Can my wife claim?

ispookie666

We are due to have an Aupair for 5-6 months from France. With the rule changes - is it just sufficient to have EHIC?
If in emergency she needs to access NHS or GP how would that work?

xylophone

https://www.aupairworld.com/en/au_pair_program/uk/family/safety


http://www.rotherham.nhs.uk/foi/Guidence%20for%20GPs/Simple%20Guidance%20for%20Free%20NHS%20Treatment.pdf

may be of interest.

MissMoneypenny

pmlindyloo wrote: »

Thank you for your patience in trying to explain everything, MissM. Feel much more informed now.

Don't get too excited:D EU free movement changes happen all the time and it doesn't get easier for EUs wanting to live in the UK.

pmlindyloo wrote: »

Do you know whether these new regulations are being put into effect now or whether there are still consultations being done as to how this is going to work?

They don't need to as they are already written in EU law. Countries choose what they want for their own country. It's just that Labour didn't bother to bring any restirctions in for the UK and now this government have and they keep bringing in more restrictions. To avoid the UK losing in EU courts when he brought in the EU benefit restrictions, he worked within EU laws and simply changed what a quaified person was in the UK and then changed the way the welfare laws were worded for Universal Credit

The removing and banning of EUs that the UK now does was already allowed under EU law. Germany was unhappy when the UK started that as they said it wasn't in the spirit of free movement, but now I notice Germany now intend to do the same thing and make it a 5 year ban instead of 1.

Sometimes EU court rulings bring in changes. Although Cameron took big liberties with one case the UK won and on the back of that somehow got EU law changed just for the UK. Brits living in other EEA countries now have an advantage over their citizens who move to the UK.

The consultations seem to be for UK immigration laws: not that the responses really matter as it seems to be just a formality.

pmlindyloo

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Don't get too excited:D EU free movement changes happen all the time and it doesn't get easier for EUs wanting to live in the UK.



They don't need to as they are already written in EU law. Countries choose what they want for their own country. It's just that Labour didn't bother to bring any restirctions in for the UK and now this government have and they keep bringing in more restrictions.

The removing and banning of EUs that the UK now does was already allowed under EU law. Germany was unhappy when the UK started that as they said it wasn't in the spirit of free movement, but now I notice Germany now intend to do the same thing and make it a 5 year ban instead of 1.

Sometimes EU court rulings bring in changes. Although Cameron took big liberties with one case the UK won and on the back of that somehow got EU law changed just for the UK. Brits living in other EEA countries now have an advantage over their citizens who move to the UK.

Thanks. I was actually referring to NHS charges.

MissMoneypenny

ispookie666 wrote: »

We are due to have an Aupair for 5-6 months from France. With the rule changes - is it just sufficient to have EHIC?

If in emergency she needs to access NHS or GP how would that work?

Any emergency should be covered by her EHIC, but she will need to check what the French will pay for. I never leave the UK without private insurance too. It doesn't cost much.

Under the Immigrtion Act 2014, from April 2015 a GP or nurse consultation must be free, but they muist be billed for any treatment at their surgery, things sent off for tests and the full price for medication. There are a few exceptions i.e. birth contol will be free (but not abortions). I'm not sure if France will be billed for the GP when their EHIC is produced, but it seems she won't be billed.

But if she is earning 24 x the hourly national minimum wage and therefore paying NICs, under present UK free moement rules, the UK should pay all her NHS bills. It reads like the NHS will be checking by using HMRCs Real Time where employers inform HMRC each time they pay their employee. I have no idea how that works with HMRC when paying aupairs

MissMoneypenny

pmlindyloo wrote: »

Thanks. I was actually referring to NHS charges.

As said, the NHS remains free for EU worker qualified persons and their familly members.

There is some limited time for free NHS paid by the UK if they are in receipt of JSA, but income based JSA is limited to 3 months now for EUs and they have to meet the criteria for that.

FBaby

Because you are giving out wrong information that could be very costly to EU citizens: which is why I said it was very, very different now to when you moved to the UK as an EU citizen.

But you are making an assumption that my advice derives from my own experience back from when I movde in the UK. This is not the case. Not only do I not recall what the legislation was when I did, but my situation was different to that of OP's wife as I was employed.

You are clearly well qualified, whatever your professional role, and I am not undermining this at all, but I don't understand how the new 2015 guidance from the DH aligns with what you are saying, so maybe you wouldn't mind expending a bit more?

You say:

There is no free NHS for "ordinary resident" anymore. Look at the NHS paart of the Immigration Act 2014. That law changed the NHS so that from 6 April 2015 only settled persons (UK citizens, those with ILR/PR) can now have free NHS;

What I read in the latest guidance (post April 2015) is:

3.2 The test of residence that the UK uses to determine entitlement to free NHS healthcare is known as ‘ordinary residence’, as this is the term used in the National Health Service Act 2006. An overseas visitor is defined in the Charging Regulations as anyone who is not ordinarily resident in the!UK.

It then goes on to say (which supports what you are saying):

3.7 When assessing the ordinary residence status of a person seeking free NHS services, a relevant NHS body will need to consider whether they are:
living lawfully in the United Kingdom voluntarily and for settled purposes as part of the regular order of their life for the time being.

3.8 The concept of ‘settled purpose’ has been developed by the courts:
There must be an identifiable purpose for their residence here, there can be one purpose or several, and it may be for a limited period. The purpose for living in the UK must have a sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as ‘settled’.

