BREAKING NEWS ON EXPAT HEALTH COVER

[Will]

[quote user="Helen"]Does anyone know what RCS stands for?

[/quote]

Registre du commerce et des sociétés - in this context it refers to somebody who has neither been a salaried employee nor run a business with a SIREN number.

[Clair]

Thanks for that excellent summary SD.

[rothrugby]

Just to let everyone know that in view of the recent contradictory press release obtained by Living France, I have contacted the British Embassy for their comments. I am a bit confused as CNAMTS is a dept concerned with salaried workers and CLEISS is a French Govt advisory body so what they are doing issuing rules I don't know!!

Once I get a reply, I will obviously post it

[Clair]

[quote user="rothrugby"]

Just to let everyone know that in view of the recent contradictory press release obtained by Living France, I have contacted the British Embassy for their comments. I am a bit confused as CNAMTS is a dept concerned with salaried workers and CLEISS is a French Govt advisory body so what they are doing issuing rules I don't know!!

Once I get a reply, I will obviously post it

[/quote]
Rothrugby,
Both agencies link with European and international health services.

CLEISS = Centre de Liaisons Européennes et Internationales de Sécurités Sociales
CNAMTS = Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Maladie des Travailleurs Salariés

CNAMTS has an international section: La mission des relations européennes internationales et de la coopération. 

[BJSLIV]

what they are doing issuing rules

They are simply given as contact points, the press release/ instruction was  issued by the Ministry of Social Security.

I still think this is where the British Embassy should be liaising, not the Ministry of Health. Its not a question about the provision of health-care, but about payment for health-care.

[BJSLIV]

Can't see how that would really help. Its dealing with exporting social security benefits, and as far as I'm aware the UK doesn't have a statutory pre-retirement scheme to export .

[makfai]

rothrugby said: Just to let everyone know that in view of the recent contradictory press release obtained by Living France, I have contacted the British Embassy for their comments. I am a bit confused as CNAMTS is a dept concerned with salaried workers and CLEISS is a French Govt advisory body so what they are doing issuing rules I don't know!!

Once I get a reply, I will obviously post it

 

 

This is the reply I received from the Embassy today. Sorry for its length but I know people like to see the original of docs.

 

From: [email protected]

To: ....................................

Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 3:22 PM

Subject: RE: Comment from .............. - General

Hello

 

Thank you for contacting the Public Enquiries section of the British Embassy in Paris. Please take a look at the following updated information for healthcare coverage in France:

 

---

HEALTHCARE PROVISION IN FRANCE

The British Embassy are in close touch with the French Ministry of Health to clarify the situation regarding healthcare provision for EU citizens who are inactive and below retirement age in France.

The French authorities are applying strictly the EU Directive (2004/38) which will mean modifying the healthcare coverage available to some inactive people, including early retirees, from other EU countries who will be taking up residence in France.

However, the French Ministry of Health has assured us that the provision of healthcare to people already resident in France and subscribed through the French system will not be affected.

The French Ministry of Health has issued a statement regarding healthcare coverage for inactive people from the UK and other EU countries.

For further information, please contact:  

http://www.securite-sociale.fr/comprendre/europe/europe/cmu_inactifs.htm

---

 For further information, please contact:

The English language service of France's CPAM  

tel: +33 8 20 90 42 12

 

CLEISS (France's helpdesk for international mobility and social security):   

tel:+ 33 (0)1 45 26 33 41 

www.cleiss.fr 

11 rue de la tour des Dames 

 75436 Paris cedex 09

---

 

 DWP Overseas Medical Benefits line

International Pension Centre
Department for Work and Pensions
Room TC001
Tyneview Park
Whitley Road
Newcastle upon Tyne NE98 1BA

tel: (+44 191 218 1999) (Monday to Friday 8am-8pm)

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/Healthadvicefortravellers/DH_4115402

---

Kind Regards,

 

Cecilia Beloeil
Information assistant
Press and Communications
British Embassy
35 Rue du Faubourg Saint Honoré
75008,
Paris.
Tel: 01 44 51 32 81.
 Fax: 01 44 51 32 34

Pour une information vivante sur le Royaume-Uni, remise à jour au quotidien,

www.ambGB.com

et le guide en ligne du Royaume-Uni

www.i-uk.com/france

[cooperlola]

Well, Makfai, how bonkers can this get?  The letter states that current residents will not be affected, and then refers you to the French site, which says that our cover will last for 6 months only.  What an utter shambles.

