Jump to content

BREAKING NEWS ON EXPAT HEALTH COVER


Recommended Posts

The article on the Connexion may be 'latest news' but as far as I can make out it is just a reprint of what was printed in their November edition.

Bearing in mind this must have gone to press at least a week ago and a lot of the quotes are from correspondence dated early October I am not sure it actually confirms much.

Glyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 644
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote user="Glyn"]

The article on the Connexion may be 'latest news' but as far as I can make out it is just a reprint of what was printed in their November edition.

Bearing in mind this must have gone to press at least a week ago and a lot of the quotes are from correspondence dated early October I am not sure it actually confirms much.

Glyn

[/quote]

Yes, I realise that it's just repeating what's in the newspaper, but I was hoping that, as they chose not to put it onto their website until 1st November, some time after the publication of the newspaper, it may, in fact, have been actually confirming what had already been published, not simply repeating it. I thought, perhaps, they knew something that we didn't. Obviously not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The November Connexion article covers a number of points.

The issue concerning those with a pre-exisiting illness is clearly ongoing and the awaited CPAM circular is certainly 'old news'.  However the French spokesperson has stated that the circular has been delayed because 'discussions are still underway'.  Given the political and economic complexity of the issue, this is to be expected, so that could be a simple 'holding' update to the situation.

The spokesperson has confirmed the five years residency exemption from proof of resources and own healthcare because it's a condition of entry which is no longer applicable after permanent residency status is acquired.  This is set down in the code d'entree et sejour des etrangers and she is now confirming thats there are no 'catches' with regards to the ability to resume CMU cover.  So, that's 'new' news.

The Vienne prefecture spokesperson has confirmed that they will process TdS permanent residence requests on production of the relevent proof.  It's just confirmation that our current rights under the law still exisit - but it confirms that prefectures now recognise the importance of us acquiring the TdS and will no longer discourage us from applying on the basis of it's too much admin for them.  Again, 'new' news.

As always, the caveat is - wait for the official French publication....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I think this is essentially what SD posted above or is The Connexion copying him? [:P]

So if  the 5 year rule is a fact and nobody I know has had or seen that in writing from CPAM or a French Government source, what about those who will attain five years residency between March 2008 and March 2009?  Are they expected to get PHI for a few weeks or months, who would insure them anyway for less than a year?

Are we still hanging out hats on continued membership for CMU members or is that still a wild rumour?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Ron Avery"]

 I think this is essentially what SD posted above or is The Connexion copying him? [:P]

So if  the 5 year rule is a fact and nobody I know has had or seen that in writing from CPAM or a French Government source, what about those who will attain five years residency between March 2008 and March 2009?  Are they expected to get PHI for a few weeks or months, who would insure them anyway for less than a year?

Are we still hanging out hats on continued membership for CMU members or is that still a wild rumour?

[/quote]

I remember when the French authorities were assuring people that the new regulations would not affect current residents - but then they changed their minds.  even if this is true, whose to say they wont just change their mind tomorrow (or yesterday).  They [French Authorities) seem to have proven so unreliable through this saga that I no longer trust what they say.  Until we actually see the policy they finally select in operation throughout France I would treat any announcements by anybody with extreme scepticism.

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Residents to stay in CMU?

5th November 2007

Internet French Property have today announced that a "Ministerial

Cabinet of senior civil servants have agreed in principle to allowing

'inactive' expats living in France as at 30th Sept 07, and already

registered with the State health insurance system (the 'CMU'), to

remain in the system.  The matter is now being considered by the French

health insurance body.

We must stress that there has been no official confirmation of this

news. We would also add that, if correct, this would still seem to

exclude those UK nationals resident in France who are presently covered

by forms E106.

For the full article, click

here

Maybe they have not changed their minds regarding those already in the CMU. Macfai sent me this link which may be of interest:

http://frenchhealthissues.eu/latest_news/residents_to_stay_in_cmu%205-11.htm

This looks like a political ploy, take away a lot and give back a little - keep the masses happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would also be a particularly hard one for them to justify.  Given the 5 year rule and then that some people who had already subscribed were allowed to stay but others who had the same residence status (e.g. longer E106s) were not allowed to join.  Not only would it be available to the French and non-EU but also to a select few EU people whose E106s had expired in time.

Also it would not really address the pre-existing conditions and chronic conditions problem.  they cannot really allow those with chronic or pre-existing conditions to remain in the CMU as this would discriminate against the healthy people.

