Jump to content

BREAKING NEWS ON EXPAT HEALTH COVER


Recommended Posts

Again, you must try and understand the realities of the current situation....[8-)]

It is reasonable to assume that following the changes to the qualifying status of British inactives, the CPAMs were instructed to refuse them any future cover.  It would appear that these instructions did not contain specific reference to the exemption under the five year residency rule.  So, in the absence of such a reference, it's refusal - full stop.

The head of communications for the Department of Social Security has now confirmed that the exemption applies and that it will be included in the CPAM update bulletin which is currently being formulated.

To be honest, I'm getting fed up with bashing out this same message every time someone says "I've got the letter....[:(]"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 644
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote user="Sunday Driver"]

Again, you must try and understand the realities of the current situation....[8-)]

It is reasonable to assume that following the changes to the qualifying status of British inactives, the CPAMs were instructed to refuse them any future cover.  It would appear that these instructions did not contain specific reference to the exemption under the five year residency rule.  So, in the absence of such a reference, it's refusal - full stop.

The head of communications for the Department of Social Security has now confirmed that the exemption applies and that it will be included in the CPAM update bulletin which is currently being formulated.

To be honest, I'm getting fed up with bashing out this same message every time someone says "I've got the letter....[:(]"

 

[/quote]

I have always had a great deal of respect for Sunday Driver's views and he has given me invaluable personal help in the past but I think that this post really is a bit rich! 

It is over three years since the EU Directive was published (April 2004) and  it didn't just pop out then. The French Government had a hand in its formulation and approval so it should not have come as any surprise to the French Government even in 2004. 

The Directive required (Article 34) that  'Member States shall disseminate information concerning the rights and obligations of Union citizens and their family members on the subjects covered by this Directive, particularly by means of awareness-raising campaigns conducted through national and local media and other means of communication.' 

The French Government didn't deliver on that until September this year even though their own law (which required no small effort to put together on their part) was published in July 2006.  The fact that they didn't publicise it, and have everything in place well in advance, has had a serious adverse affect on some people who have been given little time to plan for the withdrawal of healthcare. That is the reality of the current situation.

In fact the Directive also required (Article 40) that. 'Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 April 2006' so the French Government was months behind on that as well.

Now I do have some sympathy with the chap/lady on the local desk who has to deal with the residents but none with the hierarchy.  The hierarchy has had plenty of time to sort this out.  So as I see the realities of the current situation, the resident has every right to turn up - not only armed with the Directive but also armed with the French law and administrative rules which the French Government itself has issued - asking for permanent residence in accordance with the law. As the French Government published their law in July 2006, the resident has every right to expect that, that well over twelve months later, the civil servants would have been briefed on its contents and be equipped to deal with its provisions.

It is not the residents' fault that the local offices are ill prepared.  The 'reality of the current situation' is that Central Government has failed to deliver the quality of service it was required to deliver and which people had a right to expect, leaving both the residents and local staff in the lurch.

So I am sorry that you are getting fed up bashing out the same message but people have every right to apply and to complain about this when it is not handled correctly.  Adequate time was given for all procedures to be in place - but they weren't.  So maybe the message you are bashing out should change and should be a message which continues to recognise the problems people are facing and offers not only a suggestion of the inactive response of 'patience' but an alternative active approach of registering an official complaint.

This has been a case of very poor handling and it has had a serious adverse affect on some people's lives.  Whether the law stays as it is or not, the French Government should be ashamed of the way this matter has been handled.  Counselling patience is a bit trite in my opinion and more people should complain about this to both the French Government and the EU Complaints authority which can be contacted here.

Sorry about this SD, we normally see eye-to-eye, but not on this...the effect of this mishandling has been too serious to just swallow politely.  You and I (and others similar to us) try to keep our fingers on the pulse so perhaps we are a little better informed (sometimes and on some matters) than the average but I feel we have to be particularly understanding of those who don't know as much in this very important case. Many people are confused and it is the fault of the authorities not the residents.  Had this been handled professionally with the publicity and care it needed there would not be such misunderstandings.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Caussenarde"]Hard Fact:  We are resident in France since August 2002 and have Cartes de Séjour which date from 7 January 2003.   We have our letter today from CPAM Lot to say we are in CMU until 31st March 2008 when we have to return our CVs.

