There is growing speculation that Thailand may abolish the Thailand Pass pre-registration system for foreigners within the next three months, following a trial period with Thai nationals. This does not necessarily mean that international entrants will revert to the pre-Covid system of boarding a plane armed only with a passport and, if necessary, a visa. Obviously, they will have to produce at Thai immigration their vaccination certification which, according to the Ministry of Health, will be two jabs plus at least one booster. At present, full vaccination eligibility requires only the first two injections.
The other macro issue for foreigners is medical insurance which, at present, requires a minimum of US$10,000 cover for Covid-related illness under the Thailand Pass bureaucracy as it stands. If Thailand Pass was abolished, would all foreigners become exempt from any kind of insurance? Actually, nobody knows. Last month, a spokesperson for the Thai Cabinet said no decision had been taken to abolish medical insurance for international visitors, although it was no longer needed for Thais who were covered by the public health system. Foreigners, of course, are not so covered unless in possession of a work permit authorized by the Ministry of Labor. That’s a tiny number.
Another key ambiguity lies in the future of visas and extensions based on expat retirees over 50 years of age. As is well known, the 12-months O/A visa – only issued by embassies abroad – requires comprehensive medical insurance. All embassies appear to require cover of at least 3 million baht or US$100,000 for the whole year. Solely, the Thai embassy in Norway offers self-insurance as an alternative for those too old or sick to obtain cover. Instead, applicants may place 3 million baht in a bank account at least two months before application. This sum is on top of the 800,000 baht ordinarily required as a bond: a grand total of 3.8 million baht. Annual O/A extensions at immigration offices require the continuation of comprehensive medical insurance, but the details vary from office to office.
It is usually claimed that an “O” visa based on retirement requires no insurance, but the true picture is more complicated. Most embassies require comprehensive medical insurance of 400,000 baht (inpatient) and 40,000 baht (outpatient) to cover the single-entry three months permission, although some (Norway again) specify only a smaller US$10,000 health minimum. Once in Thailand, there is currently no insurance requirement when extending the “O” visa for a year or replacing a tourist visa with an immigration-issued annual “O”. Many retirees stuck with the O/A visa or extension try to change to the less-oppressive “O” but must leave the country first to have the chance.
A final confusion is the again-delayed 300 baht tourist tax on foreign arrivals of which 50 baht would go into an insurance slush fund for foreigners. The scheme has been widely misunderstood as a bond to fund foreigners receiving treatment in hospital, but it is in fact a much more modest bankrolling of compensation for international tourists who die in unusual circumstances such as transport accidents. The published details say nothing of routine hospitalization or any cash for operations, mishaps or Covid illnesses. At best, the government scheme would provide some limited cover for out-of-pocket hospitals to bid in a handful of controversial cases which risk harming the country’s reputation.
As Thailand opens up again to international visitors of all kinds, it has a golden opportunity to sort out its insurance requirements and introduce some coherence across the board. The quality of policies available both in Thailand and abroad varies from excellent to utter scam. The worst are designed only to be a thinly-disguised entry tax on which any subsequent claim is impossible because of the small-print wording. One can only hope.
 |
 |
 |
