Your London consultant wants to operate in six weeks, the waiting list at the French hospital runs to eight months, and the letter from your caisse primaire d’assurance maladie<\/i> (CPAM, the local health insurance fund that registers residents and pays medical bills) says no: treatment abroad is not covered, go back into the French queue. For a British resident of France after Brexit, that refusal letter is where two legal worlds collide. One world is the waiting room \u2014 the card you carry for emergencies on a visit. The other is the operating theatre you book deliberately \u2014 the planned operation in London, the Swiss clinic with the shorter list, the follow-up with the specialist who has known your file for a decade. The two worlds obey different rules, and confusing them is how British families lose thousands of pounds: they wave a Global Health Insurance Card (GHIC, the UK card that pays for medically necessary treatment during short visits to the European Union) at a planned admission, or they travel for surgery without the written prior authorisation that French law demands, and the fund refuses to pay a penny. This guide explains, for a British reader, which instrument pays for which kind of care outside France, how to obtain prior authorisation with the S2 form before you travel, and exactly how to challenge a refusal \u2014 with the statutes quoted word for word and the court decisions that force funds to apply the European test as written.<\/p>\nI. Who pays when a British resident of France is treated in the United Kingdom: the visit card, the S1, or prior authorisation?<\/h2>\n
Start by fixing your own status in France, because every cross-border payment question is answered by first asking which state is competent for your healthcare. If you draw a UK State Pension and hold a registered S1 (the portable document by which the United Kingdom certifies that it will pay for your healthcare in France), London pays and the CPAM delivers French treatment. If you work in France or live here stably and lawfully without an S1, you belong to the protection universelle maladie<\/i> (PUMA, the French universal health cover that guarantees payment of medical costs to anyone working or living lawfully and stably in France). Article L160-1 of the Social Security Code<\/a> states: \u201cToute personne travaillant ou, lorsqu’elle n’exerce pas d’activit\u00e9 professionnelle, r\u00e9sidant en France de mani\u00e8re stable et r\u00e9guli\u00e8re b\u00e9n\u00e9ficie, en cas de maladie ou de maternit\u00e9, de la prise en charge de ses frais de sant\u00e9 dans les conditions fix\u00e9es au pr\u00e9sent livre.\u201d Workers are affiliated through their activity under Article L111-2-2<\/a>, and the public service portal confirms that once you work or live in France in a stable and lawful manner, cover is personal and continuous, with the economically inactive newcomer waiting three months before rights open. Only once this home position is settled can you ask who pays abroad \u2014 and the answer splits, cleanly, between care that surprises you on a visit and care you plan before departure.<\/p>\n The holiday heart attack, the fractured ankle on a Christmas visit to Leeds, the asthma attack at Heathrow: medically necessary care that erupts during a temporary stay is the domain of the card, not the authorisation. If you are insured in France, the instrument is the French European Health Insurance Card, which you order from your CPAM before travelling and show to the British National Health Service provider so the treatment is supplied under British rules. If you are instead covered by the United Kingdom \u2014 typically an S1 holder whose competent state remains Britain \u2014 the instrument is the British GHIC for temporary stays. The British guidance draws the boundary explicitly: the GHIC covers temporary stays, while a person who lives and works in France on a French contract cannot use a UK-issued European card for French care. Mirror logic applies in reverse: the card in your wallet must match the state where you are insured, and it only ever covers care that becomes necessary while you are there, never treatment you travelled to obtain.<\/p>\n The French regulation states the mechanism for the French-insured traveller. Article R160-1 of the Social Security Code<\/a> governs care that proves medically necessary during a temporary stay in another member state of the European Union or the European Economic Area or in Switzerland, and provides for reimbursement by the French funds where the patient has advanced the costs, under the conditions of the state of stay or, with the patient’s agreement, under French conditions. In practice: show the card, pay any local patient share the British system charges its own residents, keep every invoice and proof of payment, and claim the balance from your CPAM on return with the originals. A claim without the itemised foreign invoice and the bank proof of payment stalls immediately, so photograph every document at the hospital counter before you leave.<\/p>\n Two warnings specific to British travellers. First, the GHIC is not private travel insurance: it never covers repatriation flights, mountain rescue, or the private clinic that refuses state cards, so keep a travel policy beside the card. Second, holders of a French pension who live abroad keep defined French protection during temporary stays in France under Article L160-3<\/a>, which preserves French coverage for French pensioners visiting from abroad \u2014 a provision that matters to the British household where one spouse draws a French pension and the other a British one, because each spouse may travel on a different instrument. When in doubt, ask your CPAM in writing which card you should carry for a defined trip, and file its written answer with your travel papers.