Anyway we are only a month and a half into the new rules being in effect and nobody still has any idea how they are going to work.  Thus, their application now must be retrospective - either that or the new rules will have to come into effect in the future, but then what about those already affected who have taken out some form of private health insurance.  Every time I think about it I wonder how they manage to run a country - but then I look at the state of the countries economy and ...

Ian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jay 

You may not have realised but this has already been posted by Cooperlola on 5 November. http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/1072104/ShowPost.aspx .  The link is to the site that she helped set up.  The problem is that each time there is "news" it gets posted on a new thread on not the thread set up for it.  However, to put it in perspective, this is just another report by an unofficial news outlet and as it points out, there has been no official confirmation of this news.  As has been mentioned all over these threads, we need to wait for letters, either personal ones confirming continued CMU membership or a copy of the letter to the CPAMs telling them what is happening.  If this is true it will be good news for many, but as already pointed out, it discriminates against those who paid NI in the UK and allows those who didn't who went straighht into the CMU to benefit from continued membership of the CMU.  There are a lot of issues still to be resolved I think before this is put to bed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had an e-mail from Stephanie Gaillard (press officer for the French social security department) today, concerning a number of issues I raised with her :

1.- Concernant les ressortissants de Jersey, d'après nos informations,  ils sont dans la même situation que les ressortissants d'Etat tiers et doivent donc être titulaires d'une carte de séjour. En conséquence, ils ne peuvent être traités comme des ressortissants UE et donc leur affiliation antérieure à la CMU devrait prendre pour base l'existence d'un titre de séjour. Lorsqu'ils sont en possession d'un tel titre, ils sont réguliers et peuvent bénéficier de la CMU.

 

2.- S'agissant des personnes dont le E 106 arrive à expiration bientôt, sauf à pouvoir les rattacher à des droits à couverture maladie dans leur pays d'origine, ils doivent se doter d'une couverture maladie pour être réguliers au séjour en France.

 

3.- La circulaire qui définira le statut des personnes déjà établies en France sortira très prochainement. D'ici là, nous ne pouvons vous communiquer aucune information. Ce texte sera mis en ligne dès qu'il sera officiel sur notre site www.securite-sociale.fr.

 

1.  I asked her why non- EU residents (specifically those from the Channel Islands) are being refused health cover. Her reply makes it quite clear that if they have a carte de sejour then they are entitled to join the CMU.  Confirms that it is EU nationals who are being discriminted against.

2.  Those with E106's which are about to run out - the answer seems to be "tough" unless the UK government will do something about it.

3.  I asked her about the 5 year rule (as reported in Connexion) and the IFP article which suggested that all those people already in the CMU will be allowed to remain in it.  As you see, the response is basically "watch this space" - but she does not discount the latter scenario, at least.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="martin"]

This was on The Connexion website 6 Nov....................

 

CONFIRMATION OF FIVE-YEAR RULE AMID CONFUSION

http://www.connexionfrance.com/expatriate-news-article.php?art=51

Post edited by a moderator to remove text of above article, due to copyright issues.

[/quote]Actually it was a subsequent article I was referring to

 

http://www.connexionfrance.com/expatriate-news-article.php?art=55

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reply to Mary Honeyball from the commission has now been published

 

P-4833/07EN

Answer given by Mr Špidla

on behalf of the Commission

(7.11.2007)

 

 

The Honourable Member refers to the situation of British citizens residing in France who, due to a change in French legislation, can no longer be covered by the "Couverture Maladie Universelle" (CMU), which is a French sickness insurance scheme for persons who are not insured under any sickness insurance scheme for specific categories of insured persons.

 

Under Regulation (EC) No 1408/71[1], workers and pensioners, as well as the members of their family, residing in a Member State other than the one in which they work or which pays their pension, are entitled to sickness benefits in the Member State of residence under the same conditions as a national of this Member State, but on behalf of the Member State where they work or which pays their pension.

 

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 only covers workers (employed and self-employed), students, civil servants, pensioners and the members of their family and their survivors. However, European citizens who do not come under any of these categories, e.g. post-active persons who are not - yet - entitled to a statutory pension, would not be covered by Regulation (EC) No 1408/71[2]. In such cases, only national legislation applies.

 

Under Directive 2004/38/EC, inactive Union citizens must have sufficient resources not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State, and comprehensive sickness insurance coverage in the host Member State. Following the acquisition of the permanent right of residence (normally after five consecutive years of legal residence) these conditions are no longer applicable.  Furthermore, the Directive provides that Union citizens shall enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that State within the scope of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

 

The Commission will contact the French authorities in order to obtain detailed information about the French legislation on the "CMU" and examine its compatibility with Community law.

