Health Insurance for Farangs

[fak119]

It is definitely a good thing that health insurance has become compulsory, but please, for everybody! As far as the requirement for health insurance is concerned, nobody understands why a distinction is made between visas called "Non-Immigrant O-A" and "Non Immigrant Retirement".  

 

Many more questions arise:

1) Is there a proven record that those with an O-A Visa are more likely to run from a hospital without paying?

2) Why the OPD? When you go to a doctors appointment (private consultation or hospital), you will have to pay immediately. In case of a bigger issue (hospitalization), the insurance pays. Insurance also pays in case of accidents.

3) What about those that still have health insurance overseas (National Health, Seguridad Social, Krankenkasse, etc.)? How to prove that you are covered while in Thailand? Is a Thai insurance still necessary?

[Peter Denis]

1 - It was easiest to impose the mandatory health-insurance on the Non Imm O-A Visa, since it provides a 1-year permission to stay which can be aligned with a 1-year insurance policy.  A Non Imm O retirement Visa only provides a 3-month permission to stay on entry.

2 - OPD - unclear what you are referring to.

3 - When applying for a 1-year extension based on your Non Imm O-A Visa for reason of retirement, the Police Order that regulates such extensions ONLY allows for thai IO-approved policies provided by TGIA associated insurers.

[Swiss1960]

16 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

1 - It was easiest to impose the mandatory health-insurance on the Non Imm O-A Visa, since it provides a 1-year permission to stay which can be aligned with a 1-year insurance policy.  A Non Imm O retirement Visa only provides a 3-month permission to stay on entry.

Wrong. Extensions either based on retirement or marriage are for one year and renewable same as Non-Imm-OA.

 

And the OP is right.. nobody understands why outpatient insurance is mandatory given the low cost of such treatments. 

[ubonjoe]

2 minutes ago, Swiss1960 said:

Wrong. Extensions either based on retirement or marriage are for one year and renewable same as Non-Imm-OA.

He was referring to the entries from the visas not extensions of stay.

[chang50]

The reason I believe for the distinction is the requirement to have money in Thailand on a non-o retirement which can be utilised to pay hospital bills if necessary.If you really want to decimate the expat population just introduce mandatory health insurance and require money in the bank.

[OJAS]

8 hours ago, fak119 said:

3) What about those that still have health insurance overseas (National Health, Seguridad Social, Krankenkasse, etc.)? How to prove that you are covered while in Thailand? Is a Thai insurance still necessary?

I am by no means a supporter of mandatory TGIA-approved health insurance for retirees with original non-OA visas, but precisely how many of these "wonderful" home country health insurance schemes, that people constantly sing the praises of on here to the very highest heavens as if they were the best thing since sliced bread, actually have direct billing arrangements with Thai hospitals? Certainly not the otherwise excellent private insurance policy I subscribed to for many years when I lived in the UK, which I then had to give up after moving out to Thailand as a result.

 

Who in their right mind would really want to run the risk of having to stump up the cost of a colossal hospital bill entirely from their own pocket and consequently leaving themselves with a considerable hole in their finances until such time as an insurance company back in their home country eventually saw fit to reimburse them? 

Edited June 5, 2020 by OJAS

[Malawi]

These will take you on if you are quick. https://www.thaivisaprotect.com/

[Peter Denis]

12 hours ago, chang50 said:

The reason I believe for the distinction is the requirement to have money in Thailand on a non-o retirement which can be utilised to pay hospital bills if necessary.If you really want to decimate the expat population just introduce mandatory health insurance and require money in the bank.

It is correct that when you applied for the Non Imm O-A Visa in your home-country, you do not need to 'park' money in a personal thai bank-account during the almost 2 years permission to stay that O-A Visa can provide you.  Once that period is over and you apply for the 1-year extension of stay, the requirements are exactly the same for an in-country Non Imm O - retirement extension or an extension of stay based on your Non Imm O-A for reason of retirement.  Except that the Non Imm O - retirement extension does NOT require the mandatory thai IO-approved health-insurance that is imposed on Non Imm O-A retirement extensions.

 

But no 'money-in-bank' during the first 2 years of your Non Imm O-A Visa cannot be the only argument why the Imm O-A was singled out for this mandatory health-insurance.  Because there are also other methods available than 'money-in-bank' to meet the financial requirements of both the Non Imm O and O-A retirement extensions, e.g. the monthly-income transfer method or the Embassy income-statement letter.  And when using those methods there is no guarantee of sufficient funds on your personal thai bank-account to pay for hospital bills.

 

As I mentioned in my post #2 the main difference between a Non Imm O-A Visa and a Non Imm O Visa is the permission to stay that Visa provides you when ENTERING Thailand. 

The Non Imm O-A Visa provides you with a 1-year permission to stay on entry, and hence it was easy to impose a 1-year health-insurance policy when applying for that Visa (in your home-country).  The Non Imm O Visa only provides you with a 90-days permission to say on entry, and so it would be difficult to impose the health-insurance requirement on that type Visa, as health-insurance policies are typically 1-year.

 

Yes, IO could also have imposed the health-insurance requirement on 1-year extensions of Non Imm O Visa (like they do for Non Imm O-A extensions for reason of retirement). 

But considering the chaos created by enforcing it on the Non Imm O-A Visa and extensions, they quite wisely refrained from doing so as it would create an exodus of retirees either applying for an extension for reason of marriage or applying for the Non Imm O retirement Visa at a thai consulate in a neighboring country.

Note: The fact that Phuket and PhangNga IO don't enforce the thai IO-approved health-insurance requirement anymore (they will evaluate this non-enforcement practice in October), is tell-tale of the fiasco of imposing it and one can only hope that other IOs will follow the Phuket example.

