Healthcare costs outside Europe will no longer be included in the basic package from 2017
Healthcare costs that people incur during a temporary stay outside Europe (for example during a holiday in Thailand) are no longer part of the basic package from 1 January 2017. The Council of Ministers has agreed to this on the proposal of Minister Schippers of Health, Welfare and Sport.
The bill follows directly from an agreement in the coalition agreement of the Rutte I cabinet, which was later adopted by the current government. The limitation of the so-called global coverage entails savings of 60 million euros per year.
Travel insurance or additional insurance
Many people who travel outside Europe already have additional cover for healthcare costs from their additional insurance or travel insurance. At the moment, these costs are also partly reimbursed from the basic health insurance package. The amount of the reimbursement depends on the policy. In any case, this is not higher than the Dutch rates. This bill will end this reimbursement from the basic package. According to the cabinet, healthcare costs incurred outside Europe do not have to be paid collectively. People who travel outside Europe are therefore dependent on supplementary insurance or travel insurance.
Exception
The limitation of worldwide coverage does not apply to people who reside abroad for their employer or for professional purposes and their family members insured under the Health Insurance Act. There is also an exception when someone needs care that is included in the package, but which is only available outside Europe.
Source: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport
The consequence of this is that the premium for travel insurance or additional insurance with worldwide coverage will rise sharply. Those 60 million in healthcare costs outside Europe will then have to be borne by a smaller group of holidaymakers. Insurers will solve that problem by excluding matters and working with (high) deductibles. In short, left or right, the citizen is the hare and will pay more again.
@
As I read it, this decision has SAVINGS of 60 million.
So yes, the tourist and other globetrotters have to pay more.
Perhaps that extra 60 million earned can be spent on the elderly, or care of the elderly???
Utopian thinking huh?
LOUISE
Would you then also not be liable for national insurance contributions outside Europe, because you have no cover for medical costs at that time?
Or not?
If you were not liable for national insurance contributions, the measure would be more or less budget neutral. The 'saving' of 60 million simply consists 100% of collected premiums, against which there are no more expenses.
Ruud, then cancel the health insurance when you leave for your holiday destination and take out another one when you return!
That's not allowed. Your health insurance is a compulsory insurance that you cannot cancel unilaterally. There are exceptions, if you go to work abroad or leave for more than a year, but always at the discretion of your health insurer.
Exactly, the additional and / or travel insurance only applies if the basic insurance is there, but let's stop now, otherwise it's chatting.
Not the citizen, but the holidaymaker traveling to “outside Europe” is “the hare”. And why not? If someone can afford to take holidays outside Europe and he (m/f) wants to cover himself against possible illness and/or accident costs: why not take out additional or travel insurance? In addition: almost everyone of all Thailand blog readers knows absolutely that in previous years, additional and / or travel insurance with World Coverage always had to be taken out. There are those who even had continuous travel insurance, like me. So nothing new under the sun.
In addition, many people in lower salary schools, or people who have to make ends meet on benefits, or who depend on a food bank, are absolutely unable to even think about a holiday, let alone outside Europe. Why saddle them with the collective responsibility of a group of holidaymakers who can afford it? Why not: -quote Khun Peter- "Those 60 million in healthcare costs outside Europe must then be coughed up by a smaller group of holidaymakers." And rightly so, I think.
Another point is that I think that all those holidaymakers should only take a seat on the plane if they can simply show their policy with their ticket, so that any healthcare costs are not passed on to either NL or TH. As we often read on Thailand blog, it happens more than once that holidaymakers lugging around uninsured, and then come into the news because they cannot pay their hospital bill.
Blift: the basic health insurance fund in NL is intended for basic health insurance costs in NL. Extra insurance outside of that!
You can also turn it around. Soon only the wealthy Dutch will be able to go on holiday outside Europe. These types of measures are increasingly working towards a dichotomy in society between rich and poor. Doesn't seem like a good development to me, despite the fact that I vote VVD.
Dear Khun Peter, isn't that dichotomy already there? Even if you voted Labour!
If you do not book an all inclusive and/or take an offer, then a holiday to Thailand, for example, is cheaper than to Spain or Portugal, for example. Especially due to the arrival of Emirates, Etihad and Qatar Airways.
Maybe you didn't pay attention they're going to save 60 million because of this! Normally when I go to the hospital in Thailand, this is out of the basic package and not your annual travel insurance! The continuous travel insurance reimburses the costs you incur outside the package.
