Hospitals count cost of foreigners' bills

[Big Boy]

Maybe my imagination is running away with me and/or my understanding of such insurance policies is incorrect - I certainly hope I'm way off track.

Yes possibly a little off-track based on what other countries do, here's Malaysia for example which provides for exemptions:
Approved participants and their dependants must possess valid medical insurance coverage that is applicable in Malaysia from any insurance company. However, exemptions may be given for participants who face difficulty in obtaining a medical insurance due to their age or medical condition.

I sincerely hope you are right. But as we all are well aware TIT - there's always the chance they will do their own thing; usually with no regard to the Farang.

[PeteC]

It's simple SJ, that bloke is broadcasting biased and one sided views to hundreds of thousands of Foreign and Thai readers, Of course, he would lose his thunder if he inserted that 99% of the foreign community pay their medical bills responsibly, so he wouldn't want to do that and make is story basically meaningless. I've got no problem with a story about derelict foreigners, just make it balanced. Pete

[lomuamart]

Well, I did intimate that health insurance was a good idea when I said that dozer had a valid point.
What got me was the stereotype of the non-paying patients that pretty much matches how quite a lot of Thais see us. SJ, to be fair, did also admit that the article isn't clear on how these generalisations were arrived at. I seem to read the article somewhat differently to him and note that the "source" said "a lot" of foreigners were treated for alcoholism and liver problems. It's therefore a short step for some to classify people as the article does.
What also isn't clear is whether these "findings" are based only on the 17 patients that didn't pay or from a more broad base. I think it's from the 17 only, but that's just my reading of it. And did the hospital ask them why they didn't/couldn't pay? I very much doubt that someone who's going to do a runner is going to hang around to answer a load of questions to try and justify their financial position. They'd not be allowed to leave the hospital and would probably be arrested.
The "source" says that a lot of the patients were suffering from long-term illnesses. Why didn't the hospital themselves check on the ability to pay? I really do feel that some of the blame should be laid at the hospital's door, but they try and shimmy around it by describing the non-payers in the way they do. As Pete says, sour grapes.
Dr. Mike has also stated in this thread how important it is that people carry their health insurance around with them or at least can get in touch with someone who can give those details. That seems to imply to me that a lot of hospitals here aren't going to treat you until you can prove you can pay one way or another. Indeed, another poster has given an example of this. Why didn't the hospital in this instance do this?
But to get back to one of the main points, I do agree that medical insurance is a must, especially over here where major hospital bills can get seriously expensive. I'm not, however, convinced that changing visa regulations based on the experience of one hospital (that dosn't seem to have run a particularly tight ship) and 17 non-paying patients is valid. Nevertheless, I would be prepared to change my view if more detailed figures were available across the country that showed a significant (whatever that is) number of foreigners were doing runners.
EDIT: Whoops, I think it's me who's partly got the wrong reading of the article. Just looked at it again and the hospital say they treated these patients on ethical grounds, so I assume they already knew that they weren't going to get paid. I'd missed that yesterday and this morning. Note to self: don't reply to threads too early in the morning before waking up.
I still stand by my comments on visa regulations though unless there is more detailed information.

[PeteC]

A few comments in Post Bag this morning about this. Check back as they usually filter in for a few days after an article. Pete

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opin ... e-coverage

[margaretcarnes]

Whatever the Posts reasons for publishing this admittedly biased article - there is little doubt that in some parts of Thailand expats do have drink related health issues. Perhaps those in HH don't. Hopefully few will ever need urgent medical help. And any doctor worthy of his profession should of course treat first and bill second.
The fact remains that expecting free treatment doesn't help the farang image in a country where we aren't really considered as a necessity. Whatever Thailand decides to do about the problem will have to be accepted, tough as it may be. True - another case of perhaps the few spoiling it for everyone else, but let's face it we've all seen cases where farang have been unable to pay medical bills - but have been unwilling to return to their country of origin for help.
An ideal solution of course would be for governments to all agree to 'export' health care costs to whatever country their own nationals are living in or visiting. Reciprocal arrangements with - if necessary - recovery of costs being undertaken from the patient by their country of origin. A futuristic dream of an ideal world society which isn't going to happen in time to rescue any ailing Thai hospitals.
Fact is everyone knows that health care in Thailand has to be paid for one way or another. Some choose to risk it. As a result we now have to face the consequencies.

[dozer]

If a person works and pays his/hers NI in the UK and then finds that they cannot retire here because of lack of medical insurance then yes it is unfair, but if Thailand does nothing and continues to allow uninsured expats to retire here then they are importing a welfare disaster.

