Supplementary Coverage in France + Full Coverage while visiting US?

[overeduc8ed]

Hi,

I am an American working in France, and am registered for France's standard social security program. As I understand it, I have no coverage whatsoever outside the EU. However, I do visit the US about three times a year (about 2 weeks each) and other non-EU countries approximately twice a year. I am also interested in a "mutuelle" for routine optical/dental care and to otherwise "top up" coverage while in the EU.

Can anybody recommend an (affordable) insurance company that might cover both needs? I've seen the policy offered by AARO, but it seems pricier than it should be. BTW, I'm 30 years old and in good health... I'm mostly interested in accident coverage and yearly eye/contact lens checkups.

I know I can get an ordinary mutuelle and subscribe to travel insurance as needed, but I'm hoping for a one-stop solution.

Thanks in advance!

[cooperlola]

They exist but may not be the cheaper option.  Mainly because the French "mutuelles" can be a better value bet for the top-up portion, than more traditional insurance companies (who have shareholders who'd like some of your money, thank you) who might provide you with your travel insurance in a package.  You can then get travel insurance (multi trip from Trailfinders costs about 60€ for the year, for instance) from a different company.

[Owen]

Hello overeduc8ed,

You should definitely go down the route of 2 separate policies. Complementary health insurers will usually only offer cover, if any, for treatment abroad up to the limit of what it would cost in France and even then there will be a overall maximum amount they will pay. And this will almost certainly not be enough for North America. The other thing that many people do not put great emphasis on when they go to the USA is Personal Liability cover So definitely take out a annual multi trip travel insurance most of which will cover these two items as well as other stuff such as Baggage and Cancellation.

Cooperola. Your preference for a mutuelle against a commercial insurer on the grounds of shareholder interests is not really a valid argument. In reality the difference between the two is not that great and as ever personal circumstances are the paramount factor. Someone who is a good risk may well obtain more appropriate and better value cover from an insurer whereas someone, for example, seeking more comprehensive optical and dental cover may well do better with a mutuelle.

Regards

Owen

pjowen@expathealthdirect.co.uk