Lose NHS rights after 3 months

[steve_cronin]

What do you mean \"NOT ENTITLED TO\"?

IMO you are FAR more entitled to them than some Albanian car washer who has just come in to the country on the pretext of being persecuted in that country.

YOU have paid for them!

Steve Cronin

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Look at

[ QUOTE ]
the front of your NHS card where it tells you, that you are supposed to deregister with your doctor if not resident in the UK for a period exceeding 3 months.

[/ QUOTE ]Well, my NHS card tells me that I should send the card back if I go abroad for more than 3 months, which is not necessarily the same thing at all! What I was asking you about was your statement earlier...[ QUOTE ]
the NHS rules allow the executive to disbar anyone who has been non-resident in the UK for 3 months or more. The rule has been there such a long time that it's unlikely to be challengeable through normal executive channels.

[/ QUOTE ]I cannot see how you got this from the NHS card, which says nothing of the sort. At least, mine doesn't, though there could be different versions out there perhaps issued at different times. Mine is a 2005 version.

 

[steve_cronin]

I think that this is where the truth lies

My nextdoor neighbour has been away for several years now sailing around the world and has needed quite serious medical attention on two of his return visits. He had no problem with this as far as I know.

Just to get a really informed opinion, I've PM'ed Bill Cooper (Sell up and Sail) on this and no doubt, when he gets around to reading it he'll give us his views on the subject.

Steve Cronin

 

[steve_cronin]

Is the EU still \"abroad \" in this context?.......nm

..

 

[Anonymous]

NHS

I don't know for sure whether the EU is 'abroad' in this context because I have not yet had the opportunity to look at a single law or regulation! We have seen a number of official NHS websites all saying much the same thing but in unclear English, leading to ambiguities and uncertainties. Certainly the hospital that challenged my wife's entitlement was talking about Spain and I suppose that the administrator concerned knew that Spain is in the EU?

I mistrust Government when it hands down orders and rules affecting one's entitlements, rights and freedoms, without ANY reference to the laws or regulations concerned, making it impossible to check. In France and Italy you will always see the relevant law cited on any official notice. Much better.

When I was a student I managed to overturn an Inland Revenue ruling on tax on scholarships by researching in the public library, but it took a lot of time and dedication - the result affected all scholarship students' earnings and made minor headlines at the time (late 1970s). So it is worth checking. People can be relied upon to interpret things in their favour, given a choice, and this goes for Government department and the NHS administrators.

 

[guernseyman]

Re: Possibly

[ QUOTE ]
an unfortunate example - Belgium being part of the EU one would have reciprocal status.

More likely a Channel Islands' resident would be inadmissable, though I'm not at all sure about that, 'cos they seem to be able to have their cake and eat it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes Belgium was a bad example. However Channel Island residents can benefit from a reciprocal arrangement whereby UK citizens get free hospital treatment over here.

On the subject of cake consumption and ownership this is not a good time or place to discuss the malevolent behaviour of UK governments. I would recommend James Marr's 'The History of Guernsey' for a detailed account.

 

[boatmike]

Re: Look at

Well In think that might be a bit extreme but yes. Theres no question of not being eligible in my view, and the idea that I should de-register with my GP is a nonsense regardless of what the piece of paper says, and I don't intend to. Pretty sure he didn't either! In fact my GP is totally aware that I will be out of the country for 6 months or so and has not raised the question so I certainly shan't.
I think it is quite understandable however that a hospital questions a persons eligibility for treatment, and in this case there was genuine cause for suspicion as his wife had been treated in Spain. The point is however that when he produced proof of eligibility no charge was made surely? He seems to have been objecting to being asked to provide proof in the first place which seems a little paranoid....

 

[Anonymous]

NHS

[ QUOTE ]
Theres no question of not being eligible in my view,.....

[/ QUOTE ]The rules suggest otherwise, or we would not be having this discussion.

Consider this...You have annual travel insurance that entitles you to an air ambulance home in case of illness. You have a heart attack and are advised that you need major surgery that you cannot afford to pay for where you are. You are repatriated in an air ambulance, accompanied by a paramedic, doctor, or nurse and taken straight to hospital. The hospital administrator argues that you are not eligible for free NHS treatment as you have been abroad for longer than 3 months. He can produce precedent, and some sort of a rule book that appears to support his case. You will need to appeal or have the operation privately (if you can afford it).

It seems to me that you can argue that you ought to be entitled to treatment until you are blue in the face but on what basis? We have nothing substantive as an argument aside from the 'ordinarily resident' argument that seems to fit, but we do not know from which law or regulation it comes which does not help our argument.

The fact that my wife was challenged shows that this is not some forgotten rule; it is daily working practice and you can bet that some Health Authorities are checking fully whenever they think they can get away with it.

As for GPs - ours knows we are away, too, but don't confuse the GP with the HA. Different contract, different species.