What you say that additional world coverage must always be taken out is also incorrect, most insurers still reimburse world coverage at Dutch prices, outside of that usually 70%
The result of this is that your continuous travel insurance will soon become much more expensive outside Europe, because this cannot be covered for 10 euros per month or they will exclude outside the EU, etc.
What makes me wonder why? Healthcare is much cheaper in Asia why this exclusion is just ordinary scraping.
All holidaymakers who are in the news without insurance are either not Dutch or they have deregistered, so no Dutch either.
If you live abroad for six months and the care is cheaper there and you pay a decent premium why the exclusion?
Fine!!! so no more comprehensive health insurance outside NL.
Seems democratic to me.
Outside of the EU. Equating an EU citizen who remains legally well, as well as paying taxes and healthcare contributions in the EU, to a stateless person outside the EU – what does that have to do with democracy??? Flat robbing a relatively small group that comes into contact with few other voters, ah yes, now I understand.
Soi, the traveler outside Europe is of course also a citizen. You can take out (continuous) travel insurance with a medical section for medical costs abroad that are higher than comparable in the Netherlands. In that respect, travel insurance is therefore advisable/necessary. The imminent exclusion of healthcare costs for travelers outside Europe is, in my opinion, arbitrary and unjustifiable. Who cares if I break my leg getting off the train in Groningen, Brussels or Bangkok and what does it matter if I slip in the shower at my house or in a hotel in Pattaya? In one case it is reimbursed and in the other it is not. The lion's share of the said 60 million euros will be made anyway, although no one would travel outside Europe anymore. Your statement that people who pay less or who depend on the food bank pay for the healthcare costs of holidaymakers is therefore not valid. Statistics show that it is precisely this group that makes more use of health care, but I wouldn't dream of arguing that they should also pay more health care premiums.
But soon the traveler outside Europe will be allowed to pay premium twice, once for the basic insurance that does not pay out and again for the travel insurance that has risen sharply in price. It is certainly true that there are holidaymakers 'carrying around' in Thailand who are not insured (in principle, they could not be Dutch, because they are, after all, compulsorily insured) but there are also many foreigners who are permanently resident in Thailand, who deliberately do so because of the high premiums. have chosen not to take out any health insurance.
My opinion: a very unreasonable, discriminatory and flat austerity measure!
I assume that people do not choose if, where and when they get sick. So whether you are in the Netherlands, Europe or Thailand, you can get sick anywhere. If you have taken out basic insurance here in NL, it should provide basic coverage throughout the world (higher costs: pay yourself).
Therefore @Soi, there is no question of "saddling with the collective responsibility for health care costs of a group of holidaymakers who can afford it". Because these people don't go on vacation to get sick. And if they don't go on holiday, they will get sick at home and the costs will still be borne by the collective.
In itself there is of course something to be said for it, although I suspect no deep-rooted grounds of solidarity for insuring someone on the Turkish Riviera but not on the Thai Gulf.
I also fear that someone who goes to Thailand for a month, and therefore cannot rely on his basic insurance, will have to pay the premium for that month. And of course it is as crooked as a hoop that someone who is expelled from the collective must continue to pay for that collective.
I have to recover myself, the Turkish Riviera is of course also outside Europe.
So those 1.3 million Dutch people who often book an affordable all-inclusive trip to Turkey also get a sensitive cost item.
Now it is the healthcare costs outside Europe, which will soon be even more so.
Costs due to sports injuries, drivers, smokers, people who drink alcohol, people with a dangerous profession, etc.
All fine, but then throw the basic premium down.
In the Netherlands you pay for a Mercedes and you get an old Duck.
I suspect this will only get worse with everything.
I am curious whether this measure will also apply to Moroccans and Turks. Earlier I read that an exception would be made for these people.
One of the biggest expenses for this world coverage was the expenses incurred by these people while vacationing in their home countries.
Morocco and Turkey are countries that do not (yet) belong to Europe.
There is an exception for benefit recipients, such as state pensioners. The government has a duty of care for every citizen wherever they are in the world. Both for ZVW and AWBZ now MWO. This is based on international treaties. But here again: the Dutch don't pay attention to it. Like many others, I am a victim of this. TH participants also have the advantage of living in a treaty country. But Ghana is not a treaty country. I am looking for people who want to join me in suing the Dutch government at the UN, Council of Europe and other institutions. Who will help pull me together?