They say that we "do not fulfil the condition of the Article L.121-1 du Code de l'entrée et de séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile qui stipule, entre autres conditions : que tout ressortissant de l'Union Européenne, de L'Espace Economique Européen, ou de la Conféderation suisse, a le droit de séjourner en France pendant plus de trois mois sous réserve qu'il dispose d'une assurance maladie". 

They don't refer to the five year residency at all. And there's no reference to what happens to us after 31st March or what we must do. We will challenge this but our view is that the rumoured five year get-out is wishful thinking.


[/quote]

 

The authorities are wrong. The five year rule is a legal rule regarding permanent residence and it will allow you to remain in the CMU.  If you go to www.frenchhealthissues.eu and email them they will explain it all and provide you with advice/sample letter(s)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Chaps,

I am sorry if we give the impression that we are naive in this issue bt we are well aware of all the points made by our respondents and have been for a good while.

We are sure your points are well based and we agree with the apparent conflict between the CMU issue and our entitlement to permanent residency and associated rights.

But the argument is rather sterile when limited to Brit websites:  it is the CPAMs that need to be convinced, not us.

For that reason we posted the Fact that our CVs will be withdrawn next March when we will have lived in  France for five and a half years, notwithstanding all our agreements within these sites.  We posted because this is valuable for any who may be 5+ years resident and in CMU who have had 'the letter' and who are trying to make sensible decisions.

We will of course continue our discussions with CPAM Lot, but frankly it is hard to imagine that they will decide to rescind a written decision and reverse their position. We do not see at this time any factual wriiten position from the authorities to support the views that our CPAM will reverse its policy.

We will of course communicate any further developments as or if they occur.

cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makfai

I have no disagreement over the fact that this issue has been badly handled by the French government in all of the aspects that you refer to.

The efforts of yourself, Cooperlola and everyone else have been magnificent in bringing the required political pressure on the government and we would would appear to be in the endgame as far as a significant proportion of the inactive population are concerned, although we continue to lobby on behalf of the E106 holders who remain excluded.

That success has been due to those efforts being focused upon those with the power to influence matters - the MEPs, the EU, Jim Murphy, et al.  That is a wholly different scenario to individuals walking into a local CPAM office and producing an EU directive to a low level CPAM clerk. 

Up until now, the criteria for affiliation to CMU has always been the standard "stable residence for three months".  Once you'd qualified under this rule, the five years was never an issue because once you were in, you were in.  The CMU application form doesn't mention five years.  The CPAM checklists wouldn't have had a box to tick for five years residency.  The clerks probably wouldn't be aware that the five years residence rule even existed and it looks as if no-one from above thought fit to tell them.  So it should come as no surprise when they follow their checklist and say 'non'.

Yes, that is the fault of the administration and there are no excuses.  You are also right when you say that people have the right to turn up at their CPAM armed with EU directives and printouts of French law.  However, the reality is they'll be met with blank stares and they come away with their hopes dashed, feeling more despondant than ever.  Surely it is better to point out that things are happening and that it better for them to hold back until the official communications are issued?

Not a case of swallowing politely, more a case of not wanting people to pile even more anguish on themselves.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. We are the victims of unbelievable incompetence from the French government (I use the word 'government' loosely). It reminds me of the swimming pool security 'fiasco' two or three years ago. The final and definitive regualtions weren't announced until something like the 19th December and had to be complied with, by the probably hundreds of thousands of pool owners affected, by 1st January (later 'extended' to May, after it became apparent, even to them, that what they had ordered was impossible). Do these people live in another world?? I believe they do. I noted the comments of the 'government' spokesperson, quoted elsewhere. "Ms Gaillard said: 'The text is still being negotiated. Everything can

change until we get a final signature on the agreements from the health

minister. We hope to be as quick as possible as we understand people

have a lot of questions.' "

You would think, (wouldn't you???!!!) that they'd actually have got that 'final signature' before announcing the changes, and so would have had the answers in place in advance of the questions - or do they REALLY make it up as they go along??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I think that both S/D and Makfai are right.