 



[1]     Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.

[2]     See judgement of  Court of Justice of 11.7.1996, in the case C-25/96, Otte.

3 Directive 2004/38/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, OJ L 158, 30.4.2004.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coops!

Did I read it right? That Jersey citizens ARE entitled to CMU cover? I shall certainly take a copy of this and use it as ammo. when I go to our local CPAM offices. Just waiting on Jersey social security letter confirming Jersey is non in the EU. You're a gem. Thanks for thinking of us Channel Islanders.

Christine.X

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mrs. P."]

Coops!

Did I read it right? That Jersey citizens ARE entitled to CMU cover? I shall certainly take a copy of this and use it as ammo. when I go to our local CPAM offices. Just waiting on Jersey social security letter confirming Jersey is non in the EU. You're a gem. Thanks for thinking of us Channel Islanders.

Christine.X

[/quote]I'm just running it past a French person, to make sure I haven't misinterpreted this, but yes, to me that is what it says - but because you are from outside the EU you are obliged to have a titre de sejour first, so don't be tripped up by that!

Actually, to my mind it is critical information for everybody within the EU also as it becomes even more clear that non EU'ers get better treatment than us.  So much for free movement.  Good ammunition for everybody who is writing letters to MP/MEPs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hang on, it is widely thought by many French that this residency thing,  needing evidence of adequate resources and health care provision is not specifically aimed at their EU neighbours but is part of the grand plan to curb immigration by claiming of unemployment beneditss etc bu immigrants and healthcare tourism in France particularly from its former colonies. They had to embrace the EU so as not to  be seen as targetting only Arabs or Africans.  As non EU citizens AFAIK, they now have to have get a  Tde S or visa, so if the Channel Islands are not part of the EU what do they have to have to move to France to live?  Are there special conditions?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron, this is way beyond my area of expertise but Mme Gaillard seems to me to be saying that the rules for Channel Islanders to move here are ipso facto the same as those for any non-EU citizen - Australian, African, Canadian, whatever.  And we already know that they can use the CMU (that's the irony of the whole thing) if they are legal immigrants and comply with all the other requirements for such people.  Hence my caveat - if you're going to claim you can get in the CMU because you are NOT European, then you have to do everything anybody else in the same position is required to do - about which, as I say, I do not personally know the ins and outs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 A "true" Channel Islander ( that is to say someone that cannot claim EU citizenship through a parent or grandparent ) has no automatic right to live or work in the EU. It used to be stamped in the passport. I believe that they have to apply in the same way as someone from, say, the US. Of course if they are married to a EU citizen they can get in that way.

Antonia (ex. C.I.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Jersey citizens advice bureau

 

 

 

 

6.7.1.L1
Employment abroad

Extent: Jersey

 
---------------------------------------------------

 The right to work in EU countries

Jersey-born people should check their passports before considering working abroad to ensure that they do not have the endorsement on page 6 which means that they do not have the right to work in EU countries other than the UK. If a parent or grandparent was born in the UK this endorsement ought not be in the passport and the client should visit the Immigration and Nationality Department to seek an amendment taking proof of the UK connection.

If the client wishes to seek employment or establish a home of any kind in one of the Member countries of the European Community it is essential that s/he contact that country's nearest Embassy or Consulate (see 7.8.1 ). Failure to do so may result in her/him not being adequately covered by Social Security or being faced with unexpected bills for taxes etc, or being unable to live in property that s/he may have purchased.

If there is no endorsement in the passport it is still sensible to contact the appropriate Consulate if intending seeking employment or settling in another Member country.

 

 

My reading of this is that if a person has the endorsement then they would probably need a Visa to enter France and thereafter need a Carte de Sejour.

If they do not have this endorsement then probably the same rules apply as for other UK citizens ie no entitlement to CMU

This is made pretty clear from the response to Mary Honeyballs question which I posted earlier but which has been studiously ignored

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, BoF, didn't mean to ignore you (no internet for 36 hours and 150 e-mails in my inbox!)  The reply to Mary H's point is ambiguous isn't it?  It sort of says the French appear to be acting within the law, then takes it back in the same breath!  A letter which an FHI correspondant received this week also indicated that the Commission is "investigating" the legislation.  That's progress, at least.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big question.Is CMU legislation incompatable with EU law?

It says that CMU is available for anyone residing legally in France for more than 3 months and who does not have access to another form of Medical assurance is entitled to CMU

I do not see how that breaches EU law.