For ourselves, we have full BUPA cover, maximum scale, so as far as I can see we should not have a problem no matter what the HA rule but not everyone has that level of personal insurance, particular older people for whom the premiums have become nothing short of outrageous.

 

[steve_cronin]

In New-Labourspeak......

.. it is probably looked at in this way (sorry if it sounds like John Prescott)

"Ask yourself, if in a modern socialist state it is permissable to allow rich fat cats swanning their lives away on luxury yachts in the Mediterranean to be subsidised by the poor council flat dweller in Peckham and use up precious resources intended to support the poorest of our people"

That is how the NHS is seen by most politicians, a safety net for the poor NOT a public service to which the majority have contributed over their lifetimes. Few of them use it in either party. What they mean is their GARDENER'S health service.

My elder son who is currently working at the Royal London hospital last night confirmed that indeed the 3 month absence rule IS law but in practice it hardly ever gets imposed and besides, just a day visit back or to ANY British territory starts the clock from zero again. So drop in to Gib. for tea and your new supply of Viagra's free!

Steve Cronin

 

[Anonymous]

NHS

I'll pass on the party political issues you raise as it isn't relevant to our present status with the NHS when travelling abroad for extended periods but...[ QUOTE ]
My elder son who is currently working at the Royal London hospital last night confirmed that indeed the 3 month absence rule IS law but in practice it hardly ever gets imposed and besides, just a day visit back or to ANY British territory starts the clock from zero again. So drop in to Gib. for tea and your new supply of Viagra's free!

[/ QUOTE ]Maybe your son could tell us *which*law disqualifies citizens after 3 months? An earlier contributor pointed us to apparently official information that suggest there is no time limit per se, but a question of status. The 3 month business comes from the NHS Medical cards that are really oriented to the GP system and do not state that one becomes ineligible after 3 months, simply that one should re-register with the GP.

Incidentally, in correspondence with a doctor friend of mine (cardiologist, not GP), he says he thinks that three month rule for GPs is so that the LHA does not have to continue to pay GPs their fee while the patient is overseas. Quite a different thing from disqualifying the patient from services. He can't help with the question about hospital charging, though.

As for visiting 'British Territories', mentioned by you son, it is surprising that by visiting a territory whose own citizens are not entitled to NHS care one should qualify oneself for NHS treatment. But stranger things have happened so I don't rule it out...though I would like to be directed to the source of the information before using it to plan my affairs. Maybe your son can point us to some law, regulation, rulebook - indeed, anything written and in the public domain.

 

[RupertW]

Re: NHS

The rules may rarely be enforced now but that is changing fast as clear financial controls are (finally) being imposed on NHS organisations.

Unless a patient is currently registered with a GP then hospitals will not get paid for any consultations or treatment, as payments come from Primary Care Trusts who are responsible for GP budgets. Hospitals only other possible funding for individual treatment comes from reclaiming money from abroad, or proving that the patients are resident in a particular Primary Care Trust area but haven't registered with a GP.

AFAIK hospitals are not yet refusing patients in those circumstances but that is the logical endpoint if hospitals are to break even. For similar financial reasons then "ghost lists" for GP practices are regularly cleared out as some GP funding is based on their total list size.

However, I'm not sure this should really be an issue for returning UK citizens as an emergency registration with a nominated GP should be possible, which then allows the rest of the system to creak its way through.

 

[Bejasus]

Re: NHS

reading these posts has me thinking that even though I am a UK employee, paying full UK taxes and N.I., that just because I wish to cruise and live in the Med area for a few years, I may not be entitled to NHS health care? Why would that be? I wouldn't be paying anymore into the system if I was living in the UK full time. I currently work in Denmark but am a UK employee with my company, I work on a monthly rotational basis, and I soon hope to sell my house and be living and cruising in the Med for around 5 years on my months off.
Makes no difference where I am. I am still a UK citizen paying my full quota, so why would I be refused treatment if necesarry?

 

[RupertW]

Re: NHS

As I said in my email - I don't think you would be but may in the future have to get an emergency registration with a GP first. The NHS is hardening its rules about GPs being the "gatekeepers" to treatment. Once you're with a GP then you're entitled to the lot.

 

[steve_cronin]

Take a look at this...

...It is a reply to an email I sent to my nextdoor neighbours who you can see have a fair experience of obtaining medical treatment both here and on their extended world cruise of nearly 6 years. they are currently laid up in Sydney and using a pair of world circling air tickets

Guday Steve.