[Cat]

Bonkers indeed!

The mail from the British Embassy is substantially the same as the mail quoted below, but with the addition at the end that includes the french web-site link .  http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/3/1020804/ShowPost.aspx#1020804

It couldn't be a cut and paste error to the previous (obviously stock) reply could it?  Surely, nobody could be that inattentive, could they? [:'(]

 

[cooperlola]

[quote user="Cat"]

It couldn't be a cut and paste error to the previous (obviously stock) reply could it?  Surely, nobody could be that inattentive, could they? [:'(]

 

[/quote]It certainly begs the question.  This would be very funny if it weren't such a serious subject.

[makfai]

[quote user="cooperlola"]Well, Makfai, how bonkers can this get?  The letter states that current residents will not be affected, and then refers you to the French site, which says that our cover will last for 6 months only.  What an utter shambles.[/quote]

 

I quite agree - in fact I was just about to post that comment to cheminot at page 5 of  http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/5/1019339/ShowPost.aspx#1019339 who said:

Having read this link this is what understand it to say:
Those who are 'inactive' and are at present affiliated to the CMU will have six months 'grace' to find alternative healthcare provision.
I assume this means six months from 30th september 2007 but it does not actually state this.
Holders of e106/121 will have thier cover withdrawn immediately upon the expiry of the said 'e' form. I dont know where this leaves people whose 'e' forms run out this coming january.

Does anyone concur with my interpretation?

cheminot

Just in case anyone is in any doubt, the copy of the message I have posted is an authentic copy of the one I received and not cobbled together from previous ones!

[Cat]

Noooo, I wasn't suggesting that the cut and paste error (if such it was) was yours, heaven forfend!  I was pointing the finger of suspicion at whoever sent out the email from the Embassy.

[makfai]

[quote user="Cat"]Noooo, I wasn't suggesting that the cut and paste error (if such it was) was yours, heaven forfend!  I was pointing the finger of suspicion at whoever sent out the email from the Embassy.[/quote]

 

Sorry...I knew what you were saying was aimed at the Embassy's author of the email....I was just trying to allay the concerns of others who may be thinking I had got it wrong or was up to mischief!  Have this one [B] on me for not having it made it clear...Good Health[;-)]

[makfai]

[quote user="makfai"]

[quote user="cooperlola"]Well, Makfai, how bonkers can this get?  The letter states that current residents will not be affected, and then refers you to the French site, which says that our cover will last for 6 months only.  What an utter shambles.[/quote]

 

I quite agree - in fact I was just about to post that comment to cheminot at page 5 of  http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/5/1019339/ShowPost.aspx#1019339 who said:

Having read this link this is what understand it to say:
Those who are 'inactive' and are at present affiliated to the CMU will have six months 'grace' to find alternative healthcare provision.
I assume this means six months from 30th september 2007 but it does not actually state this.
Holders of e106/121 will have thier cover withdrawn immediately upon the expiry of the said 'e' form. I dont know where this leaves people whose 'e' forms run out this coming january.

Does anyone concur with my interpretation?

cheminot

Just in case anyone is in any doubt, the copy of the message I have posted is an authentic copy of the one I received and not cobbled together from previous ones!

[/quote]

The issue here seems to be whether the phrase:  'les personnes inactives qui bénéficiaient déjà de la CMU du fait de la réglementation antérieure,' (in para 3 of the French statement) applies only to 'inactive' existing residents still on an E106 (in which case the Embassy's statement makes sense) or whether the phrase applies to all 'inactive' existing residents (in which case the Embassy's statement seems incompatible).

[Gardian]

As has been stated, this is a complete and utter communication shambles, yet crucially important to so many British who have chosen to make their life in France - and pay their way, incidentally.  This apparent ruling affects 000's of nationals crucially and for years, as opposed to some lone yachtsman lost in the Bay of Biscay who probably shouldn't have set off in the first place.