Article 24

Equal treatment

1. Subject to such specific provisions as are expressly

provided for in the Treaty and secondary law( ie if inactive have sufficient funds and comprehensive medical assurance until they have 5 years residency), all Union citizens

residing on the basis of this Directive in the territory of the

host Member State shall enjoy equal treatment with the

nationals of that Member State within the scope of the Treaty.

The benefit of this right shall be extended to family members

who are not nationals of a Member State and who have the

right of residence or permanent residence.

 

Therefore Article 24 could be taken to  exclude the host member state from an obligation to provide comprehensive medical assurance until the person has 5 years residency.

Member states can chose to impose more favourable conditions  ie   Anyone on CMU on 30th Sept 2007 will continue their entitlement but they are under no obligation to give this concession

 These are my thoughts and until someone can find out the exact reasoning the French have used to implement these new rules we will find it difficult to challenge them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]

The big question.Is CMU legislation incompatable with EU law?

[/quote]

I have submitted a petition to the EU saying the following. Anyone can submit the same or a different petition/complaint or contact the EU Ombudsman at (click on word to link to site)

Petition

Complaint

EU Ombudsman

 

Application of Article 24 of EU Directive 2004/38EC to French healthcare provisions for EU Citizens from other Member States

 LOI no 2006-911 du 24 juillet 2006 and Décret no 2007-371 du 21 mars 2007 issued by the French Government have made changes to rules of residence for, among others, existing and potential residents of France who are 'inactive' ['inactif].   This term, though not defined, is taken to refer to those who are not employed, self-employed or seeking employment. 

 Clarification of the application of this legislation as it to healthcare in France is contained in a statement from the French Government ‘Point d'information: Affiliation à la CMU pour les ressortissants britanniques inactifs’. This statement was issued on 19 September 2007 and amended on 24 September 2007 and is available at http://www.securite-sociale.fr/comprendre/europe/europe/cmu_inactifs.htm).

 Existing and future 'Inactif' EU Citizens from other Member Sates will no longer be able to obtain health insurance through the French ‘Couverture Maladie Universelle’ [CMU] even though such cover would allow them to meet with the the requirement to obtain 'une assurance maladie' contained in the above quoted French legislation.

 At this time, this appears to be a policy decision and not one reflected in any change to the legislation governing access to the CMU.  However, even if the decision was transposed into law it would not affect the substance of this petition.

 The exclusion of inactive EU Citizens from other Member States is not an exclusion which has been applied to French nationals.

 The fact that the French Government relies on EU Directive 2004/38EC (in particular Article 7 (1) (b)) to underpin both the French legislation and its clarification statement in regard to ‘inactive’ residents from other Member States is relevant. This EU Directive does not provide, in respect of Article 7 any derogation from Article 24. Therefore, in the words of Article 24 ‘provisions as are expressly provided for’ do not exist to negate the supremacy of Article 24 over the contents and application of Article 7 (1) (b).

 This petition seeks redress and remedy for the French Government's decision  to exclude certain EU Citizens from the CMU while not applying that rule equally, as required by Article 24 of EU Directive 200/38EC, to all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Ron Avery"]Hang on,.........?[/quote]

This is the information for US Citizens seeking long term visas.  You will see it does include insurance.  However, I have heard of US Citizens, having obtained the CdeS afilitaing to the CMU from when their original 'entry' insurance expired http://www.ambafrance-us.org/visitingfrance/usvisas.asp

LONG STAY VISA

If you are a U.S. citizen and would like to travel to France, Monaco, an Overseas Department (DOM) or Territory or New Caledonia for a long stay (over 90 days)

You DO need a visa. 

Please submit:

  • a passport signed and valid 3 months after the last day of stay + 3 photocopies (The consulate will not keep the passport, only the copies)

  • 4 long stay visa application forms signed and legibly filled out. 

  • 5 recent passport-size photographs .

  • Financial guarantee such as:
    - a formal letter of reference from the applicant's bank showing account numbers and balances or recent bank, savings or brokerage account statements + 3 copies
    - for people wishing to retire in France, proof of sufficient income: pension, dividends, savings, band and brokerage account statements + 3 copies

  • Proof of medical insurance with coverage valid in France + 3 copies

  • Police clearance: document obtained from the Police Department of the place of residence in the United States stating that the applicant has no criminal record + 3 copies

  • Letter from applicant certifying that he/she will not have any paid activity in France

  • Visa fee

There is more info here: http://www.amb-usa.fr/consul/acs/guide/STAYOFF.PDF   pages 10 & 11 are relevant re CdeS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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...