<\/p>\n Deliberately travelling to London for an operation, to Switzerland for a specialised intervention, or back to the consultant who has followed you for years is a different legal act from falling ill on holiday, and it needs permission before departure. The European coordination test, as restated word for word by the Court of Cassation in September 2026, runs as follows: \u201cSelon le premier de ces textes, une personne assur\u00e9e se rendant dans un autre \u00c9tat membre aux fins de b\u00e9n\u00e9ficier de prestations en nature pendant son s\u00e9jour demande une autorisation \u00e0 l’institution comp\u00e9tente, qui est accord\u00e9e lorsque les soins dont il s’agit figurent parmi les prestations pr\u00e9vues par la l\u00e9gislation de l’\u00c9tat membre sur le territoire duquel r\u00e9side l’int\u00e9ress\u00e9 et que ces soins ne peuvent lui \u00eatre dispens\u00e9s dans un d\u00e9lai acceptable sur le plan m\u00e9dical, compte tenu de son \u00e9tat actuel de sant\u00e9 et de l’\u00e9volution probable de la maladie.\u201d<\/a> Two cumulative conditions, no more: the treatment must be among the benefits your home system covers, and it must be unavailable at home within a medically acceptable time given your condition and its likely course. A fund that adds a third condition of its own invention \u2014 the wrong form, the wrong queue, the consultant’s nationality \u2014 misapplies the law.<\/p>\n French domestic law mirrors the European test and adds the procedure. Article R160-2 of the Social Security Code<\/a> provides that the funds may only reimburse, on prior authorisation, the costs of care given to persons covered under Articles L160-1 and L160-2 in another European Union or European Economic Area state or in Switzerland, where the patient travels to receive adapted treatment and the care either involves at least one overnight stay in a treatment establishment or requires highly specialised and costly infrastructure or equipment appearing on a ministerial list. The same article then states the core guarantee, quoted exactly: \u201cL’autorisation mentionn\u00e9e au I ne peut \u00eatre refus\u00e9e lorsque les conditions suivantes sont r\u00e9unies : 1\u00b0 La prise en charge des soins envisag\u00e9s est pr\u00e9vue par la r\u00e9glementation fran\u00e7aise ; 2\u00b0 Ces soins sont appropri\u00e9s \u00e0 l’\u00e9tat de sant\u00e9 du patient ; 3\u00b0 Un traitement identique ou pr\u00e9sentant le m\u00eame degr\u00e9 d’efficacit\u00e9 ne peut pas \u00eatre obtenu en France dans un d\u00e9lai acceptable sur le plan m\u00e9dical, compte tenu de l’\u00e9tat de sant\u00e9 actuel du patient et de l’\u00e9volution probable de son affection.\u201d Three conditions, each provable with paper: French coverage of the procedure, medical appropriateness, and unavailability in France within an acceptable time.<\/p>\n The procedure carries a deadline that protects you, and a silence that counts as consent. The patient sends the authorisation request to the fund of registration, the medical review board decides, and the decision must be notified within a period compatible with the urgency and availability of the planned care and no later than two weeks after receipt of the request. Then comes the sentence that wins cases: \u201cEn l’absence de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 l’expiration de ce dernier d\u00e9lai, l’autorisation est r\u00e9put\u00e9e accord\u00e9e.\u201d No answer within two weeks means authorisation is deemed granted \u2014 so send the request by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt (lettre recommand\u00e9e avec accus\u00e9 de r\u00e9ception<\/i>, the tracked postal service that proves the date the fund received your papers), diary the fortnight, and treat an expired silence as a yes you can rely on, keeping the postal receipt as your proof. The French liaison body for international social security confirms the same practice publicly: notice of prior authorisation or refusal arrives within fourteen days of receipt, silence means approval, and an approved file produces the portable S2 certificate (\u201cEntitlement to scheduled treatment\u201d) that you present to the foreign fund or provider so the care is supplied under local law at local rates. It adds that where urgent care can neither be postponed nor performed in France, authorisation may exceptionally be issued retrospectively where the patient was prevented from asking before departure or could not wait for the decision \u2014 a narrow escape hatch, never a strategy.<\/p>\n Routine ambulatory consultations arranged abroad without authorisation sit outside both protections, and the courts say so bluntly. In the September 2026 case, the insured person, resident in France, had sought payment for daytime psychiatric consultations in a Swiss medical centre; the appeal court had refused on domestic grounds, and the Court of Cassation quashed that reasoning while confirming the structure of the test \u2014 authorisation for hospital or specialised care under the European conditions, no automatic payment for walk-in outpatient care arranged without permission. The ruling \u201cCASSE ET ANNULE, en toutes ses dispositions, l’arr\u00eat rendu le 7 avril 2023, entre les parties, par la cour d’appel de Grenoble\u201d<\/a>, and sent the parties before the Lyon appeal court, condemning the fund to the costs. For the British reader planning a London operation, the message is precise: hospital surgery with a proper prior request and a file proving the French delay is authorisable and reimbursable; a self-booked Harley Street consultation without any request is not.