(edit title) Can someone drop health insurance ? Is it allowed ? Options

[Nomark]

Sweden demands that self-supporting EU migrants have comprehensive health insurance in order to get a personal number. However, once someone has a personal number its straightforward to access state healthcare.

Is it ok to drop the health insurance once a personal number has been obtained ?

[TheExpatEagle]

[john.boy]

If you ever want to be considered EU Long Term resident you will be asked to prove you met the conditions for Right of Residence for the 5 year period. You fail immediately if you cannot show you had health insurance for the first 12 months.

[Nomark]

Thanks for the responses. Its not something I'm considering (I'm a Swedish citizen). However, I've long been curious regarding the enforcement of a rule on health insurance given that Sweden runs a residence-based (and not insurance-based) health service.

My impression is that, once a personal number has been granted, for self-supporting EU citizens at least, no further checks are made. An applicant has to show twelve months private insurance in order to register. However, EU law and the Swedish gov. are clear that private health care is required indefinitely for economically inactive citizens. For an application for a certificate of permanent residency status (permanent uppeh?llsr?tt), five years of continuous compliance with residence law is needed. There is a lot of documentation requested in the application procedure but there is no demand of proof of appropriate health insurance for any periods when someone is self-supporting during the preceding years.

Regarding F?rs?kringskassan, I'm not sure this is relevant for accessing health care, which is devolved to the regions rather than falling under a centralised myndighet. F?rs?kringskassan deals with social benefits.

A similar situation seems to have arisen in the UK, which also has a residence-based health-care system. Economically inactive EU citizens were required to have private health care but the UK didn't stop them accessing the public health care system. The UK turned a blind eye to economically inactive EU migrants not having private health care unless they came to the attention of the authorities, as many did when applying for the equivalent of permanent uppeh?llsr?tt after the Brexit referendum. Unlike Sweden, the UK explicitly asked for proof of private health care for this application. A lot of EU citizens were then told they may have to leave. The requirement for private health care was subsequently dropped for the post-Brexit Settled Status residence permits.

The European Commission started proceedings against the UK for requiring economically inactive migrants to have private insurance when the UK's health care system is residence-based and, in principle, the migrants had access to necessary health care (a similar principle would likely apply for the EU Long Term resident permit if the UK hadn't opted out of that). Brexit interrupted this legal process. I suspect that Sweden wishes to avoid any legal action and is turning a blind eye to the enforcement of the private health care rule, other than for the first twelve months when its needed to get a personnummer, but still maintaining that its needed on its information pages so that at least some (maybe most) economically inactive migrants follow the rule.

[Cheeseroller]

There are always ways around the system. But at the end, they won't get medical treatment.

[Nomark]

Cheeseroller - that isn't true. I know of people who have done so without consequence. Also, as described above, Sweden seems not to care: Migrationsverket doesn't even verify long term compliance when it has the chance.

[*Guest*]

A point to note; there is no right to reside in another eu country if you are economically inactive, the regulations are migration for employment(or having enough cash in the bank to support yourself), folk are allowed a bit of grace, usually 90days for job seeking but that's it. Any benefits in this time are expected to be paid by the homeland.

Reciprocal rights for medical treatment are for those travelling on holiday or with work, these also don't apply to those who are permanent resident elsewhere. If you aren't contributing to a country but have left your homeland some time ago, then folk are in limbo land between the two. Hence the requirement for insurance.

OP, whilst you might be able to slip through the gaps and dodge this, if it goes wrong and you are discovered as said above there could be longer term consequences for future applications, as because cancelling your insurance was a deliberate act, it's not as though it just happened on its own.

[Nomark]

I understand the basics of EU Freedom of Movement law.

I'm not condoning dropping health insurance and accessing the public system btw, nor do I think it remotely sensible. My specific interest in this question is Brexit and the permits for Brits.

The Withdrawal Agreement by and large replicates existing EU law. One, rather crucial, difference is that, under EU law, the host state is not able to make systematic checks on EU migrants to ensure continued compliance with EU law (though Sweden apparently chooses not to even basic checks on applications for permanent uppeh?llsr?tt intyg). The Withdrawal Agreement ensures that Sweden will just do that i.e. check all resident Brits who require the treaty's residence protections. The mechanics of how Migrationsverket will implement the Withdrawal Agreement are still not known (the law is still winding its way through the Riksdag). Its possible MV will ask for proof of health insurance and a lot of people could be caught out. One can argue that such people deserve or don't deserve to have problems because of this. I'm mostly interested in whether this can happen and, related, why Sweden applies an oddly inconsistent treatment of the private health insurance requirement.

[*Guest*]

Much will depend on the actual Brexit deal, or no deal, but also any individual agreements the UK might arrange with Sweden.

The UK isn't going having any special maintain the status quo agreement with say Romania, as it will be just one way traffic, but the UK and sweden could differ. The same for double taxation agreements.

[*Guest*]

Sweden applies these agreements because of migration for health treatment and it's almost entirely into sweden.

How many folk would leave sweden to try and get free treatment elsewhere?

[Nomark]

Sweden's approach has nothing at all to do with any potential no deal this year. The terms of the citizens' rights protections are set out in the Withdrawal Agreement which the EU states and the UK agreed in 2019. There is no reciprocation other than in that agreement that states that, at the minimum, existing EU law, as replicated in the Withdrawal Agreement, will be applied to protect affected citizens. However, each country takes its own approach to doing this. The UK has adopted a liberal approach and has dropped a lot of rules, eg private health care, for all EU migrants. As Sweden has traditionally been far more stringent in many aspects of EU residence law, there is no reason to expect them to do this, nor are they under any pressure from the UK to do this, and the Commission has been very clear in that countries should apply the minimum should they choose to do so.

As to separate country-country deals regarding residence, that isn't on the agenda.

[Martin565]

Sweden demands that self-supporting EU migrants have comprehensive health insurance in order to get a personal number. However, once someone has a personal number its straight ... (show full quote)

Sweden demands that self-supporting EU migrants have comprehensive health insurance in order to get a personal number. However, once someone has a personal number its straightforward to access state healthcare.

Is it ok to drop the health insurance once a personal number has been obtained ? ... (hide full quote)

The simple answer is yes. Or as you already are aware the quickest & simplest way to get it sorted is get the personummer ASAP.

[Nomark]

Its clear you can do it. The issue under discussion is whether there are consequences for doing it given that Skatteverket is clear that someone shouldn't do it, a position supported by EU law.