I'm sure that the oft-mentioned Cecilia Beloeil (Information Assistant) has been providing information with the best of intentions, but is she the proverbial 'horses mouth'?  Clearly not, from the seemingly official but contradictory French Health Ministry website postings. 

One would never wish to propose malpractice, but were someone to make an approach to the BA (or perhaps better, the FO in London direct) masquerading as a reporter from one of the 'Sundays', and highlighting the apparent disconnect, that might elicit some form of clarification. Insistence on speaking to the Head of Communications (at the very least) might get a better answer.   

[sunshine 2]

As yet another person who has been paying their way at 8%  of total income and had to join CMU because private health care was not allowed, the current situation is clearly a shambles - especially for those, like my husband, who has developed a serious condition while here and on CMU and would never get private health to cover that expensive condition.

Another thought occurs - what about the issuing of European health card cover (equivalent of the old E1 11).  Currently that is issued to us by CMU.  Who is going to be responsible for providing that in the future - not a private health company surely???  We need that card in order to be able to visit other European countries, including UK.  How are those who come over on E106's in the future and are then prepared to pay for private health cover, going to get a European health card after expiry of their E106.  Ok this is not the most pressing of issues but an example of how complex the whole issue is and how the ramifications are extremely far reaching.

[Pommier]

Does this ruling apply only to British people (what about the Northern Irish?)? or does it apply to other EU citizens?

It appears that American citizens are currently allowed to join CMU. Are they going to be affected?

[Will]

Just to play Devil's advocate, do you actually pay your way at 8% of income above a certain threshold? I have seen elsewhere that the average cost per head of the CMU was something around 3000€ per year in 2005, which are the most recent figures available, and is no doubt higher at present. My calculator says that at 8% one would need an income of well over 40,000€ in order to cover even that average, and, virtually by definition, the non-actifs are likely to cost the health service more than the average amount.

I have also seen, unconfirmed, that the British government pays around £2000 per annum for each E121 holder. So that is closer to the average.

I suppose a logical way of solving the problem would be to increase the cost of CMU cover, after all the self-employed apparently pay around 12% of taxable income, and, taking employer and employee contributions into account, the salaried contribute an even higher percentage.

[makfai]

[quote user="cheryla"]

Does this ruling apply only to British people (what about the Northern Irish?)? or does it apply to other EU citizens?

It appears that American citizens are currently allowed to join CMU. Are they going to be affected?

[/quote]

 

See page 6 of  http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/6/1019339/ShowPost.aspx#1019339

[Richard]

My first post. Does anyone know any Dutch, Belgian, German 'immigrants' who are in the same position, i.e. early-retired, non-working? What are they saying? Are they affected in the same way (if not, why not?) and what are THEY doing about it? Do they actually KNOW about it? Whatever influence or pressure that they can bring to bear can only be beneficial and will help everyone. Rather than start looking for private health insurance, surely it would be better to start setting in motion some united opposition to what is clearly an ill-conceived, illogical (how very French!!) and probably illegal piece of 'legislation' that will have potentially catastrophic consequences for perhaps thousands of EU citizens currently living quite lawfully in France. Has anyone contacted an MEP?

I have to say that, watching the situation unfold over the past week or so, the end result appears to coincide with the information given by my own CPAM about a week or ten days ago. The 'head man' there said that, although he didn't have the final details, in future all cotisations would be defined as 'working' or 'non-working'. If they're 'working' (employed or self-employed) you're unaffected. If they're non-working, you'll be taken out of the system. Clearly things have moved on a little and more details (6 months grace) are now known. He also said, and this is why I asked my first question about other nationalities, that he and most of his colleagues were horrified that this was about to happen to people who were legitimately paying into the system as they had been required to do and were now about to be excluded through absolutely no fault of their own. He HOPED that there would be loud and persistent protests about the situation and thought that, if there were, the government may well 'back-peddle', at least to the point of allowing existing subscribers to remain in the healthcare system.

Is there any chance that the same French 'official' dealing with this situation perhaps also oversaw the implementaion of the swimming pool security regulations a couple of years ago??!!

