasons. On Wednesday, Trinity's board received a report from a taskforce set up last October to examine academic and institutional links, including with Israel. Although the report is to return to the board later this year for its final consideration, based on 'the strength of the evidence shared', the board accepted the report's recommendations in relation to links with Israel. This included recommendations that the college enter into no Erasmus, collaborative research or supply agreements with Israeli universities, institutions or firms. The college has two current Erasmus+ exchange agreements, on an inbound basis only since September 2023, with Israeli universities: the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which ends in July 2025, and Bar Ilan University, which ends in July 2026. The taskforce also found that the college is engaged in a number of EU-funded research consortia which include Israeli partners, and – although none of these were found to be breaching international humanitarian law or human rights – the taskforce said Trinity should not seek to participate in any new institutional research agreements involving Israeli participation. ADVERTISEMENT It also said that Trinity should look to 'align itself' with like-minded universities and bodies in an effort to influence EU policy concerning Israel's participation in such collaborations. The taskforce noted that Trinity had divested from Israeli companies on the UN blacklist and has no current supply contracts with Israeli companies. We need your consent to load this Social Media content. We use a number of different Social Media outlets to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review your details and accept them to load the content But it recommended that the college should fully divest from all companies headquartered in Israel and that it should not enter into any future supply contracts with Israeli firms. The taskforce accepted that the college's existing intellectual property-related contracts are acceptable as they are not collaborative, but said no new commercial relationships with Israeli entities should be set up. Chairwoman of the Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) Zoe Lawlor said the decision by Trinity was a 'landmark step in academic rejection of apartheid Israel's regime'. She called on more Irish universities to do the same and paid tribute to students, academics and staff who campaigned for this outcome. 'Trinity will now stand on the right side of history, as it did with South African apartheid in the past, but it is nevertheless disappointing that it took so long to get to this position,' she said. 'We echo the view of TCD Students' Union that it remains disappointing that Trinity has not withdrawn from ongoing projects involving Israeli partners who provide military technology and training that will run until 2029. 'Nonetheless, we celebrate each and every step towards de-normalising relations with the genocidal, apartheid state of Israel. We call on the Irish Government and the EU to pay heed to the changing climate, and to act to bring an end to all Irish state complicity with the apartheid regime.' The taskforce, chaired by former president of the High Court Mary Irvine, met on 14 occasions and received 77 submissions in total.
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Ukrainians in Ireland succeeding in asylum applications at twice rate of other nationalities
Almost 1,000 Ukrainians have applied for asylum in Ireland, with more than 80 per cent succeeding in their application – twice the rate of other nationalities –, data from the Department of Justice shows. The figures, provided to The Irish Times, show since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 until May 26th this year, a total of 969 Ukrainian nationals have applied for international protection. Some 77 applications from Ukrainians have been made this year. 'Since 2022, 367 decisions regarding international protection applications from Ukrainian nationals have been made,' a department spokesman said. He said 83 per cent of these 'resulted in the applicant being given a permission to remain in the State – generally refugee status'. READ MORE 'In 2022-2024, 217 decisions regarding Ukrainian applications for international protection were made. 'In 2025 to May 28th, a further 149 decisions have been made.' While the more than 100,000 Ukrainian nationals here have temporary refugee status, providing them with the right to work and to study, school places and childcare, as well as heavily State-subsidised accommodation, their status is not guaranteed into the future. In contrast, international protection guarantees the right to live and work here permanently, as well as to bring immediate family to live here. The EU Temporary Protection Directive, introduced in March 2022, has been renewed annually. It remains unclear whether it will be further extended in March 2026. Brian Killoran, co-ordinator of Ukraine Civil Society Forum, says increasing numbers of Ukrainians are asking about applying for international protection as they look to solidify their legal position in the country. 'Last year, a survey showed 53 per cent of people from Ukraine living here since 2022 wanted to stay,' he said. This represented an increase on the 41 per cent who expressed a wish to stay permanently the previous year. 'The longer they are here, they put down roots, children are in school, the more likely they are to want to remain here. They are increasingly asking about their options and one of those is international protection,' said Mr Killoran. If a significant proportion were to apply in the coming year, 'that could put unbearable pressure on the international protection system', he warned. 'We need to know what will happen post-March 2026. Member states need to say what are the long-term plans.' When people asked about applying for asylum, he said they were advised 'it is far from guaranteed'. He also said there was a potential 'loss of rights' if the applicant was transferred out of the temporary protection system into the asylum application system. These could include losing the right to work, to study and to live in their current accommodation, said Mr Killoran. 'They may find making an application for international protection disruptive to their life. We can't say to people, 'Don't do it' but we do advise people to get advice. An asylum application is not an easy route. [ A Ukrainian in Dublin: 'People are less direct in Ireland. There are 50 shades of great' Opens in new window ] 'Ultimately, the State needs to define post-temporary protection options. The priority is that they do that. 'Temporary protection was never meant to be a long-term measure, so bringing that to an end has to be done in a co-ordinated way,' said Mr Killoran.