<\/p>\n A refusal is a reasoned administrative decision with appeal routes printed at its foot, not a medical verdict on your condition \u2014 read it as a lawyer reads it, looking for the missing condition the fund claims and the test it applied. French law gives you a fixed ladder with two-month rungs: informal challenge, compulsory prior review, then the judge. The same ladder serves both refusals of prior authorisation and refusals of reimbursement after treatment, with one difference the courts repeat constantly: after-the-event cases are won or lost on the medical file, while before-departure cases are won on the three statutory conditions. Both demand dated paper from the first day.<\/p>\n Address the three statutory conditions in order, with one tab per condition, because the medical review board decides on the file as presented and does not go looking for your evidence. Tab one, French coverage: the French specialist’s referral or prescription for the exact procedure, with its classification, dated before the request \u2014 the board checks that the planned care appears among benefits under French regulation. Tab two, appropriateness: the consultant’s letter explaining why this procedure suits your condition, recent imaging or test results, and where relevant the opinion of the French practitioner who follows you, since the board’s medical adviser assesses the patient’s state and the suitability of the planned care. Tab three, unavailability in France within a medically acceptable time: the dated proof that decides most British files \u2014 the French hospital’s waiting-list letter with the proposed date, the attestation that the equipment or specialism is unavailable locally, or the referral showing the French delay against the London date, tied explicitly to your diagnosis and its likely course. Add the foreign clinic’s dated treatment plan and cost estimate, your residence title, your carte Vitale<\/i> number or S1 registration, and a one-page chronology in French. Send the whole file by registered letter, keep a complete copy, and calendar fourteen days from the acknowledgement of receipt.<\/p>\n Do not travel before the answer arrives unless delay would endanger you, and if you must travel urgently, create the paper that the retrospective exception requires: the medical certificate stating why the care could not be postponed or performed in France, proof that you asked before departure or could not wait, and every invoice with proof of payment. The liaison body’s guidance is explicit that retrospective authorisation is the exception for the prevented patient, not the rule for the impatient one. And never confuse the instruments: the S2 is the certificate for scheduled treatment that follows an approved authorisation, while the European Health Insurance Card covers only necessary care during a stay \u2014 presenting the wrong document at the London hospital’s overseas desk guarantees the wrong bill.<\/p>\n Households of modest means should run a parallel check while the authorisation file is pending. Article L861-1<\/a> grants complementary solidarity health protection, with no patient contribution for the lowest incomes or subsidised cover just above, below defined ceilings \u2014 it pays the part of fees, pharmacy and hospital charges the basic scheme leaves to patients, and it can change the economics of both the French alternative and the London plan. The check costs nothing and the certificate, once granted, belongs in the file.<\/p>\n The refusal decision must, by regulation, be duly reasoned and open to appeal before the designated judicial court: \u201cLes d\u00e9cisions de refus sont d\u00fbment motiv\u00e9es et susceptibles de recours devant le tribunal judiciaire sp\u00e9cialement d\u00e9sign\u00e9 comp\u00e9tent.\u201d Read those reasons first and classify the refusal. A refusal for incompleteness names the missing document \u2014 supply it and reapply, because a corrected file within the clinical window beats a lawsuit after it. A refusal on the merits states which of the three conditions failed: not covered in France, not appropriate, or available in France in time. That third ground is where most British refusals live and die, and it is a medical question answered with dated evidence, not with assertions about the superiority of the London surgeon. A refusal built on the wrong legal basis \u2014 the fund judging a European coordination request under a purely domestic checklist \u2014 is the refusal most vulnerable on appeal, as the Court of Cassation demonstrated by quashing the Grenoble ruling for exactly that substitution.<\/p>\n The appeal ladder is statutory and unforgiving on time. Article L142-1 of the Social Security Code<\/a> defines social security litigation as covering disputes on the application of social security legislation, which includes both authorisation and reimbursement refusals. Article L142-4<\/a> requires, before any court action in these matters, a prior review (recours pr\u00e9alable<\/i>, the compulsory written challenge examined by the fund’s review board before a judge may be seized) under conditions set by decree. The working sequence is: first, an informal appeal (recours gracieux<\/i>, the letter asking the fund itself to reconsider) within two months of the refusal, attaching the corrected or completed evidence; second, referral to the fund’s prior review board (commission de recours amiable<\/i>, the joint board inside each fund that re-examines refusals before litigation) within two months of the explicit or implied rejection, with two months of silence counting as a refusal you can take further; third, proceedings before the designated judicial court and its social protection chamber (tribunal judiciaire, p\u00f4le social<\/i>, the local civil court division that hears social security cases), again within two months. Every step travels by registered letter, every receipt is kept, and the file before the judge contains the refusal with its reasons, the appeals with their postal receipts, the complete medical and administrative evidence, and a short French chronology. Claimants who petition the judge without the prior review are declared inadmissible whatever the merits.