I wonder how many people who now live in Thailand for 8 months and 4 in NL take the step to live in Thailand without a health insurance policy (or somewhere else than in Europe)
These people are forced to seek refuge in Europe again, until too many come outside NL but do come to Europe and the healthcare law is adjusted again and then only reimbursement is made in NL itself.
Someone who is in the Netherlands all year round costs insurance on average as much or more than someone who stays in Thailand for part of the year, where possibly. care is cheaper than in the Netherlands.
There is therefore no rational reason to saddle people who go abroad with extra insurance and indeed you should get your premium for that period that you are abroad back from your Dutch insurance, because at that time there is no risk to the insurance company.
So it is legalized theft. You are going to cut 60 million with a selective group of people who are going abroad. In principle, it makes no difference whether you go to Spain or Thailand for an insurance policy. You can also collect taxes at the border on departure or return. However, there is no good basis.
This is waiting for the first lawsuit this is just discrimination, pay premium and get nothing?
Should you also be able to deduct the long-term care premium from your tax?
https://www.zorginstituutnederland.nl/verzekering/buitenland/aanvullende+informatie/verdragslanden#VerdragslandenbuitendeEU/EER
Those are the treaty countries
Normally don't respond.
Now briefly ; If you stay for example 6 months, you do pay a premium for the time you do not stay in the Netherlands.
Another ridiculous example of Dutch ingenuity and inventiveness.
Could be even more reason to move from millions of euros, land 16.5 million.
for every conceivable 'moment'
They simply need money because healthcare costs are becoming more expensive due to the large number of asylum seekers who rely on healthcare (free of charge) and do not have to pay premiums.
This plan has nothing to do with asylum seekers but is an old one. This was already suggested a few years ago in The Hague (Rutte 1 cabinet?). There was also a discussion about this here on Thailand blog, which I unfortunately can no longer find. It's just the well-known scraping technique: how can we cut back here and there with only a limited number of (articulate) people as duped.
Found in the news archives: https://www.thailandblog.nl/nieuws-uit-thailand/werelddekking-zorgverzekering-nederlanders-komt-te-vervallen/
I think it is originally a VVD plan, large companies benefit from this, ordinary citizens and small entrepreneurs do not.
Travel insurance will then increasingly determine where you can go. I received a letter this week for the extension and it said that I have to call them first so that they can give me the best care. The best doctors, the best hospitals. Still, I thought whoever is cheapest gets me as a patient. But maybe I thought too negatively about this letter and they sincerely want the best for me. I wonder what this will cost me per year. I will have to insure in this area. With my credit card with 2500 limit and an almost empty savings account due to the holidays, a major operation + sticking some plasters after a bicycle accident in Thailand will not work for me.
Some medical providers (individuals and institutions) charge abnormally high amounts, for example if you have a good hospitalization insurance, otherwise less. Or are invariably exorbitantly expensive without any evidence of better medical quality. So it is certainly reasonable that a patient should consult with the insurance company when circumstances allow, otherwise premiums will soon go wild. There are probably also some insurance companies that think much more about financial than medical interests, but that is not obvious for all of them.
I stay in Thailand 8 months a year. If the law changes now, I will pay for nothing for 8 months because I will not get anything in return.
Can't get used to the idea that the Dutch government is screwing me. If I want to prostitute myself, I prefer to do it myself.
And just to be clear, I have travel insurance, so I'm already paying twice.
You forget that your current travel insurance is relatively cheap because you or your travel insurance company can recover a large part of your Thai medical costs from your health insurance company. If that is no longer possible after 1-1-2017, the premiums of the travel insurance will undoubtedly go up. After all, the travel insurer must then pay the medical costs incurred by you in Thailand.
What about if you leave for 3 months. Can I take out insurance for 3 months and reconnect when I return? Because I don't have to be insured in Europe for those 3 months. Instead, I can take out insurance outside Europe for 3 months .Just ask whether this should be at the beginning of the month. Or are you obliged to be insured in the Netherlands all year round?
Basic health insurance is compulsory and you cannot temporarily stop it. If you are in Thailand for 3, 6 or 8 months, you simply pay your healthcare premium for those months, even if there is no cover (due to a stay in Thailand).