We must not take this lying down.  On the other hand, it's certainly true that the average clerk at your local CPAM is not going to be very helpful, and SD's point that a direct approah to them probably won't bring much joy is, sadly, the truth.  Until they get the latest official confirmation as to the way in which they must handle the 5 year rule, a big fat "non" is the best one can expect.  The fact that this was not accepted by local officials is unsurprising, but it certainly does not make it a myth, nor a straw to be clutched at.  It is a done deal - it is EU law.  Unless CMU cover is withdrawn from French residents in the same position, then there is little or nothing that the French Social Security department can do to wriggle out of it. 

Mme Gaillard's communication to FHI makes it clear that the official statement has yet to be published.  Until it is, local offices will operate to the paperwork they have.  That will change - we know this - but we don't yet know what's in it.  It is likely that it will reverse the contents of at least some of the instructions which local offices have at present - which they will be and what the effect will be, we do not yet know.  Now's the time, whilst the contents of this instruction are being finalised,  to write to the French authorities - not at local level but at department level - pointing out the illegality of ignoring the 5 year rule; whilst making a local appeal at the same time, based on the facts. 

You might not get very far with the second, but the point should be made.  But lobbying those in real authority, plus all the opinion formers and law makers, might very well help to change things.

I guess I'm trying to say : Don't lie down and just take it, but be realistic as to who can make a difference and who cannot.  And do not take what your local office says as gospel - as this is being adjusted all the time at the highest level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SD

As you know I have no issues with you on a personal basis it is just that I took it that you were exasperated with the victims (residents who were applying) rather than the culprits (French Government).  I just felt that the victims deserved a bit more sympathy and understanding.

What I don't understand is why the local offices are sending the applications back.  We know they are going to be accepted because EU law says it; French law says it; the admin instructions on the Service-public.fr site say it; and the official spokesperson for Social Security confirms it.  If we had noted all this, one would hope, therefore, that the same message had reached the professionals at the local offices. So why reject the application instead of keeping them on file until they get the all clear? 

The other question I have is, how will people know when their local offices have been briefed?  I would have thought that publication on the Service-public.fr site would have been the sign that offices dealing with CdeS applications had been briefed. Obviously not.

Of course their are two agencies involved here.  One issuing the CdeS and the other (CPAM) for affiliation to the CMU.  We have only heard from the spokesperson from Social Security. So whether they will both be briefed at the same time or not who knows.  However, as has been rightly said on this forum there are specific rules which say you don't need to produce a CdeS to have access to the admin arrangements which permanent residence guarantees.  So saying, we all know that in practice that it is better to have the documentation.

From my own point of view I HAD expected the applications for the CdeS to go through because the system was detailed on Service -public.fr but I had not expected it to be straightforward at the CPAM offices as the healthcare admin arrangements seem to be still in the melting pot. 

So I totally sympathise with those being rejected for a CdeS and still suggest that they have every right, not only to moan, but to officially complain.  That dept has not even issued a statement similar to that of Ms Guillard from Social Security.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makfai

I do have every sympathy with the victims - my exasperation was uncharacteristic of me, as you will know [;-)], but there were so many people relating how they'd gone to their CPAM armed with all the arguments only to be further disillusioned with their position and doubtful about the expected changes.

In terms of when the local offices will have been briefed, I'm sure Cooperlola will be on Ms Gaillard's case....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I should introduce the French government to modern communications.  you can write or print stuff on a piece of paper, put in in an envelope then use something called "the Post" and is often arrives at its destination within a day or two.  that is of course assuming they are not up to the concept of e-mail where they can type their message, press a button and normally within a few minutes it is delivered.