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
Bitter pill: EU exploits Trump anti-science climate to forge deal on medicines
The EU's sweeping new rules on the regulation of medicines has been one of the most bitterly contested pieces of legislation in recent times, with fierce lobbying by the pharma sector - particularly in Ireland - and member states divided on which to prioritise: cheaper medicines for patients, or a regulatory environment that supports indigenous European manufacturers in the face of US dominance. After two years of deadlock, 26 member states have agreed on a compromise proposal, with only Malta - which has its own small-market medicines challenge - abstaining. Ironically, it was the Trump administration's hostility to science and medicine regulators that convinced EU member states that the moment to finally agree on a new set of rules was at hand. "In the US you have a chaotic situation," says one source familiar with negotiations, "between [Health Secretary] Robert Kennedy Jr, who doesn't believe in science or vaccines, and the Trump administration, which has sacked three and a half thousand people from the Food and Drugs Administration. "There was a sense in Europe that we should try to get this proposal settled so that we have a stable system in Europe when there's instability elsewhere." The legislation will now go to the European Parliament, where negotiations between MEPs, the member states and the European Commission, begin on 17 June. There are hopes that the entire package could be adopted by the end of the year. The European Commission first proposed overhauling the EU's medicines regime in April 2023, as Europe was emerging from the Covid pandemic. The EU was reeling from the strain the emergency put on health systems and on the availability of certain kinds of medicines, with a deepening awareness that Europe was overly dependent on China and India for drugs such as antibiotics. At the same time, digitalisation and the availability of clinical data were opening up new possibilities in how medicines are developed and used. Despite that, innovative therapies were not reaching patients across Europe at the same speed while in some member states patients did not have access to medicines they needed due to shortages. The instinct to reduce health spending further has been given fresh impetus by the expected surge in EU defence expenditure following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Overall, the pharma package sought to boost the competitiveness of the sector, reduce the administrative burden - and the over-reliance on India and China - and to tackle the environmental impact of drug manufacture and use. The central, most divisive issue was around the protection that big European pharma countries would have in holding on to clinical data before generic manufacturers - who could produce cheaper drugs - could access it. It became a straightforward contest between the competing interests of big pharma, which argued that companies needed the protection in order to invest more in life-saving domestic European research and innovation, and those countries which were more interested in lowering the cost of medicines and making those medicines more accessible to patients. The legislation was always going to face a stormy passage. "The difficulty was that the countries that didn't have pharmaceutical industries were very much opposing the regulatory data protection (RDP) element because all they were interested in was making medicines available to citizens," says Fianna Fáil MEP Billy Kelleher, a substitute member of the European Parliament health committee. "Eastern European countries like Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and others would have been very, very reluctant to support the strong protection of regulatory data, while it was the old West, countries like Ireland, Belgium, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands that have big manufacturing and pharma centres, a lot of research and development, who were pushing for it." The new rules would attempt to reconcile the issue of regulatory data protection, which theoretically encourages pharmaceutical companies to invest more in life-saving medicines, with the need to make drugs more affordable. Under existing EU rules, pharma companies were entitled to keep clinical data for eight years - the so-called regulatory data protection (RDP) before they were obliged to make it accessible. After the eight years was up, generic producers could file an application to use the data, at which point the patent holder enjoyed a further two - and sometimes three - extra years of protection. Under the commission's 2023 proposal, there would be a two-year reduction in the baseline RDP to six years, with an extra two years of protection. However, pharma companies could claw back a further two years of protection - extending RDP to ten years. The ten-year protection period would be available if the patent holder won approval for significant new innovations (one extra year of protection), if the product addressed an "unmet medical need", ie, where there was product authorised in the EU for a particular disease, or where the disease was associated with a high death-rate (such a situation would merit an extra six months of market protection), or if the