Health insurance consists of a small part (approx. €100 / month) that you pay directly yourself and a much larger part, which you can pay as a self-employed person (5,4% of your salary) or via your employer (7,5% in 2014). ) pays, see http://www.zzp-nederland.nl/artikel/inkomensaf-bijdrage
Hence, In 2011, 89,4 billion euros was spent on healthcare see http://www.nationaalkompas.nl/zorg/huidige-kosten/ either = 17 million Dutch people = € 5258,82 per year or /12 = € 438 per month. Your health insurance if you live outside NL at € 495 per month therefore corresponds reasonably well with the actual costs.
So only the part of those "couple", who go outside the EU for a few weeks, now has to be carried by themselves.
Don't be surprised if your "own" health insurer comes up with an interesting offer, which you can take out yourself before then, with a nice discount of course, because you have a few weeks outside the normal health insurance.
Yes, both health insurance and state pension are political decisions, so they can be changed.
I also think that health insurers will start to compete in the field of insurance abroad. So carefully check the offers from the insurance companies next year. Maybe something for someone who knows a lot about insurance and can report this on the blog next year in November.
well, it's an easy calculation, you spend 1 month on holiday outside Europe, which is therefore not insured by your health insurance (but you will continue to pay that month) and you have to pay more premium for your travel insurance (and you will to startle).
In recent years, so much has already been removed from the basic insurance that affects the masses, that they have now opted again to exclude cover that only concerns small groups.
The word cutbacks is by definition used incorrectly by the government, it is not cutbacks it is shifting or indirect, eg shifting tasks to the municipalities, or directly to the citizen.
En passant, the original income, in this case the basic premium of the world cover, is not returned. In short, there is no question of cutting back, there is more money to spend on other things. Citizens are expected to put their money where their mouth is, but the Government may continue to spend up to 3% more per year.
It is good that there is a government now personally liable for the waste of state funds, e.g. if a minister claims that Greece will pay back all the money borrowed and this will not happen the best man and his family members to the end pluck bone bare, so that he or she has to start all over again. I know you won't get the billions back with that, but perhaps people's money will be handled more responsibly. There is nothing that makes a person more careful than when his family could possibly suffer. Unfortunately, that is only partly the case with Rutte, grin!!!
Food for lawyers (and I'm not). I know that the Netherlands used to have a law that protected buyers because there had to be a certain realistic relationship between the product delivered and the price paid. Of course you couldn't rely on that law if something was 30% cheaper in another store. Sellers could put forward valid arguments such as the rental price of the store, better staff, more service-oriented. There was always something to twist. However, that law could be used if, for example, old people had paid a god's fortune at the door for something that was not even worth a penny.
It should be clear that there is hardly any relationship between price and delivered product if someone stays in Thailand for 8 months/year and also has to pay the compulsory Dutch health care premium during all those months without compensation in the event of illness. Does anyone know if such a general law (still) exists? It is possible that this law has also been overruled by European regulations (or has been scrapped in the Netherlands). Even if the law still existed, it could still be a problem if the insurance policies are only offered on an annual basis. Who knows more?
"protected" instead of "protected"
The mandatory contributions to insurance against medical costs in Belgium cover the EU (and probably a few countries assimilated by treaty) permanently, and a stay outside it only during the first 3 months. Unless one were to immediately deregister as a resident and then have to observe an uninsured waiting period in the event of a later return, one would continue to be liable to pay contributions. That is the same legally organized scam as now apparently in the Netherlands. As a result, almost all travel assistance insurance policies only want to cover three months, since they only owe the surplus that falls outside the general medical assistance insurance. After the third month, their intervention would suddenly cost them the full pot. Hospitalization insurance is not only very expensive (especially if one joins later in life), but also does not cover all types of medical costs and a good understanding of the list of all kinds of specific exclusions requires a doctor's degree.
The State puts anyone who wants to leave their own region (extended to the EU) for longer than a holiday and not for their own companies, outlawed: unprotected and just about to be robbed. Which you still have to work on yourself.
It would be fair if lump sums were paid for medical care abroad, as for the corresponding aspects in your own country and limited to invoices and supporting documents submitted. As a result, the often insanely high medical costs in the United States should not be borne by the community. One could charge a separate contribution per month of stay in such an extremely expensive country. For Thailand, for example, it would mean savings compared to staying in the Netherlands or Belgium. But that's not enough for grabby politicians.
In thinks Ruud's remark is very justified and can sometimes get a tail.
That if you go outside Europe for a month, for example, and still do not receive a reimbursement, you do not have to pay a premium.
This will be picked up by some political party. (Hopefully)
Greetings Nico
Last year in the program Max. A couple on holiday in Spain, man falls ill, has to go to hospital, had to pay 8000 euros, was not included in the package, even supplementary insurance did not cover it.