Ideal for keeping all the CPAMs up-to-date with policy from "lord and master".

I assume they must still be using the system where the letter (on parchment) is being given to a rider who then walks most of the way to each CPAM in turn.  Or maybe they are still looking for the royal seal to authorise their letters.

Ian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the policy statement hasn't been agreed yet, it's unsurprising that it's not at CPAM level - post v. internet nothwithstanding!

However, it's true that the big worry is that people who have received thier ejection letters for 31.3.2008, may have already begun negotiations with private health insurers, and may well be in danger of signing up to an expense which later proves to be unnecessary.  And there is still the concern that, once local offices believe they these people have been "dealt" with, that unless pressure is kept up on  local offices too, then they may never know once the 5 year rule is clarified at local level, that they may remain in or rejoin the CMU.

That is why it is important that everybody who receives such a letter, appeals this to their local office so that their case is never allowed to slip under the radar when the clarification arrives.  You can use these as templates:

Less than 5 years' residence

http://www.frenchhealthissues.eu/lobbying/lobbying_letters_10.htm

5 years or more

http://www.frenchhealthissues.eu/lobbying/lobbying_letters_6.htm

Meanwhile, S/D, yes you can be assured that we will maintain the pressure upon Mme Gaillard and her department.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Sunday Driver"]

Makfai

I do have every sympathy with the victims - my exasperation was uncharacteristic of me, as you will know [;-)], but there were so many people relating how they'd gone to their CPAM armed with all the arguments only to be further disillusioned with their position and doubtful about the expected changes.

In terms of when the local offices will have been briefed, I'm sure Cooperlola will be on Ms Gaillard's case....

[/quote]

 

I did think it was uncharacteristic but I didn't want people to feel that they need be wary of pasing a comment.  I found that happening on TF with inane remarks from one or two whom you and I know!  I hardly bother visiting there now because they were jumping on other people's posts and just scaring them off.[:@]

I am well aware of the immense help you have been to so many on here and elsewhere and I know that you would never intentionally deter people from voicing their views.  But if I can now declare my exasperation it is that more people are not actively campaigning! 

So I am sending you  a couple of these [B][B] and we can both cry into our beer[:D]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="cooperlola"]

As the policy statement hasn't been agreed yet, it's unsurprising that it's not at CPAM level - post v. internet nothwithstanding!

 

[/quote]

 

That's all well and good for the CPAMs but the policy for a CdeS is already on the official Service-public.frwebsite and has been for ages! If I can read it from sunny Fleetwood with my fractured French surely a professional in France who is dealing with the subject all day long can read it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

I had an email from ECAS asking if I had heard anything from the French Authorities yet & suggesting I make a complaint to the EU to support a formal complaint that they are presenting to the commission.

I have informed them that I have recieved my expulsion letter & also told them about allthe unconfirmed stories we have all heard from various sources.

Following thier advice I have lodged an official complaint with the EU http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/your_rights/your_rights_forms_en.htm

Perhaps it would be a good idea for everybody to do so as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="rothrugby"]

Hi

I had an email from ECAS asking if I had heard anything from the French Authorities yet & suggesting I make a complaint to the EU to support a formal complaint that they are presenting to the commission.

I have informed them that I have recieved my expulsion letter & also told them about allthe unconfirmed stories we have all heard from various sources.

Following thier advice I have lodged an official complaint with the EU http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/your_rights/your_rights_forms_en.htm

Perhaps it would be a good idea for everybody to do so as well.

[/quote]

 

Definitely!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not having read this thread for a couple of days, and following on to the above, I can confirm that what Antonia says is quite accurate. As a 'true' Jersey born person, my passport does indeed state that I am not entitled to live permanently or work in France. My mother, in contrast, whose grandmother was French, has no such endorsement. My husband, however, is English, though he lived and worked in Jersey for nearly 20 years before we made the move here.As I have stated before, he has no entitlement to any 'E' forms or benefits from the UK. It is because of him that I can live permanently in France. Don't ask me what the situation would be if he pre-deceased me - I don't know! When we originally applied for cartes de sejour we had to fill in different paperwork than normally filled in by EU citizens; our mairie had never seen the like before, but getting the CdeS was no problem.We are now awaiting our Titre de Sejour, which we applied for some weeks ago.

