CMU and alleged changes to elibility

[Chris]

Having read the article 'Thousands of expats lose access to French state healthcare cover' in September's issue of CONNEXION, I was shocked and not a little worried.

The editor stands by the article and the insurance salesman's quoted opinion of the 'facts'.

I contacted the British Embassy today and the reply is below.

"I

received your fax earlier today.  I have been told that an article

appeared in the British press last Sunday (Sunday Times) indicating

that there were changes afoot.

 

I

spoke to a French journalist yesterday who assured me that, following

discussions with the CNAM (Centre National d'Assurance Maladie, HQ for

CPAMs) in Paris, nothing will be changing in effect.  They confirmed

that if foreigners, who have not yet reached the accepted retirement

age applied in their respective countries, decide to come and live in

France, as long as they comply with the regulations (i.e.completing tax

returns, paying their contributions, etc), they will continue to be

able to sign on and benefit from the CMU.

 

The

Embassy is of course investigating these allegations but we have no

indication of a "new law" coming into effect.

Regards,

Alison de Grailly , Vice-Consul ,

British Consulate, 353 Boulevard Président Wilson, 33073 BORDEAUX CEDEX

Tel  +(0)5 57 22 21 18 "

The moral is: Do you trust  politicians, second hand car salesmen,

estate agents, insurance salesmen or journalists always to tell the

truth?

I hope this helps anyone, who is not a cheat, to continue to receive the healthcare to which they are entitled

[Ian]

I was in the UK this weekend and did see this article - it indicated non-working immigrants of below retirement age would be at risk.  This  kind of "Stop these foreign spongers coming over here claiming our benefits" type story is usually more Daily Mail than Sunday Times and I wondered how long it would take to hit the forums.

Glad to hear it is probably scaremongering.

[cooperlola]

In fairness, the journalist had talked to CNAM, and if there were a real story here, you can bet your life he would have picked up on it.

THIS

is the only actual decree which has been quoted, although there have been quotes about other things, but not from statutes, per se.  Mind you, I might have missed something....[8-)]

[cooperlola]

I'll drink to that.  [B]

[BJSLIV]

It looks like Le Monde have spoken to a different part of the Health Ministry, who admit that a number of people will no longer qualify for health cover having previously been covered in error!

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3214,36-951431@51-951543,0.html

Mais d'autres, définis comme "inactifs", non titulaires d'une pension d'un régime public, vivant par exemple sur leurs économies propres et n'étant pas préalablement affiliés à un régime d'assurance-maladie, sont en zone grise. Des résidents "flous", qui ont bénéficié de la CMU par erreur, pendant le temps de la transposition de la directive européenne en décret.

Le nombre de ces personnes, amenées à rendre leur carte Vitale, n'est pas connu. L'application du décret a deux objectifs : la conformité avec la législation européenne, et la fermeté vis-à-vis de certains inactifs aux revenus non identifiés qui abuseraient, volontairement ou non, de la CMU.

Peu de résidents ayant encore clairement compris qui était "flou" et qui ne l'était pas, les rumeurs enflent. Un article de l'hebdomadaire The Sunday Times a mis le feu aux poudres dans le petit milieu des 202 000 citoyens britanniques résidant en France, et surtout auprès des retraités anglais implantés en grand nombre dans les communes rurales. L'ambassade de Grande-Bretagne à Paris est assaillie d'appels affolés, sans compter le déchaînement sur Internet.

Le Figaro

[cooperlola]

"Zone grise" is right!  But this makes a little more sense now. 

[Will]

It is not a new law, it dates back to Sarko's time as Minister of the Interior, before he became President. It is based on an EU directive from the previous year.

So the fonctionnaires are pefectly correct, in the best Sir Humphrey tradition, to say they have no knowledge of a new law.

 

[Chris]

I think it is quite straightforward.  There have been many immigrants of all types who have abused the system in that either they do not complete a tax return, so appear not to have any revenue on which the CPAM can base their contribution, or they so 'manage' their income to stay under the threshold where contributions start.  These people have for some reason been accepted into the system, have had Cartes Vitales and cheated the rest us us who have played a straight bat.  Any new amendment decree is I think to close that loophole (thankfully)

Those immigrants who qualify ie from EU member states with an E106, who fill in a tax return and contribute to the cost via URSSAF (CPAM) will remain eligible, provided that they can prove that they satisfy the stable residency criteria.  That of course includes those under retirement age and not in employment.

I suggest anyone who is still not clear contacts the British Embassy, as I did earlier today.

[BJSLIV]

will remain eligible

Unfortunately thats not what Le Monde was told.

[Chris]

I am no expert, hence my activity today to try and find out.  However, looking at a previous post and the quote from le Monde "....la fermeté vis-à-vis de certains inactifs aux revenus non identifiés qui abuseraient, volontairement ou non, de la CMU...." suggests that is the case and those who are straight will have nothing to fear.