Why take the risk just take a comprehensive travel insurance policy.
And pay attention when submitting costs separately 10 types of medicines name and price only then total and stamps and signatures. In the USA recently had costs, first declare health insurance, did not pay then travel insurance and make copies of everything. Everything was paid without any problems.
It hurts that people do not get the premium back, but it gets much worse... The monthly premium that we pay (+/-125 euros) is a collective. If a travel insurance policy with medical coverage is requested in the future, this will be individual. People will immediately ask about age and the activities they want to perform to create a risk profile. If you are 65 or older, measure the chest size. They may go one step further, they may even ask you to complete a medical questionnaire to calculate the premium, or you may even receive an exclusion. Minister Schippers thinks it's all good. This fully represents the interests of the insurers and unfortunately not of the consumers. The Netherlands is becoming more and more beautiful…
And yes, another action by the less, less, less cabinet. The end is far from in sight. Many more measures will follow because a lot of money is needed for other priorities, such as the new Dutch people who come in large numbers and really don't come to leave again. After all, we know the General Administrative Law Act, which can take you in any direction except the right one. Lawyers make lively use of this under the motto of the stretch and stick with it principle. In the Netherlands it is only about taking care of all those pathetic people, of which it already appears that there is a large group who come from a safe area, but because of the hopeless situation in Turkey, for example, still travel to Western Europe. The application for asylum (the principle of protection) is therefore not relevant for this group. Apparently they expect to find Valhalla here and they meet enough people who have their hearts in the right place, but they forget that our tax dollars are needed to pay for everything. It is a choice, of course, and the cabinet also makes its own choices. The pension story is also such a debacle.
It is a mystery to me that this cabinet is still active, because it has become clear to me who they are working for. A lot of Dutch people are still asleep and society has become a herd of sheep that follow each other. Yesterday on the Dutch news interviews among Dutch people about how their pension was doing and many were not concerned with this or know too little about it. How is it possible, well those people still come home from a cold fair and that will be a lot of geraniums work later on. Hopefully they think these are beautiful plants. One of the ideas of this cabinet, I think, is the wish that Dutch people mainly go on holiday in the Netherlands and therefore not abroad or abroad. Is good for the Dutch economy, especially read tax revenue of the cabinet. Spending money in Thailand, what good is this anyway.
Dear people, the soap opera will be continued. I am already looking forward to a new creative and innovative measure from this cabinet. Tribute Tribute.!!!!!!
I have been living in Thailand for years and have been deregistered, but I am still insured with the independent health insurance fund, which I think is normal since I also pay tax in Belgium
The expansion of the treaty countries has come about through a court ruling.
Moroccans and Turks with dual nationality do receive a full package in their home country.
Discrimination is prohibited in the Netherlands. What do the Dutch associations keep in Thailand?
than to file a formal complaint through the courts.
Or were these associations only created to eat bitterballen and herring.
This is not correct, you lose coverage outside Europe, but when you return to Belgium you are back under the health insurance fund from the first moment you arrive at BE Bodum (just go by). As a retiree, I checked with the person in charge of my health insurance company. is health insurance for the Dutch people...)
(sorry that there is no upload option here, otherwise I could show you the reply email, there is also something about this on Gov.be)
What is, is that you are only insured for hospitalization for a maximum of 3 months per year, as a tourist, and so you may not be deregistered from BE and effectively living in that country..
When you return, you are fully back in order with your former status….., this being retired, not knowing for the non-retired.
Hopefully the “Dutch wind” will not blow to Belgium because ours also like savings money
link found on gov.be , nationality.> country > and further in drop-down menu where it is clearly stated that even with temporary return you are okay based on your BE. identity
https://www.socialsecurity.be/CMS/nl/leaving_belgium/homepage.html
This is the 110% correct link with the confirmation, because in the previous one you had to know exactly where to click
https://www.socialsecurity.be/CMS/leaving_belgium/nl/validate-search.html?nationality=belgium&destination=other&status=pensioner_employee&subject=remboursement_frais_medicaux&search=Zoeken
Everyone is talking about “Yes, but in Thailand…”. Outside Europe applies to all countries outside the EU, not just Thailand. There are countries outside the EU that are considerably more expensive in healthcare costs than the Netherlands, just think of the USA, for example. And there are more. The fact that Thailand is cheaper there is something that Schippers and her friends don't like.