Really I should say ola having just arrived in Chile from Auckland, As for the crisis over your NHS medical treatment, as far as I am aware the fact that you have been out of the country for over 3 month is irrelevant, as a fully paid up British citizen, you are free to travel anywhere in the world for as long as you wish, and on your return to the UK, you are just as entitled to free health care as any other person. On the occasions that I have returned to the UK. I have had no problems seeing doctors and receiving treatment in the local Glenfield hospital. Although we are into our 6th season of cruising, our home is still in the UK and we continue to pay NI contributions as well as Taxes, but I see no difference between our situation and the sell up and go yachties. We have never once heard of a case where a yachtie has returned home only to be told he cannot receive NHS treatment. I sincerely hope nanny blair has not changed the rules on free health care since last we were home. If anything your free NHS travels with you around the world, as you would know if you arrived in Australia or New Zealand we are entitled to free health care as part of a reciprocal agreement, and we both received treatment in Australia last month, there is also an agreement with Canada and with the E 111 you are covered in Europe, not only Europe, we have first hand knowledge of a british yachtie receiving free health care in Polynesia on the strength of the E 111, who said the french were all bad. Well steve good luck with the investigation i am still a little jetlagged, my bed is calling.

Mike and Cathy xx

As to my son's information: I have, over the years come to the firm conclusion that "If de boy say IT SO den it AM so". Re-assuring trait in a medic innit?

Steve cronin

 

[boatmike]

OK
I don't know why I am doing this. Probably because you have sowed the seeds of doubt in a lot of peoples minds with your persistence, even mine.

Here is what I consider is the definitive answer to your question. It is indeed all total crap as I first thought. I phoned NHS direct 0845 46 47 they were pretty sure your allegation was wrong but they asked their "information team" to phone me back. Much to my surprise they did. Very helpful, suggested it was rubbish. Read out all the relevant bits from the website. I persisted saying "a friend" had had difficulties and quoted your case. He suggested if there was any doubt still, call the Dept of Works and Pensions 01912181999. They make the rules. So I did. Equally helpful. They were adamant that while you remain normally resident you are fully entitled to treatment. In the case of someone registered with a GP in this country there is no question of not being considered resident. Even if you weren't registered and could show you were resident you would be treated. The NHS has the same definition of residency as IR and everyone else so producing something like a notice of coding as I said before would do it. There are complicated rules for NON residents including a 3 month ruling related to "equivalent residency" but it does not apply to residents. Unless you decide to de-register which they stated clearly that you were NOT obliged to do if resident regardless of how long you go abroad for, and in which case as a resident you would re-register at the hospital if necessary, no hospital in the UK can deny you NHS treatment. If you still don't accept this phone them yourself.

I also asked my Daughter who is secretary to the Chairman of a large city hospital. She confirmed this and said there WAS an administrative ruling that if someone was not referred to the hospital by a GP the hospital staff were expected to determine that the patient was entitled to treatment and one of the questions is "have you been out of the country recently?", and "how long for?" Without going into detail this is aimed at catching people who are not normally resident and visitors who have arrived recently, some of which are entitled to treatment and some not. Interestingly she said that if you were carrying a European Health Insurance Card (which replaces the E111) they would have to treat you anyway!

So once and for all, you are searching for a rule which you can't find because there ain't one.. Gawd..... 53 posts an a wild goose chase... Hope you are happy now!!

 

[steve_cronin]

Systolic - diastolic

I bet yours are up after that. (148/90 ish?) /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

You're right I think and I too want to get this right but at the present level of deep crisis in the NHS - apart from having two sons with (we hope) long futures working for it and my wife a member of a local Trust, I have been made personally aware of the severe cutbacks - we have to believe that the TV dramatisation "Bodies" isn't all fantasy.

treat 'em like insurance companies, don't give 'em any chance of rejecting your claim.

Like you, 'nuff said.

Steve cronin

 

[RupertW]

Sorry Mike but it's not as definitive as you suggest as there are three conflicting rules in place.

1) There's an obligation to treat (up to 10,000 pounds) even if you're not registered to a GP if you are a UK citizen

2) Hospitals have a legal obligation to break even and therefore not do work which will not be paid for (this rule is being increasingly enforced)

3) Primary Care Trusts only have to pay if a patient
a) a registered with a GP in that Primary Care Trust area or
b) has a permenent residence in the area and is not registered with any GP or
c) a foreign Health service takes responsibility

What this means is that hospitals are not getting paid for lots of treatments and therefore must consider ways of avoiding offering them or insisting on proof of who will pay.

So, yes you can ring a number and get a comforting rule, but that's not the whole picture. In essence you are likely to be treated but it could be a hassle in the future if you aren't registered with a GP

 

[mikewilkes]

Re: NHS

George its about time you became a "full" expat - or just become retarded like I did at the end of September. Cant even remember when my c/c should be now /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[mikewilkes]

Re: NHS

My GP said years ago that "technically" I should deregister with him and my docs would be sent to the local health board for "safe" keeping. His problem was that they would probably get lost so to leave them where they were.

 

[boatmike]

None of that has one ounce of bearing on the issue. All of this may be true but it hasno bearing on your right to NHS treatment if you are out of the country for any length of time. Frankly the whole issue in my opinion has become a paranoid nonsense. I have no intention of deregistering with my GP when even the dept of Works and pensions says I don't have to and I see no reason to fear not getting treated. Believe what you will. I am quite satisfied I am not at risk.