manufacturer conducted clinical trials or extended access to all member states (another six months). Essentially, the commission was attempting to balance the need to reward medicines that meet the greatest clinical need, while speeding up access to generic producers who will make drugs that are cheaper. However, the new rules were facing hostility from traditional pharma manufacturing countries such as Germany, France, Denmark and the Netherlands, who argued that a shorter clinical data protection period would stymie research. The Irish Times reported on a full scale lobbying effort by industry, including a claim in a letter to Tánaiste Simon Harris by the Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association (IPHA) that the proposal could lead to a 22% drop in new medicines being developed over the coming decade. It is understood there were tensions between the IDA and Enterprise Ireland, who shared the concerns of industry, and the Department of Health, which was more concerned with lowering the cost of medicines and making them more accessible. A number of sources have said that while member states with important pharma sectors went public two years ago, when the commission first proposed reducing clinical data protection from eight years to six, in demanding the status quo of eight years, Ireland remained on the fence, and did so right up until a key meeting of EU ambassadors on 21 May. On that date, Ireland joined a blocking majority of ten countries - including Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany - to oppose the latest Polish proposal that would have essentially increased the RDP by one year to seven, but short of eight. As a result of that blocking minority, the Poles came back with another compromise text, which is - to all intents and purposes - a return to eight years, with various caveats and conditions designed to make medicines cheaper and more accessible (one part of the text aims to ensure that medicinal products are available in all member states and provides for regulatory action if the marketing authorisation holder does not comply). Officials say the text provides more reassurance for generic producers, and will cut timelines for authorised medicines to get to market. There are other measures, including making it easier to have multi-country and multilingual medicine packs, which should reduce production costs and make it easier to move medicines around Europe. At yesterday morning's meeting of EU ambassadors, the new text received overwhelming support. The IPHA are understood to be broadly satisfied with the compromise. In a statement, the organisation said it "believes the [member states] position represents a more balanced approach than had originally been proposed by the Commission. "As the legislative process enters the final phase, EU decision makers must continue to find solutions that will keep Europe competitive through a predictable and globally competitive environment for research, development and manufacturing, while ensuring fairer access to innovative medicines for patients across the EU." Support is not uniform. The chief executive of the Confederation of Danish Industry Lars Sandahl Sørensen accused member states of triggering a potential flight of European industry to Trump's America. "We are de facto making the EU's pharmaceutical industry less competitive and thus European society vulnerable," he said. The European pharma lobby group EFPIA described yesterday's position by member states as "a missed opportunity to position Europe's life sciences sector at the forefront of global competition". In a statement, EFPIA said: "The choice to reduce intellectual property protections for pharmaceutical companies makes Europe less attractive, discouraging investment and jeopardising the development of innovative treatments in Europe without addressing the underlying barriers and delays to patient access." There is some scepticism over the industry's seeming exploitation of Donald Trump's persistence in threatening tariffs on European pharmaceutical exports and reshoring manufacturing to the US. In April the industry wrote to commission president Ursula von der Leyen, suggesting that €50.6 billion in capital investment and €52.6bn in research and development expenditure were at risk if the EU continued to over-regulate the pharma sector. "Unless Europe delivers rapid, radical policy change then pharmaceutical research, development and manufacturing is increasingly likely to be directed towards the US," EFPIA warned. Officials suggest the upcoming Critical Medicines Act (CMA) will further boost access to cheaper medicines. Drugs such as those for diabetes or HRT have been susceptible to disruption and shortages in recent years because they are often generic and produced outside the EU. The CMA will aim to encourage more manufacturing of such drugs in Europe. The action now moves to the European Parliament, where so-called trilogues - three way negotiations between member states, the Commission and MEPs - will further shape the legislation. Last year the parliament adopted its own position, calling for an RDP of seven and a half years with the possibility of some extensions. The parliament has since moved to the right, following last year's elections, so it remains to be seen if further battles are expected.
