BREAKING NEWS ON EXPAT HEALTH COVER

[Clair]

Two articles on the subject:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2007/10/17/expatriate-health-insurance2.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/global/2007/10/17/expatriate-health-insurance3.xml

Edit: the Telegraph website seems to be having problems this morning...

[cooperlola]

Mary Honeyball has now submitted a written declaration to the European Parliament :

XXXX/2007

Written declaration on health care provision for European Citizens residing in another Member State

The European Parliament,

–    having regard to Rule 116 of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas EU law upholds the right to freedom of movement and freedom of residence across the European Union,

B.   whereas access to health care is fundamentally important to all citizens

1.   Recognises the fundamental principle of reciprocity of health care provision across the European Union,

2.   Expresses grave concern that some EU citizens not born in France but legally resident there are being denied state health care provision despite paying all relevant taxes,

3.   Recognises that private health care may not be available or affordable for citizens with disabilities or those with existing conditions,

4.   Calls on Member States to uphold the principle of reciprocity of health care provision; further calls on Member States not to make changes to health care provision that will deny EU citizens, who are non-nationals access to state health care,

5.   Calls on the European Commission to undertake a review of the manner in which Member States generally are operating the principal of reciprocity of health care provision to ensure that all Member States are complying with their obligations under the Treaties in this regard,

6.   Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories, to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

 

[cooperlola]

deleted

[BJSLIV]

What's up, has it changed back again?

[cooperlola]

Sorry BJSLIV, still investigating.  [:-))]

[Jay]

I wrote to my (UK) MEP's regarding the changes to the health system and got two replies. Make of them what you will:

1) received 18/10/07

Further to my email of 24th September (receipt of E-mail), Giles has asked me

to let you know that he has taken up this issue with the Prime Minister.Please bear with us while we await a reply from Gordon

Brown. 

 Kind regards

Netia Carr (Mrs)

Secretary to Giles Chichester MEP

and

2) received 19/10/07

Thank you for your email to Graham Booth MEP and as he is currently 
away from the office he has asked me to reply on his behalf.  
He is sorry to hear that you are affected by this issue - he is aware 
about it and has been contacted by a number of British citizens living in France.

 Unfortunately there is nothing he can do as this is a domestic French

decision made by the French government.  The only way of

influencing

policy development is via the French political system.  His best

advice

is for you, along with others, to lobby French politicians and French

representatives for the are where you live.

With kind regards

 Yours sincerely

S Palfrey

Assistant to Graham Booth MEP

[cooperlola]

Jay,

I got a similar daft reply from an MEP.  For what it's worth, here is my reply.  Although not directly relevant, I hope you can find some useful bits in it to rebut Graham Booth's  response. At least you can use bits of it to point out that it is certainly an EU matter.  Mary Honeyball clearly believes that it is too!:

"You stated that the French Government is simply upholding Directive 38/2004
which requires that any 'inactive' wishing to move to France should have
'comprehensive sickness insurance'. I am sure that you are well aware that
this requirement is not a new initiative but existed in the legislation that
Directive 38/2004 replaced.  In which case, why is it that for the last 7
years 'inactive' British nationals living in France were required by French
law to join the French Health system via the CMU  and that if a British
national had in fact had private 'comprehensive sickness insurance', they
would have been in breach of French law ?
 I am sure that the French Government has not sought to disregard European
law for the past 7 years but that perhaps instead, the French Government
were able to make use of a "more favourable provision " clause which allowed
British nationals in France to legally affiliate to the CMU without either
party being in breach of European law.

It is worthy of note, that a similar provision exists in the present
Directive as such, France could continue to accept both current and
newcomers into their health system. The French Government have not been
legally forced into their current position by the Directive, they have
voluntarily chosen to take this stance.

The French CMU (Couverture Maladie Universelle) is quite clear in its
conditions for entry,

http://www.cmu.fr/site/cmu.php4?Id=5&PHPSESSID=31f391728f618242091f9f8e2cf67194

and nowhere is it stated that French "inactifs" are now to be excluded from
it.  So clearly, even though UK citizens comply with each and every
condition within it - apart from the fact of their national origin and the
colour of their passport - the discrimination here is against our country of
birth, not our employment situation.

Further, the condition for EU nationals in the UK to receive NHS treatment,
is based purely on residence, is it not? Those of us who live in France
currently, complied with the conditions of residence here in France,as they
legally existed when they moved.  They have already gained and established
their right of residency and are, ipso facto, settled here, as of right.
However, the retrospective nature of this move, is to alter the conditions
for those who have already complied.  How is this even legal, let alone
moral?