<\/p>\n Two court lessons frame the litigation. The first is the strictness of the European test in your favour: the September 2026 ruling holds that where the coordination regulation governs, the fund must apply it directly, and a refusal reasoned under the wrong text falls. Quote the regulation’s two conditions in your appeal letters and force the fund to answer each one \u2014 covered in France, unavailable in time \u2014 because a vague \u201cconditions not met\u201d without identifying which condition invites reversal. The second lesson is procedural discipline against yourself: courts do not rewrite belated files. In April 2025 the Social Protection Chamber of the Amiens Court of Appeal, ruling on a health insurance retroactivity claim, reversed the first-instance judgment and held, word for word: \u201cD\u00e9boute Mme [T] [J] de sa demande tendant \u00e0 l’ouverture r\u00e9troactive de ses droits \u00e0 l’assurance maladie au 19 juillet 2022\u201d<\/a>, leaving the claimant with the costs of both levels. The context differs from planned care, but the moral travels: file early, file complete, keep the receipt. And the coordination case law keeps a European door ajar even in hard cases: in November 2018 the Second Civil Chamber, faced with a question on the material scope of Regulation 883\/2004, \u201cRenvoie \u00e0 la Cour de justice de l’Union europ\u00e9enne les questions suivantes\u201d<\/a> \u2014 a standing reminder that coordination disputes are European questions on which funds cannot have the last domestic word.<\/p>\n A final practical note on money after victory. An authorised S2 operation is supplied under the law and rates of the state of treatment, which means the London provider bills within the British system and the French fund settles its share through coordination \u2014 not a blank cheque for any private Harley Street invoice at any price. Unauthorised private care that fails the three conditions stays with you. So size the London plan to the authorisation you can actually obtain: the named procedure, the named establishment, the estimated cost the foreign provider commits in writing. Where the British side bills beyond the coordinated share, the French complementary cover and any travel policy answer in that order, and the remainder is negotiated with the provider, not with the CPAM.<\/p>\n A British resident of France who needs treatment in London is not begging a favour; he or she is operating a written procedure with a two-week clock, a silence that counts as consent, and a European test of two conditions that no fund may rewrite. Carry the right card for visits \u2014 the French European card where France insures you, the British GHIC where Britain remains competent \u2014 and keep it strictly away from planned admissions. For the planned operation, build the three-tab file before departure: French coverage, medical appropriateness, and dated proof that France cannot deliver in time, sent by registered letter to the fund of registration with the foreign plan and estimate attached. If the answer is yes, travel on the S2 and be treated under local law at local rates. If the answer is no, answer on paper and on time \u2014 informal appeal, compulsory prior review, then the designated judicial court \u2014 quoting the European test and forcing the fund onto it, with the refusal letter, the postal receipts and the medical file in order. The courts have shown both faces of this field: no indulgence for the late or incomplete file, no mercy for the fund that judges a European request by a domestic checklist. Start the file the week the London date is proposed, diary the fortnight, and never board the plane on a verbal promise; the system then works as designed, and a lawyer, where needed, inherits a file that can actually be won.<\/p>\n If the CPAM has refused prior authorisation for your operation in London, if the two-week silence has expired without an answer, if a hospital bill arrived after treatment abroad, or if your S1, PUMA track or travel card is disputed, talk to us before the two-month appeal clock runs out. Our telephone consultation (80 EUR including VAT) with an avocat of the chambers gives you a clear answer on your route, your file and your remedies within 48 hours. Call +33 6 46 60 58 22<\/a> or write through our contact page<\/a>, and keep your refusal letter, your residence title, your CPAM receipts, your medical referrals and your foreign invoices ready for the call.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" British resident of France facing surgery in London? Learn when the GHIC pays, how to win CPAM prior authorisation with the S2 form within two weeks, and how to challenge a refusal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16433,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kj_source_type":"","_kj_official_id":"","_kj_official_url":"","_kj_judilibre_id":"","_kj_jur":"","_kj_lieu":"","_kj_chambre":"","_kj_rg":"","_kj_date":"","activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":4,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"federated","footnotes":""},"categories":[80312,80314],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2133278","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-british-desk","category-decryptage"],"yoast_head":"\nA. Which card pays for unplanned necessary care during a visit to the United Kingdom?<\/h3>\n
B. How do I get a planned operation in London authorised and paid before I travel?<\/h3>\n
II. The CPAM refused my authorisation or my reimbursement: how do I overturn the refusal?<\/h2>\n
A. How do I build the prior-authorisation file that gets a yes within two weeks?<\/h3>\n
B. Refusal in hand: informal appeal, prior review, and the judge who applies the European test<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
Need a quick opinion on your case.<\/h2>\n