Foreigners Face Health Insurance Suspension for Delinquency... Constitutional Court Rules "Violation of Equality Rights"

Exceptions for Domestic Residents in Case of Delinquency... Constitutional Incompatibility Decision

The Constitutional Court has ruled that the current National Health Insurance Act, which stipulates that insurance benefits are suspended if a foreigner defaults on health insurance premiums even once, unlike nationals, is unconstitutional.

On the 26th, the Constitutional Court unanimously decided that Article 109, Paragraph 10 of the National Health Insurance Act is unconstitutional but allowed it to remain in effect until the law is amended. This decision, known as constitutional inconsistency, acknowledges the unconstitutionality of the provision but maintains it temporarily to prevent confusion that would arise if it were immediately invalidated. The deadline set by the court for the law's amendment is June 30, 2025. If the National Assembly does not amend the law by then, the provision under review will lose its effect.

Constitutional Court Grand Bench [Image source=Yonhap News]

Article 109, Paragraph 10 of the National Health Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the insurance benefit restriction clause) stipulates that if an insured person defaults on premiums, benefits will not be paid. However, several exceptions are provided to protect the insured. If the number of defaults reaches six or more, the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) notifies the insured in writing of the benefit restriction, after which benefit payments are suspended. With NHIS approval, installment payments are possible, and if the overdue premiums are fully paid within a certain period, insurance benefits are retroactively paid for medical treatments received during the restriction period.

However, these exceptions do not apply at all to foreigners. The petitioner in this constitutional complaint is a foreigner residing long-term in Korea with their parents and children, who filed the case in 2019, arguing that such provisions violate the constitutional right to equality.

The Constitutional Court first acknowledged that it is necessary to apply different insurance benefit restrictions to foreigners. This is because it is difficult to collect premiums from foreigners who default, and they can more easily evade premium payment obligations compared to nationals. Nevertheless, the court found that the current insurance benefit restriction clause "significantly exceeds a reasonable level" and "treats foreign petitioners differently from nationals without justification, thereby violating the right to equality."

The court pointed out, "The insurance benefit restriction clause, by limiting benefits without any exceptions, can cause not only fatal health risks in the event of unforeseen illness or accidents for foreign regional subscribers who lack the financial ability to pay average premiums but also destabilize the livelihood of their entire family." Furthermore, citing Germany as an example where foreigners are subject to the same benefit restriction conditions as nationals and exceptions are provided, the court added, "There is a way to balance the public interest of stabilizing insurance finances while providing insurance benefits for essential treatments to low-income foreign subscribers."

However, since the restriction on insurance benefit payments itself is not unconstitutional, the court decided to maintain the effect of the insurance benefit restriction clause with a deadline for law amendment to allow the National Assembly to prepare alternatives through sufficient social consensus.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.