Finally, it is a condition, under EU directives, to publicise fully, any
changes which are made which affect or may affect citizens of member states.
Clearly, this has not been done.  Around 7,000 UK citizens alone, have E106s
which are running currently.  It is likely that at least 30% of these are
about to lose all access to state healthcare in January.  Many others face
exclusion from the CMU in March next year.  And yet, the British Embassy's
Paris arm has a website which still informs citizens that they can join the
CMU - even though its sister site in the UK has been altered.  No official
announcement has been made in either the UK or the French media, and the
French health helplines and websites are still unclear and ill-informed.  If
nothing else, this directive alone is being flouted."

[makfai]

[quote user="Jay"]

2) received 19/10/07

Thank you for your email to Graham Booth MEP and as he is currently 
away from the office he has asked me to reply on his behalf.  
He is sorry to hear that you are affected by this issue - he is aware 
about it and has been contacted by a number of British citizens living in France.

 Unfortunately there is nothing he can do as this is a domestic French
decision made by the French government.  The only way of influencing
policy development is via the French political system.  His best advice
is for you, along with others, to lobby French politicians and French
representatives for the are where you live.

With kind regards

 Yours sincerely

S Palfrey

Assistant to Graham Booth MEP

[/quote]

This is ridiculous but is a misconception based on the mis-interpretation that this is all about healthcare.  Healthcare falls within the purview of the national government so the MEP thinks that is aa nice get-out.  However, the French legislation stems from EU Legislation and is to do with rights of residence - i.e. immigration. Which the EU has a say in. 

The EU Directive (2004/38EC) on which the French law is based says that it is about '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, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC'.

The aim of the Directive was: ‘to codify and review the existing Community instruments dealing separately with workers, self-employed persons, as well as students and other inactive persons in order to simplify and strengthen the right of free movement and residence of all Union citizens.'

In fact the French law is unambiguous on the fact that it is about residence/immigration as its titles are:

 

• ‘LOI no 2006-911 du 24 juillet 2006 relative à l’immigration et à l’intégration’ and

 

• Décret n° 2007-371 du 21 mars 2007 relatif au droit de séjour en France des citoyens de l'Union européenne, des ressortissants des autres Etats parties à l'Espace économique européen et de la Confédération suisse ainsi que des membres de leur famille’

and the English law is equally unambiguous: 'Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 1003 The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006’.

The EU Directive compelled EU Member States to make legislation - so to suggest that it is not the business of an MEP is nonsense and a sign of incompetence

I have also emailed you.  Keep plugging away!

 

[Benjamin]

With kind regards

 Yours sincerely

S Palfrey

Assistant to Graham Booth MEP

I'm sorry if this causes offence but WHAT A T*SSER.

[Ron Avery]

Benjamin old chum, what do you expect from a member of UKIP?

They would rather not have a European Parliament at all and UKIP are certainly not going to support those who associate with those dagos and froggies over the water[:D].

[cooperlola]

But if it gives them a nice fat salary and a comfy life in Belgium, what the heck?  So what if we are paying these tos.... What was the word,  Benjamin?[:D]

[Lehaut]

Those of us who have the 5 year residency box ticked may be interested in the following which I have just received from the Embassy in Paris.  Have been pushing them for a reply for some time:

 

Dear .....

 

We understand that this situation is very frustrating.  However, I assure you - as I said in my previous email - that our Health Attaché is in regular contact with the French Health Ministry regarding this measure and is representing your concerns.  Because this measure has only recently been instated, not all CPAM offices have yet received the updated information from the French government.  The French Health Ministry will be sending a circular to the local CPAM offices clarifying the directive on residency very soon. This is French law and the French Ministry of Health has to issue this information to its own local offices.  We are working with the French government to make sure that they do this as quickly as possible.

 

Kind regards

Sara Gill

Press and Communications
British Embassy 

[cooperlola]

Thanks Lehaut.  I had also heard that a circular was going out, and also that the "5 year" rule might be clarified to CPAMs but nothing as to its true content. Thanks for that.

Can we put this reply on our website? Pretty please?

[Lehaut]

[quote user="cooperlola"]

Thanks Lehaut.  I had also heard that a circular was going out, and also that the "5 year" rule might be clarified to CPAMs but nothing as to its true content. Thanks for that.

Can we put this reply on our website? Pretty please?

[/quote]

 

Fine, if it helps others.

[Deimos]

Re: the British Embassy Response

It says that apparently not all CPAMs have been

told yet but it does not say what the CPAMs are being told. Given

how the French have previously given assurances and changed their

mids I whould have expected the British Embassy to have been

furnished a copy of what was being sent to the cPAM offices - so they

can be sure and confidant exactly what was said. If they are just

going on verbal assurances again - then they are probably not worth

the paper ... (except of course there is actually nothing in writing

at all).

Ian

[cooperlola]

There is apparently a statement "in the pipeline" going out to CPAMs - this Embassy response is not the first time I have heard about this.  I know no details, sadly, but believe that the 5 year rule, and existing chronic conditions may be mentioned.  But you are right, Ian, just rumour until we see it.   We are keeping an eye fixed on the government circulars website all the time....  Until then we limp along in limbo.  Can't be doing anybody's health any good!