[margaretcarnes]

If a person works and pays his/hers NI in the UK and then finds that they cannot retire here because of lack of medical insurance then yes it is unfair, but if Thailand does nothing and continues to allow uninsured expats to retire here then they are importing a welfare disaster.

Nicely summed up Dozer. Yes - if for example a UK fully paid up retiree needs medical help abroad ideally it should still be covered by the NHS (and probably at a saving.) But thats an ideal world.
Meanwhile Thailand is importing a welfare disaster in more ways than one - but it doesn't have a good track record for looking after it's own either so what can a farang expect - better treatment than a local? No way.

[PeteC]

Some more letters about this here: http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opin ... diving-ban

[Huahinian]

For those advocating the need for health insurance as a condition for an annual visa based on retirement, please remember that many retired people have already suffered from health problems that, in the event of a re-occurrence, would be excluded from a health insurance policy. In my case, having suffered a heart attack, the insurance companies will no longer issue cover for any future heart problem.

Imposing such a condition would mean that after living here for 24 years, I would not be granted the appropriate visa extension.

[silverbird]

It would be interesting to know how many of those 17 (?) had valid visas like extensions of Non-O.

[margaretcarnes]

For those advocating the need for health insurance as a condition for an annual visa based on retirement, please remember that many retired people have already suffered from health problems that, in the event of a re-occurrence, would be excluded from a health insurance policy. In my case, having suffered a heart attack, the insurance companies will no longer issue cover for any future heart problem.

Imposing such a condition would mean that after living here for 24 years, I would not be granted the appropriate visa extension.

The perverse thing is HuaHinian that you would in fact be able to get health insurance in Thailand despite a pre-exisiting condition. Maybe at a price of course. But it is a country where it's not unknown for farang to be able to get insurance backdated from their hospital beds.

[Super Joe]

For those advocating the need for health insurance as a condition for an annual visa based on retirement, please remember that many retired people have already suffered from health problems that, in the event of a re-occurrence, would be excluded from a health insurance policy.
Imposing such a condition would mean that after living here for 24 years, I would not be granted the appropriate visa extension.

I wouldn't have thought anyone is advocating anything that forces people to leave, and the Thai government are not known for introducing policies that result in it. For one thing with visa extensions for retirees, they have a history of 'grandfathering' when new criteria is introduced, there's retirees out there who only have to have 200,000 Baht in the bank, and not 800,000 Baht I think!?

Also, as I posted earlier in the thread, if you look at Malaysia's health insurance rules, they allow for exemptions, quote:
"Approved participants and their dependants must possess valid medical insurance coverage that is applicable in Malaysia from any insurance company. However, exemptions may be given for participants who face difficulty in obtaining a medical insurance due to their age or medical condition."

SJ

[Nereus]

If you come from a country that has a NHS or equivalent, or private health cover in that country,
one option is to take out SOS evacuation insurance. I believe it is about 15k / year.

In addition, local accident insurance, as opposed to health insurance, is a lot cheaper with many options, and available from all the leading insurance companies. For those who insist on riding around on a motorcycle it should be compulsory!

A big problem for sure, and one that is only going to get bigger, regardless of what the Thai Government may instigate.

[mat]

I'm not 100 % sure about the UK with the NHS, but for most European countries the rule is that you're out of the NHS equivalent as soon as that European country is not your country of residence anymore. So if you do take an SOS evacuation insurance, make very sure that the insurance company covers you for evacuation to your country of origin. Most companies will cover evacuation you to your country of residence (which is Thailand).

About the personal accident insurance: you don't need it if you have a good healthcare insurance. A health care insurance covers you for accidents and illnesses. If you don't have a healthcare insurance for whatever reason, it might be usefull. But keep in mind that these plans are actually more to pay out a certain amount in case of loss of life, dismemberment etc. The covered amounts for medical expenses are usually not very high and might be insufficient.

[Nereus]

Not sure just what the legal case would be, but there are not too many Farangs in Thailand that can claim that they are "resident" of Thailand. I would have thought that the very fact of taking out the Insurance would be to be evacuated to your "own" country. It may well be that you no longer qualify for your own countries NHS, but I doubt there would be a problem with "private" policies, provided that you make you own way back to your own Country. I know that is the case in my situation.

Yes, most of the accident type policies available here are geared towards total death and / or dismemberment, but they still provide sufficient injury cover, at a much reduced price, to that of a fully comprehensive health policy. And the limitation that they do have is another reason to have evacuation cover. If you look at a couple of the letters in the above link, it is obvious why a lot of retired Farangs cannot afford comprehensive cover, and there is not much point in having a policy that has more exclusions in it than "acceptable" risks.

Some interesting comments by one poster in the above link regarding house registration, and having your name on it. I have not heard that before, and I tend to doubt it, but it may well be worth looking into.