Recent shifts in political support to populist parties worldwide have been linked to the changing preferences of “left behind communities.” Based on apparently growing “left behind” support for populists, some commentators have argued for policy changes including tightened immigration rules coupled with increasing investment in economically deprived areas, particularly in health care. However, left behind communities’ policy preferences are unclear from existing research due to a series of methodological challenges associated with researching polarization and stigmatization. We complement existing research with an innovative photo elicitation methodology covering five field sites in the United Kingdom during 2019, focusing on left behind communities’ policy preferences concerning Brexit. Photo elicitation overcomes methodological challenges associated with emotional attachment and stigmatization. Drawing on 418 interviews with 489 participants, we find that interviewees rejected elite framings suggesting a logical link between Brexit and health care investment, instead articulating policy preferences for health care investment drawing on personal experiences.

The UK's relationship with the European Union (EU) is now embodied in two principal legal instruments: the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which formally entered into force on 1 May 2021; and the Withdrawal Agreement, with its Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, which continues to apply. Using a ‘building blocks’ framework for analysis of national health systems derived from the World Health Organisation, this article examines the likely impacts in the UK of this legal settlement on the National Health Service (NHS), health and social care. Specifically, we determine the extent to which the trade, cooperation and regulatory aspects of those legal measures support positive impacts for the NHS and social care. We show that, as there is clear support for positive health and care outcomes in only one of the 17 NHS ‘building blocks’, unless mitigating action is taken, the likely outcomes will be detrimental. However, as the legal settlement gives the UK a great deal of regulatory freedom, especially in Great Britain, we argue that it is crucial to track the effects of proposed new health and social care-related policy choices in the months and years ahead.

Some understandings of European Union health law are based on a presumption of law as a static and closed system. This approach to the Union as a legal entity has important ramifications. The Union is a political system created by and subject to the rule of law. Its successes (and failures) are attributable to the legalisation of solving externalities and ensuring Member State solidarity to gain benefits from integration. Member States, which create and sustain the Union by repeated acts of sovereign choice, choose to subject themselves to the rule of (Union) law. This protects both the Member States and the Union institutions (imperfectly, but nonetheless) from charges of illegitimacy. While recognising the benefits of such an approach to European Union integration and law-making, we take the view that law also has an important dynamic potential. That dynamic potential is inherent in all law, for law is embodied in text, and always open to interpretation, as the external contexts that give legal text meaning in the real-world change through time. We trace the dynamic potential of Union health law by looking at its legal basis to its foundational Treaties, and we plot its trajectory going forward.

While policy attention is understandably diverted to COVID-19, the end of the UK's post-Brexit ‘transition period’ remains 31 December 2020. All forms of future EU−UK relationship are worse for health than EU membership, but analysis of the negotiating texts shows some forms are better than others. The likely outcomes involve major negative effects for NHS staffing, funding for health and social care, and capital financing for the NHS; and for UK global leadership and influence. We expect minor negative effects for cross border healthcare (except in Northern Ireland); research collaboration; and data sharing, such as the Early Warning and Response System for health threats. Despite political narratives, the legal texts show that the UK seeks de facto continuity in selected key areas for pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and equipment [including personal protective equipment (PPE)], especially clinical trials, pharmacovigilance, and batch-testing. The UK will be excluded from economies of scale of EU membership, e.g. joint procurement programmes as used recently for PPE. Above all, there is a major risk of reaching an agreement with significant adverse effects for health, without meaningful oversight by or input from the UK Parliament, or other health policy stakeholders.

8% of UK students have an ‘unseen disability’: a specific learning difficulty, autistic spectrum condition, or mental ill health. A department with 1000 students has, on average, 80 students with such unseen disabilities. These students have a variety of potential sources of legal redress if they consider a university has failed properly to accommodate their disability. The most plausible is a claim under the Equality Act 2010. We have experienced a lack of clarity in understanding the nature and extent of those Equality Act entitlements, and the corresponding obligations that fall upon universities, and their staff. These confusions occur in many contexts, but the one that is most important to students is their entitlements where assessments are concerned. We set out to explain the relevant law, and to consider how it applies to some, perhaps typical, unseen disabilities in the context of a range of approaches taken by universities in assessing their students. Our principal and important conclusion is that there is no ‘quick fix’ approach according to which someone may say that they are Equality Act compliant. However, there are several considerations which will increase (or decrease) the likelihood of compliance. In brief, these constitute: effective communication; procedures that secure individual decisions, rather than blanket policies or approaches; and what amounts to no more than good inclusive educational practice for all students.

Cases involving patients such as Mrs Yvonne Watts, who travelled from the UK to France for a hip replacement to avoid a ‘waiting list’ in the UK, relying on rights in European Union (EU) law, attract high levels of media attention. While the vast majority of patients are either unwilling or unable to travel across borders to receive health care, it is clear that some patients are seeking health care abroad. Although data on patient mobility within the EU are significantly limited, nevertheless, a relatively steady, small but not insignificant number of patients are moving across borders within the EU to receive health care. This paper considers the current legal framework on the rights in EU law of those patients who seek health care in another Member State. As the right to seek private health care abroad is (largely) non-contentious, and has been a well-established feature of EU law since at least the mid 1980s, the focus of this paper is on publicly or quasi-publicly funded health care.

At least 100,000 retired UK citizens currently live in Spain. Under EU law, they are entitled to access the Spanish National Health Service (NHS) with minimum administrative difficulty. What will their legal position be under a ‘no-deal Brexit’? This is a question of Spanish law. The worst case scenario is that they will have to reapply for their residence permits under the Spanish legislation applicable to non-EU/European Economic Area citizens, with all the administrative inconvenience and cost entailed. If they successfully reapply, their personal health care costs will be considerably higher than at present, should they choose to remain in Spain. Very obvious questions of capacity planning arise. The Spanish system will potentially need to gear up for a significant administrative effort. Given the distinct possibility of a ‘no-deal Brexit’, the UK NHS should prepare to welcome significant numbers of pensioners home.