mikelincs

The present government is now saying that those people getting treatment, and not being able to use the NHS for free will be charged 150% of the acual cost of the proceedure, so if it costs the NHS £1000 to tgreat you, it will cost you, or your insurers, £1500. Watch for premiums rising!

Gozit

Good point... That wasn't the original intention of the thread but yes it did kind of get on that topic didn't it

formula

EU laws are complicated. I'm only scratching the surface. Perhaps keep an eye on the following site over the years as they seem to keep up to date with every EU law and every EU change. Every UK immigration change too. www.immigrationboards.com

Gozit

Will do Thanks mate

Dave2726

For those of you wondering if you're affected, I refer you to the following document page 14 which left me a little surer of my own personal circumstances:

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...an_Phase_3.PDF

WEBlue

Excellent document! Thanks for this, Dave.

(And dated July 2014, so up-to-date too....)

Dave2726

Thanks!

Subsequently, I found the following thread on the UK Yankee forum which effectively discusses the pertinent parts of the document I referenced in the link:

Do these new NHS rules affect my wife whos on FLR on a spouse Visa?

My own situation is that my wife is a USC on a UK Spouse visa that is due to expire in June next year (2015). We are bound by the 'new rules' aka 5 year route and will need to apply for FLR next. Given that FLR under the 5 year route has a duration of 2.5 years, we will have to pay a surcharge of £500 (£200 per year of validity). Upon payment, my USC wife will be entitled to use the NHS for 'free' as any 'Ordinarily Resident' in the UK individual would. We will not have to pay 150% of the charges of so called 'chargeable NHS services'. From what I can see, there is a similar arrangement for those on work visas or student visas - basically any visa over 6 months in duration.

My feelings on this are that it is a disgusting move by the UK government as a knee jerk reaction to anti immigration sentiment in the general public and media. Typically, those on immigrant visas are generally hard working tax payers who, by definition qualified by the UK governments own metrics, are not a burden on the state. Most of all, I feel aggrieved that my wife has to pay twice for something everyone else pays for once. The icing on the cake is that she works for the NHS too...

formula

This has been in the making for years; to bring the UK in line with other western countries that have a free health service. Not "a knee jerk reaction", just very, very slow in coming in.

On another forum, someone was amazed to be told he would be able to bring his wife to the UK as a dependant as she still needed cancer treatment. He thought she wouldn't be allowed as she would be a drain on the UK's health service.

mikelincs

It's actually to stop the so called 'health tourism' where expats have been living abroad, and then just going back to the UK to get treatment under the NHS and them moving back abroad. The actual fact that people should be charged has been there always, but the NHS has just not got itself in gear to do the paperwork, with the pressures on budgets, the NHS is now beginning to try and charge for what it should have always been charging. In fact I was at my local health centre today, and there was a couple wanting an appointment, they were not British, so the receptionist was ensuring that they had all the required documents to get free healthcare as they were Spanish. So they were having to show passports, and student ID cards to show that they were entitled to free treatment, so at least in some centres they are actively checking for entitlement.

WEBlue

Gozit, here's a document that might be of some use in your planning:

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/si.../guide-eea.pdf

Pages 2 & 3 cover the different ways of exercising EEA/EU treaty rights in the UK, and also indicate which pathways require CSI (comprehernsive sickness insurance) and which do not.

Giantaxe

The "surcharge' isn't about health tourism though; it's about charging those on legitimate immigration visas - who are resident and working in the UK - an additional levy. That's the part of this I have trouble with given that such immigrants will likely be paying for the NHS through current taxation anyway, just like any other UK resident. The poster you responded to is right that this feels like double-charging.

The part that attempts to address health tourism - i.e. by charging 150% of the actual NHS charge and bringing in measures to have NHS facilities actually collect such charges - is more fair imo, although count me very sceptical that this change will raise anything like the amount of money being claimed. I also see that the linked to document says the government is still considering exempting "expatriates who have made significant National Insurance contributions in the past". If that change is made, then the amount of money raised will be even less.

Gozit

Thanks mate. An EHIC from my country of citizenship would count as CSI, correct?

WEBlue

I'm not certain. Maybe someone else who's researched (or lived) the EEA Route to settlement in the UK can provide a clearer answer. My concern lies in the implication I've come across that the EHIC may indicate temporary (not long-term) residence in the UK.

Annex A at the end of this Guidance discusses your question:
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...8/chapter4.pdf

But this Immigrationboards sticky post also discussing the issue (and also referencing this Annex A link) makes me wonder:
Information for Applicant applying with EHIC : EEA-route Applications • Immigrationboards.com

Gozit

Hmm Thanks

WEBlue

Maybe post the question on the Immigrationboards EEA forum at some point, unless you get an answer here that satisfies you.

Of course, any answer you find out will be valid NOW--things may change before you move to the UK in a few years.