In the past, the Department of Health has suggested that someone who has been here for less than six months is less likely to meet the ‘settled’ criterion of the ordinary residence description, but this is only a guideline. For a British citizen or EEA national (and for a nonEEA national with ILR, or a non-EEA national not subject to immigration control), it is perfectly possible to be ordinarily resident here from the day of arrival, when it is clear that that person
has, upon arrival, taken up settled residence. In each case, it is for the relevant NHS body to decide whether the criteria within the ordinary residence description are met. A tool has also been developed to assist them in considering whether an individual is properly settled in the UK in order to establish ordinary residence status

Now where I think I struggle to understand your position is how you are defining 'being settled'. You say that this only applies to UK citizens and those with ILR/PR, and that's where I don't follow. The above states that it is up to the NHS Trust to decide following a toolkit that states:

Some examples of factors which may help to indicate whether a person is ordinarily resident or not are listed in the table below. Normally, no one factor on its own will determine that a person is, or is not, ordinarily resident. While answering “yes” to a question may be an indicator that a person is ordinarily resident and vice versa, a
decision will need to be made according to all the circumstances of the particular case

So I am interpreting that it is up to the NHS body to make a decision on whether the patient is 'settled' for the purpose of ordinary residency depending on a numbe of individual factors.

Unlike what you might think, I am not here to prove a point, I happen to have a particular interest in the matter - AND NO, IT REALLY ISN'T ABOUT ME! - so any clarity is what I am after.

pmlindyloo

FBaby wrote: »

But you are making an assumption that my advice derives from my own experience back from when I movde in the UK. This is not the case. Not only do I not recall what the legislation was when I did, but my situation was different to that of OP's wife as I was employed.

You are clearly well qualified, whatever your professional role, and I am not undermining this at all, but I don't understand how the new 2015 guidance from the DH aligns with what you are saying, so maybe you wouldn't mind expending a bit more?

You say:


What I read in the latest guidance (post April 2015) is:


It then goes on to say (which supports what you are saying):




Now where I think I struggle to understand your position is how you are defining 'being settled'. You say that this only applies to UK citizens and those with ILR/PR, and that's where I don't follow. The above states that it is up to the NHS Trust to decide following a toolkit that states:



So I am interpreting that it is up to the NHS body to make a decision on whether the patient is 'settled' for the purpose of ordinary residency depending on a numbe of individual factors.

Unlike what you might think, I am not here to prove a point, I happen to have a particular interest in the matter - AND NO, IT REALLY ISN'T ABOUT ME! - so any clarity is what I am after.

As I understand it the OP's wife is living here as a qualified person as a self sufficient person - financially supported by her husband -she does not fall into the other categories of qualified persons.

Unlike other 'qualified persons' part of the criteria to be a qualified person as self sufficient is that they must have comprehensive medical insurance.

If they don't have comprehensive medical insurance then they are not a qualified person and therefore may have to pay for maternity care.

What I have said is very simplistic (and hopefully correct).

How that is made clear in the documents you have quoted could be through the phrase, 'lawfully living in the UK'. I am assuming that if they haven't got comprehensive medical insurance as a self sufficient person then they are not 'lawful'????????

What a minefield. Doesn't help that if you have no knowledge of what certain words mean - eg qualified person - you have to do research on each.

I am sure it makes perfect sense to Miss M but for us mere mortals it sure doesn't.

Hope (or do I?) that hospitals can get their heads around it although looking at the guidance for them and the check list I am not sure that they will (can).

xylophone

A lot of typing time has been expended on arguing about whether or not the OP's wife is entitled to free NHS care - I notice that the OP did not specifically query this and indeed, since his wife has been here since last year and is six months pregnant, presumably he knows the answer?

Perhaps he'll come back and tell us.....:)

FBaby

What a minefield. Doesn't help that if you have no knowledge of what certain words mean - eg qualified person - you have to do research on each.

It certainly seems to be. The DH guidance, ie. what NHS trusts are expected to follow makes very little reference to the Immigration Act. All it say is this as below, but that doesn't even seem to apply to EEA nationals!

The Immigration Act 2014 made changes to the charging rules. These changes are twofold.First, section 39 of the Act changes the meaning of ‘ordinary residence’ in section!175 of the National Health Service Act, as it relates to non-EEA nationals who are subject to
immigration control. Such individuals, in addition to satisfying the existing test for ordinary residence, must also now have indefinite leave to remain in the UK in order to be ordinarily resident here. This has effect from 6 April 2015. Chapter 3 provides more information about
ordinary residence.

It states that the steps Trusts are expected to take are:
Step 1: Determine if the patient is insured by another member state
Step 2: Determine if the patient is ordinarily resident in the UK -and that relates to what I posted above and the questions that trusts are expected to ask-.
Step 3: Determine if the patient is covered by an exemption in the Charging Regulations or if the patient is liable for charges
Step 4: Make and recover charges from chargeable overseas visitors

Nothing there about assessing whether patients are a 'qualified person' as defined in the immigration act. The onus of the NHS seems to be on determining whether the patient is an 'ordinary resident'.

A lot of typing time has been expended on arguing about whether or not the OP's wife is entitled to free NHS care - I notice that the OP did not specifically query this and indeed, since his wife has been here since last year and is six months pregnant, presumably he knows the answer?

I expect that is because NHS organisations are totally confused about the rules. Most probably have only one question on their admission form to determined whether they should charge the patient or not, something along the line of 'how long have you been in the UK and are you a resident'. I would expect OP's wife to believe she is and therefore genuinely respond yes to the question and that would be the end of it.