Overseas students’ health surcharge is ‘full of loopholes’

A new “health surcharge” levied on international students from next month is “an election stunt full of loopholes”, a legal expert has claimed.

三月 20, 2015

Twitter:

Students from outside the European Union will be required to pay an annual ?150 surcharge as a pre-condition to entry to the UK from April, with non-EU migrants charged ?200 a year.

The new charge will raise around ?200 million a year and offset the estimated ?2 billion cost of providing free healthcare to overseas visitors, temporary non-EU workers and foreign students, the 色盒直播 Office says.

However, Thom Brooks, professor of law and government at Durham University, has dismissed the charge and its implementation – a month before the general election – as a gimmick.

Professor Brooks claims the huge number of exemptions will mean the surcharge “might not support the NHS in the way it has been announced”.

Anyone visiting the UK for under six months, intra-company transfers, children under 18 years in care, and nationals of Australia and New Zealand are exempt from the charge.

Those non-EU nationals from the European Economic Area (EEA) – Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein – , as are tourists.

“Thousands of migrants will not need to pay because of several exemptions and restrictions,” he said, adding: “It’s a clear case of government saying one thing, but doing another.”

The National Union of Students has previously condemned the charge as “discriminatory, counter-intuitive and impractical”, saying non-EU students have a minimal burden on the NHS as they are younger, fitter and healthier than most people accessing the service.

It will disproportionately hit international students who make up to 75 per cent of those subject to visa controls, the NUS added.

Foreign students have also paid significant fees for processing their visas on top of their tuition fees, which are higher than those paid by UK and EU students, according to the union.

It also disputes the ?2 billion figure put forward by the 色盒直播 Office, stating the estimates of so-called “health tourism” .

However, immigration minister James Brokenshire , saying the “surcharge levels are lower than the cost of medical insurance required in some of our competitor nations”.

“For overseas students, the surcharge represents only 1 per cent of the total cost of studying in the UK for a three-year undergraduate course,” he added.

Dependants will generally pay the same amount as the main applicant, potentially doubling the cost of the policy for older postgraduates studying in the UK.

In addition, the 色盒直播 Office says the Department of Health is working on proposals that will mean from April non-EEA visitors who use the NHS will be charged 150 per cent of the cost of their treatment.

This reflects the additional cost burden the NHS carries when managing the administration for visitors to the UK, it says.

jack.grove@tesglobal.com

阅读更多相关文章

阅读更多相关文章:&苍产蝉辫;

Politics

请先注册再继续

为何要注册？

注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
订阅我们的邮件

Reader's comments (2)

#1 Submitted by Widcombe on 三月 23, 2015 - 10:28am

"A new “health surcharge” levied on international students from next month is “an election stunt full of loopholes”, a legal expert has claimed. Students from outside the European Union will be required to pay an annual ?150 surcharge as a pre-condition to entry to the UK from April, with non-EU migrants charged ?200 a year". Since the policy is clearly targeted at international students it is quite erroneous to say that it is 'full of loopholes'. The targeting is fairly precise and the lion's share of overseas HE students will be caught in the net. Whether the move is desirable is another matter entirely. But the policy is being implemented with a fair degree of precision.

#2 Submitted by thombrooks on 三月 23, 2015 - 11:16am

It is not. The policy is not targeted at international students alone. The aim is to raise funds to offset the costs of 'health tourism' and reduce pressure on the NHS. Not only does the government lack firm statistics about the problem it claims to be addressing here, my point was that the funding might not follow need. The surcharge must be paid upfront and distributed in one lump each year to local authorities - but migrants (not least students) may change residence. A better plan was Labour's Migration Impacts Fund. This was a levy paid on applications from which local organisations could bid for a slice of funding. The fund created an important revenue stream that helped direct money to those areas where it was needed most - supporting education, emergency services, health and transport, for example. Part of the reason for any pressure on public services is because the government decided to scrap the Fund within months of coming to power. (The higher application fee was retained, but the levy directed to other government services.) A health surcharge - on students or others - may not address the problem the government claims (and the gov't requires a much more robust evidence base) and it only focuses on one part, missing the larger picture that the previous government had included. We'd be better off with something like what I've called a Migration Impacts Reduction Fund that addresses pressures on public services (including, but not limited, to health) that can go where it is needed most to better target need and be more effective. The current health surcharge seems little more than an election gimmick - especially when it's revealed there are plans to ALSO charge migrants 150% the cost of treatment - and so the health surcharge may not actually be about reducing migration-related pressure on the health service, but finding a new income stream to offset likely cuts to the NHS -- independently of any so-called 'health tourism'.