France’s National Assembly has taken its first concrete step toward making well-off foreign retirees contribute directly to the country’s public health system. In the early hours of 9 November, deputies adopted an amendment to the 2026 social-security budget that would add a compulsory levy for holders of the long-stay “visitor” visa (visa de long séjour – visiteur).
The visa is popular with non-EU pensioners—especially Americans—who wish to live in France without taking up paid employment. At present, they can register with France’s universal healthcare scheme (Protection universelle maladie, or Puma) after three months’ residence, paying nothing beyond routine social-contribution surcharges on investment income.
![France moves to charge US retirees a new healthcare fee on long-stay ‘visitor’ visas]()
Centrist MP François Gernigon, who tabled the measure, called the status-quo “an anomaly”, noting that some promotors now advertise France as a retirement haven promising “world-class healthcare for free”. The amendment was carried by 176 votes to 79, with backing from President Macron’s Renaissance bloc, the conservative Républicains and the far-right National Rally. Left-wing parties opposed it as discriminatory; Greens deputies warned it could deter affluent foreigners who prop-up rural housing markets.
Exact pricing will be set by decree, but Budget Minister Amélie de Montchalin hinted at a flat annual contribution calibrated to the cost of Puma coverage. Retirees from countries that already have bilateral social-security accords with France (notably the UK, through the S1 scheme) would remain exempt. A safeguard clause also protects refugees.
For global-mobility and relocation managers the change, if confirmed by the Senate and the Constitutional Council, will increase the cost of maintaining US assignees who shift into retirement in France. Firms may need to renegotiate packages with long-serving staff who planned to remain in-country on visitor visas, and wealth-management advisers should model the fee when comparing France with Portugal, Spain or Italy as retirement destinations.
The visa is popular with non-EU pensioners—especially Americans—who wish to live in France without taking up paid employment. At present, they can register with France’s universal healthcare scheme (Protection universelle maladie, or Puma) after three months’ residence, paying nothing beyond routine social-contribution surcharges on investment income.
Centrist MP François Gernigon, who tabled the measure, called the status-quo “an anomaly”, noting that some promotors now advertise France as a retirement haven promising “world-class healthcare for free”. The amendment was carried by 176 votes to 79, with backing from President Macron’s Renaissance bloc, the conservative Républicains and the far-right National Rally. Left-wing parties opposed it as discriminatory; Greens deputies warned it could deter affluent foreigners who prop-up rural housing markets.
Exact pricing will be set by decree, but Budget Minister Amélie de Montchalin hinted at a flat annual contribution calibrated to the cost of Puma coverage. Retirees from countries that already have bilateral social-security accords with France (notably the UK, through the S1 scheme) would remain exempt. A safeguard clause also protects refugees.
For global-mobility and relocation managers the change, if confirmed by the Senate and the Constitutional Council, will increase the cost of maintaining US assignees who shift into retirement in France. Firms may need to renegotiate packages with long-serving staff who planned to remain in-country on visitor visas, and wealth-management advisers should model the fee when comparing France with Portugal, Spain or Italy as retirement destinations.