 

[Mulambana]

I think most embassies only issue O-A retirement visas and  O visas are only issued at a handful of embassies. Now why they imposed extensions based on original O-A is a stupidity of the police orders. They will soon find out that people can always do an exit/entry and then convert to O and then extension without any health insurance. It may take a few years for them to realize before they scrap it or keep it for agents to handle the extensions.

Edited June 6, 2020 by Mulambana

[Langsuan Man]

On 6/5/2020 at 3:34 PM, fak119 said:

It is definitely a good thing that health insurance has become compulsory,

Your opinion ONLY

 

It is money grab by the Thai Insurance Industry aided and abetted by the Thai Royal Immigration

 

With no figures or statistics justifying this mandatory requirement.  If it were legitimate, the impetus would have been from the Thai Hospitals, who were never consulted or on board with this program

 

Why you may ask ? 

 

Because Thai hospitals want the big bahts that foreign insurance companies pay not the satangs paid by Thai insurance companies  

[OJAS]

4 hours ago, Langsuan Man said:

Because Thai hospitals want the big bahts that foreign insurance companies pay not the satangs paid by Thai insurance companies  

But in order to guarantee these big bahts, wouldn't Thai hospitals first need to establish direct billing arrangements with individual foreign insurers? This could prove more trouble for them than it was worth - and assumes, of course, that foreign insurers would be willing to play ball.

[jonclark]

For my twp cents worth. 

 

Make sure you have some type of health insurance in Thailand. Good medical care is expensive, government hospitals and the staff who work in them are massively overstreached and under financed and conditions on a ward will vary from adequate to poor. I have heard many good things about government hospitals, but also my fair share of shockers too. 

 

Thai health insurance is very limited in covering pre-existing conditions - Diabetes, HIV, Heart Disease etc. So if you have a history of any pre-existing condition check your policy carefully. If you have a pre-exsting condition my advice would be get the most basic Thai policy and then back that up with a solid international one. Allianz etc. These all have agents / links to the big private hospitals and will pay those hospitals directly - but the hospital may initally ask for a copy of a credit card. 

 

 

[Peter Denis]

21 minutes ago, jonclark said:

...

Make sure you have some type of health insurance in Thailand. Good medical care is expensive, government hospitals and the staff who work in them are massively overstreached and under financed and conditions on a ward will vary from adequate to poor. I have heard many good things about government hospitals, but also my fair share of shockers too. 

 

Thai health insurance is very limited in covering pre-existing conditions - Diabetes, HIV, Heart Disease etc. So if you have a history of any pre-existing condition check your policy carefully. If you have a pre-exsting condition my advice would be get the most basic Thai policy and then back that up with a solid international one. Allianz etc. These all have agents / links to the big private hospitals and will pay those hospitals directly - but the hospital may initally ask for a copy of a credit card.

More than 2 cents worth, as this is excellent advice.

Thanks!

[OJAS]

3 hours ago, jonclark said:

For my twp cents worth. 

 

Make sure you have some type of health insurance in Thailand. Good medical care is expensive, government hospitals and the staff who work in them are massively overstreached and under financed and conditions on a ward will vary from adequate to poor. I have heard many good things about government hospitals, but also my fair share of shockers too. 

 

Thai health insurance is very limited in covering pre-existing conditions - Diabetes, HIV, Heart Disease etc. So if you have a history of any pre-existing condition check your policy carefully. If you have a pre-exsting condition my advice would be get the most basic Thai policy and then back that up with a solid international one. Allianz etc. These all have agents / links to the big private hospitals and will pay those hospitals directly - but the hospital may initally ask for a copy of a credit card. 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

More than 2 cents worth, as this is excellent advice.

Thanks!

 

I would, however, add that one crucial point which tends to get overlooked in evaluating the suitability of a new health insurance policy (or a combination of policies) is the issue of premium affordability in the long term. Most health insurers, Thai and foreign, usually impose significant age-related premium increases on their policyholders every 5 years or so – on top of the annual inflation-related increases.

 

This point was brought home to me in dramatic fashion when I was informed of a significant hike in the 2020 premium payment for my now former policy on account of having turned 70 since the 2019 renewal. As a result I did some number-crunching which revealed that, while I should be able to afford renewing that policy on the basis of further annual inflation-related increases of the same magnitude as in previous years until possibly 2022, thereafter renewing it would in all probability cause my finances to dip into the red as things stood.

 

So, bearing in mind that by 2023 I would be approaching my mid-70’s and consequential limited options for changing insurers on age grounds, I decided to bite the bullet and make the switch sooner rather than later. The upshot is that I now have a health insurance policy which is vastly inferior to its predecessor in terms of coverage. On the other hand, I feel that my chances of being able to continue affording to pay for health insurance cover as I progress through further age-related premium bands have now improved somewhat.

 

My advice to anyone intending to apply for health insurance, therefore, is, in addition to considering the level of cover provided by a particular policy, to look at its forward age-related premium rates and reach a tentative view as whether these are likely to prove affordable in due course (bearing in mind that age differentials could, in practice, be exaggerated by annual inflation increases in the meantime). I only wish that I had attached rather more importance to doing this myself before now!

Edited June 8, 2020 by OJAS

[stoutfella]

On 6/5/2020 at 3:34 PM, fak119 said:

2) Why the OPD?

What's an OPD?

[ubonjoe]

9 hours ago, stoutfella said:

What's an OPD?

"OPD stands for Out Patient Department. This is where one consults a doctor according to their issues. Out patient means patients who are not admitted to the hospital."

[stoutfella]

On 6/9/2020 at 7:17 AM, ubonjoe said:

"OPD stands for Out Patient Department. This is where one consults a doctor according to their issues. Out patient means patients who are not admitted to the hospital."

Oh, I geddit.