[makfai]

The more I think of this the less I see how the ruling can be lawfully applied retrospectively to existing residents.

The changes are underpinned by EC Directive 2004/38. On 30 April 2006, a new EC Residence Directive came into force. EC Directive 2004/38 repealed all existing EU residence directives and amended EC Regulation 1612/68, the regulation governing the rights of EU workers. The Directive introduced a simplified system of conditions governing the right of residence for all EU citizens.

This provides a summary from the UK perspective and an extract of a relevant part is included below http://www.cpag.org.uk/cro/wrb/wrb190/rights_of_residence.htm

It gives all EU nationals a right of entry to any EU state and allows a right of residence for the first three months of arriving in a new member state. This right of residence is conditional on the person not becoming an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host member state. Social assistance is generally taken to mean income support or income-based JSA in the UK.

To establish a right of residence after the initial three-month period, an EU national must fall within one of the following groups:

• employed (workers);

• self-employed;

• economically inactive people with sufficient resources to support themselves and insured against sickness;

• students who have sufficient means to support themselves at the start of their studies and who are insured against sickness;

• family members of any of the above who are accompanying or joining the EU national. 

It is because of the effect on residence that I do not believe that it would be seen as 'reasonable' in law to apply the new rules retrospectively. The effect would be 'disproportionate' on those people who had been residing in France quite legally under the previous arrangements which, in fact, compelled people to join the CMU.  There are some existing residents who may be unable to obtain insurance either because of pre-existing conditions or lack of finance or a combination of both.

How will the French deal with the residency of those who are not insured against sickness?  There is no practical way to 'withdraw' the existing residency.

[Will]

I think a lot of the confusion and clutching at straws that we see on the various forums comes from the fact that people expect other European countries to be like Britain.

Britain is unusual in that its eligibility to join its health system is based solely on residence. Most other health systems are based on paying into an insurance scheme, which may be state-controlled (like the French) or an approved private scheme. France got a bit confused (what's new?) when it tried to 'improve' things by bringing in the CMU which made it look more like the British system, though it remained insurance funded, through the CPAMs and the various trade and professional caisses. Many other countries' systems can easily be extended so that their nationals can continue to pay into their home country's insurance scheme, the only change being that they may actually reside elsewhere. The NHS, though, cannot do this. Other than through the E form system, once you cease to be 'ordinarily resident' in Britain you are no longer eligible for NHS cover.

I doubt if that will make things any easier for those caught between the two different systems, but it does attempt to explain a fundamental difference in European healthcare provision. Britain's NHS is founded on universal treatment for all genuine residents - France's CMU is not.

[cooperlola]

There is little doubt that even those of us who legally have paid our 8% are still not contributing enough to the French system - as it is clearly going bankrupt and something has to be done to prevent that.  Many posters on here reflect that fact : if they have to pay for their own health care, given the age bracket that the affected people here fall into, it is prohibitive - a sure indication of the cost to the French state of keeping us in the CMU system.  But this is still no excuse for the conflicting information which we are being given, by our own government representatives, and the French.  The ineffectual and, frankly, appalling way in which we are being informed (or not) of these changes is criminal, and very upsetting for some.

Has anybody written back to the lady at the Embassy to question the anomolies in her reply?

[Pommier]

Has anybody written back to the lady at the Embassy to question the anomolies in her reply?

I emailed her last night as follows:

 

Dear Ms Beloeil,

 

I have seen a copy of an email which you sent today regarding health cover for early retired people living in France part of which states

 

However, the French Ministry of Health has assured us that the provision of healthcare to people already resident in France and subscribed through the French system will not be affected.

You then refer to the following website

http://www.securite-sociale.fr/comprendre/europe/europe/cmu_inactifs.htm

 

which states that those British people already covered by CMU have six months in which to take out private health insurance.

 

This is contradictory and is adding to the deep concern and anxiety felt by many people affected by these changes.

 

I should be grateful for an early clarification of the changes to healthcare provision for those people already resident in France.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

I haven't had a reply as yet.

[Cat]

... and I have, with the consent of the original recipient of the above mentioned email, forwarded on the email to the Paris correspondent of the Times newspaper.  Well, he did ask for stories from readers [Www]