[Maricopa]

Whilst not "breaking news" we have just received letters from the CPAM at Beziers, asking us to either request extensions from the UK to our E106's, or to furnish further proof of our situation in France to allow them to restudy our rights ( preusmably to health cover)  It does not, currently, ask us to provide proof of health insurance.

It comes from the Relations Internationales department, and interestingly quotes our temporary Social Security numbers, not the permanent ones on our Carte Vitales.  A copy of the text itself (produced by OCR, hence no accents)is below:-

La validite du formulaire E 106 prenant fin Ie 05/01/2008, je vous informe que les droits servis au titre des Relations Internationales de Securite Sociale ne seront plus ouverts aupres de notre organisme.

 

Je vous demande de bien vouloir contacter dans les meilleurs delais votre Organisme de Securite Sociale a l'etranger pour obtenir Ie renouvellement de votre formulaire afin de me permettre de reconduire vos droits aupres de nos services.

 

En cas de non renouvellement dudit formulaire, veuillez vous presenter a I' accueil de notre organisme dans les meilleurs delais muni de votre Carte Vitale et de tout justificatif de votre situation actuelle pour une nouvelle etude de vos droits.

           Veuillez agreer, Monsieur, l'assurance de ma consideration distinguee.

It does however firmly state that from the date of expiry of our E106's, that we will no longer have the right to access to their services.

Just thought this might be of general interest.[:(]

[Russethouse]

Perhaps its going to be a requirement, somewhere along the line, that you present a refusal of the right to an E106. I'd get something in writing asap.

[krusty]

[quote user="Russethouse"]Perhaps its going to be a requirement, somewhere along the line, that you present a refusal of the right to an E106. I'd get something in writing asap.[/quote]

I must have had a premonition , I emailed to see if mine could be extended last week and have had a reply from DWP saying no , when it ends in jan 2008 thats it.

[cooperlola]

[quote user="Russethouse"]Perhaps its going to be a requirement, somewhere along the line, that you present a refusal of the right to an E106. I'd get something in writing asap.[/quote]It was always the case that you had to present the  "no longer entitled" letter from the DWP in the days when you needed it to get into the CMU.

[Deimos]

I notice the British Embassy web site now says

that the French are honouring the 5-year residence rule. However,

there is no date on this info so I have no idea if this is today's

decision, last weeks, or still hanging around from Sept (why do

people rarely put dates on web pages !!).

Also, the link for the info they give - to the

French service public site thing is to a page dated 24/Sept and makes

no mention of the 5 year rule - just says "no E106/E121 and

"inactif" and you are out. Is this old news or is there

some change ?

Ian

[Cat]

The 5-year rule has been on the embassy site for quite a while now, old news, no change.

[Maricopa]

I have given further thought to my previous post, and I suspect this might be the standard letter two months (or so), before the E106 expires[8-)]

[Chassaing]

Today we went out to test the French Healthcare System without a Carte Vitale and just our Full Healthcare.

OK it was just a Dental Xray, but it reminded me of this  video.

Enjoy a few truths..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JJ-tK7-gIk

PS. The Xray cost us €30.

[Jay]

Received a letter from l'Assurance Maladie today 31/10/07 which I have copied below. We have been in France for 5 years and have Carte de Sejour dated November '02, we also have filled in tax forms here since day one. It would seem from this the 5 year rule does NOT apply. Anyone else in a similar situation?

J'ai bien reçu

votre courrier du 04/09/2007... présentant une demande de renouvellement du

bénéfice de la CMU. 

Je vous informe

qu'en raison de l'évolution du droit communautaire, les conditions d'accès à la

protection sociale des ressortissants communautaires « inactifs » ont été

modifiées. Aux termes de la directive communautaire n° 2004/38/CE du 29 avril

2004 transposée dans notre législation nationale par la loi n° 2006-911 du 24

juillet 2006 et le décret n° 2007-371 du 21 mars 2007, votre droit au séjour

est soumis à deux conditions : être préalablement bénéficiaire d'une assurance

maladie et disposer de ressources suffisantes. 

Cette nouvelle

réglementation ne permet plus à la Caisse Primaire d'Assurance Maladie de la

Charente de renouveler vos droits à la CMU. Je vous invite donc à contracter

une assurance privée afin de garantir votre prise en charge. 

A titre

transitoire, votre couverture maladie est néanmoins maintenue par la caisse

primaire jusqu'au 31 mars 2008 afin de vous permettre d'accomplir toutes

démarches utiles à votre affiliation auprès de l'organisme privé de votre

choix. 

Je vous invite à

vous adresser à nos services afin qu'ils procèdent à l'enregistrement de ces

droits temporaires dans votre carte vitale.