As I see it, with the present health issue, we could opt go either way, non EU or EU, due to our 'nationalities', [although we Jersey folk are considered as British]. Seeing as we live on my Police pension, sourced from Jersey, then we intend to go down the non EU route, with my husband and son being my 'dependants', and see what happens. Being from Jersey might have some benefits, but it is a 'swings and roundabouts' affair; for instance there is no reciprocal health or tax agreement between Jersey and France, so, if we remain in the CMU, we will pay into the French health system until we die, no free treatment after we reach retirement age. And we are also liable to pay full tax in both Jersey and France. Thankfully, we are currently below the tax threshold in Jersey, but if proposed new tax laws come into play, then our situation could change radically. It'll be interseting to see what the CPAM makes of our situation. We had 'the letter' last week, so we're just gathering together some ammo before the big meeting soon!                   

Christine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31st October I sent a letter of appeal quoting the relavent arguments etc., by lettre recommandee with an avis de reception, to my CPAM office in Angouleme.

I got a reply today, returning my letter, saying that they were not in the habit of answering such matters & that I should write to:

Mme la Secretaire de la Commission de Recours Amiable

Whats annoying is that the address for this person is the same as the CPAM office. You would think that they could have just passed it on in their internal mail system, or is this concept just too complex for the french to grasp!!. Talk about stupidity, personally I would not trust this lot to run a whelk stall!!

I am sending my letter again, by lettre recommandee with an avis de reception. I will report what happens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="rothrugby"]

On 31st October I sent a letter of appeal quoting the relavent arguments etc., by lettre recommandee with an avis de reception, to my CPAM office in Angouleme.

I got a reply today, returning my letter, saying that they were not in the habit of answering such matters & that I should write to:

Mme la Secretaire de la Commission de Recours Amiable

Whats annoying is that the address for this person is the same as the CPAM office. You would think that they could have just passed it on in their internal mail system, or is this concept just too complex for the french to grasp!!. Talk about stupidity, personally I would not trust this lot to run a whelk stall!!

I am sending my letter again, by lettre recommandee with an avis de reception. I will report what happens

[/quote]

 

I would add a complaint that they did not refer it on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sent a registered letter to the wrong department,they have signed for its receipt but it was not for them.

Therefore they have to return the letter to you so that you can send it to the correct department .

Otherwise you would not get an acknowledgement that the correct department had received it by receiving back the avis de reception.

You have now moved onto making an official complaint so everything must comply with the law.

Welcome to the world of French Bureaucracy [:D]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Deimos"]I just had another look at 2004/38/EC and there is a publicity section; Article 34:

Member States shall disseminate information concerning the rights and obligations of Union citizens and their family members on the subjects covered by this Directive, particularly by means of awareness-raising campaigns conducted through national and local media and other means of communication.

No way have they done this.  With the rules becoming effective 10 days after they were announced on http://www.securite-sociale.fr/comprendre/europe/europe/cmu_inactifs.htm there was no time.  also, given that they have full contact information for everybody affected by these changes they have the easy option to write to everybody - which they have not done.

Ian
[/quote]

I am thinking of using this as a complaint to the EU , can anyone confirm that France has not made this public knowledge through the French media ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be impossible to give a difinitive no, but given how much monitoring we've been doing, there's definately no way it could ever be called a campaign!  The only reports we've come across are the one months ago in Le Monde an another in a tiny local Sarlat newspaper.  The news has only been obvious in the UK press because of Mary Honeyball's efforts and others. Also, the Soc Sec dept in France have told us the rules are going to change again, and that less than 2 months before E106 mass expiry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...