That does not mean that individual CPAMs will not put their own interpretation on things, and that is where the struggle may start for some folk.  Certainly the paperwork that I have just completed for my 2008 contributions made no mention of cutting me off and simply asked for proof of residency, tax demand and copy of passport.Everything was as normal as previous years.

I am an optimist and merely pass on the information I have gleaned today which is more authoritative than what was no more than a free advert for an insuarance company in the CONNEXION article

[Sharkster]

If the Le Monde article is correct, it seems to say anybody who has CMU, whether they pay or not, would no longer be entitled to healthcare through the state system.  The only expats who would be covered would be people with an E form and people who have a French employer or are self employed and pay contributions to social security through another means other than CMU.  If this is true, it will affect a huge number of expats.

[Chris]

I understand the position to be this. Whether one is employed, self employed or retired is not the point It is whether income is declared or not. If it is not, then the CPAM cannot calculate whether the applicant should contribute or not. 

I do not believe Le Monde article is saying that, though I could be wrong and the line " fermeté vis-à-vis de certains inactifs aux revenus non identifiés qui abuseraient, volontairement ou non, de la CMU...."  It is the "unidentified revenue" which seems to be the key, not that they are not employed for whatever reason .

[Busy Bee]

Puzzled,

Help - do you have any tips for claiming the child benefit please - mine was stopped in February and I am still waiting.  The latest news from the CAF is that my refusal letter from Newcastle letter is currently at the CAF translation bureau, awaiting translation, 10 weeks now, and that nothing can be done except wait.  They have advised me to write and complain but although my spoken french is good, writing is another matter altogether.

Thanks

[cooperlola]

Could somebody clear one thing up for me, please?  How do people get into the CMU without completing a tax form.  When our E106's ran out last year, we were asked by our CPAM for our RFR's so that our contributions could be calculated.  How do you know your RFR if you haven't filled in a tax form in the first place?  How did anybody get a Carte Vitale, post E106, without declaring their incomes legitimately (and I don't mean those who lied on their tax returns.)  On many of these related threads, these people are referred to but I still haven't worked out who they can be.

[Helen]

I've been trying to find the official documentation. The relevant laws and codes are ion the CMU website.  http://www.cmu.fr/site/cmu.php4?Id=3&cat=55

This is what I've extracted.

Toute personne résidant en France métropolitaine ou dans un département d'outre-mer de façon stable et régulière relève du régime général lorsqu'elle n'a droit à aucun autre titre aux prestations en nature d'un régime d'assurance maladie et maternité.

Un décret en Conseil d'Etat précise la condition de résidence mentionnée au présent article.

there are 6 categories of people not entitled one of which (if I read it correctly) jobseekers from the EU This clause states that all people who are legally and regularly living here have a right to be covered The definition of legal residence is contained in a decret by the Conseil d’Etat.

In the decret.

Les personnes de nationalité étrangère doivent en outre justifier qu'elles sont en situation régulière au regard de la législation sur le séjour des étrangers en France à la date de leur affiliation.

Does one affiliate each year or renew? That might make a difference. It also depends on what is defined as legal residence. This is perhaps where a change has come in the implementation of an EU directive. This I found at: http://www.europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l33152.htm

 

European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004

The right of residence for more than six months remains subject to certain conditions. Applicants must:

• either be engaged in economic activity (on an employed or self-employed basis);
• or have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. The Member States may not specify a minimum amount which they deem sufficient, but they must take account of personal circumstances

The condition of having sickness insurance is I think the one causing the problems. I have read elsewhere that the Insurance companies gained a European ruling that it was illegal to stop their sale. This has the add on effect of making it possible for the French authorities to deny CMU since private healthcare is now legal.

There are also 2 other clauses in the EU directive which I am personally hoping apply

Union citizens acquire the right of permanent residence in the host Member State after a five-year period of uninterrupted legal residence, provided that an expulsion decision has not been enforced against them. This right of permanent residence is no longer subject to any conditions........

Union citizens qualifying for the right of residence or the right of permanent residence and the members of their family also benefit from equal treatment with host-country nationals in the areas covered by the Treaty. However, the host Member State is not obliged to grant entitlement to social security during the first three months of residence to persons other than employed or self-employed workers and the members of their family. Equally, host Member States are not required, prior to the acquisition of the permanent right of residence, to grant maintenance aid for studies, including for vocational training, in the form of grants or loans to these same persons

[Cat]

I don't know if anyone has already posted this link http://timescorrespondents.typepad.com/charles_bremner/2007/09/france-cuts-bri.html

But in it the journalist says that ...

The change was well known, but it appears that some regional authorities may be acting with Sarkozy-style rigour and cancelling Cartes Vitales (the entitlement card) held by Britons already in the French system. The Paris Social Security ministry tells us that this is impossible since the change applies only to new applicants.