Medivac from Cunard - who pays?

[longton]

We have twice sailed on Cunard: one Southampton to CapeTown and the other Hong Kong to Cape Town.

 

On both cruises there were medivacs.

 

Obviously these are vital for the patient. For Cunard the cost of additional fuel if the ship has to head to the nearet port must be a considerable expense.

 

Just wondering, who pays for the medivac - the patient's insurance or Cunard?

 

 

[majortom10]

Patient's insurance every time and if you havent got insurance cover you have a problem.

[exlondoner]

Though quite often it is crew who are medivacked. No idea what proportion,  but I think it has happened twice when I've been on board

[rafinmd]

I think in most cases the taxpayers of the country providing the medivac pays.

 

Roy

[Trevor33]

Medivacs of passengers are covered for my the individuals Travel Insurance. Booking Conditions state that in the event passenger does not have cover(though recommended as a requirement of travel in Booking conditions) the the Cunard will pay but again it is in the Booking Conditions that the passenger "Undertakes to repay all reasonable costs involved to Cunard". Needless to say it is well worth making sure that this cover is in your Travel Insurance Policy if you can get that cover.

[majortom10]

1 hour ago, rafinmd said:

I think in most cases the taxpayers of the country providing the medivac pays.

 

Roy

On our last QM2 TA there was a medivac to the south of Ireland and we were told after by the Captain that everything went well and the patient was taken to hospital in Cork, Ireland. Therefore the chance of the patient being Irish was very slim and more likely due to numbers on the ship be from either US or UK so I think Cunard will get billed for the helicopter rescue as they were the ones who called for it and it would then be passed onto the patient and his insurance company.

Edited April 5, 2020 by majortom10

[bluemarble]

There's an implied question in the original post that I don't know the answer to. Would Cunard attempt to recover their increased operating costs such as for the extra fuel needed to divert for an evacuation by billing the patient / insurance company for those costs as well?

[hypercafe]

If the USCG does the rescue they don't bill regardless of your nationality.  As for Cunard billing the passenger, there is an arrangement that if a ship asked for help, say it's sinking, close ships are required to assist without billing. I would hope trying to save your own passengers would also be without a bill however I would not be surprised to see a bill.

[Host Hattie]

3 hours ago, rafinmd said:

I think in most cases the taxpayers of the country providing the medivac pays.

 

Roy

That was my understanding as well.

[exlondoner]

15 minutes ago, hypercafe said:

If the USCG does the rescue they don't bill regardless of your nationality.  As for Cunard billing the passenger, there is an arrangement that if a ship asked for help, say it's sinking, close ships are required to assist without billing. I would hope trying to save your own passengers would also be without a bill however I would not be surprised to see a bill.

 

And indeed when White Star Line offered to pay towards the expenses of Carpathia's rescue of Titanic passengers and crew, Cunard refused, regarding it as a breach of etiquette to suggest it. But that was then...

[chengkp75]

Under UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea) and it's SAR amendment, signatory nations have agreed to provide SAR (and medivac) services in their territorial waters, and certain nations have agreed to provide these services to larger areas (such as the USCG providing service for most of the Gulf of Mexico).  These services are provided free of charge to the patient and the shipping company.  Any operating cost (fuel, delay of itinerary) incurred by the cruise line would fall under the "standard of care" for a passenger under international law, and so would also not be charged to the patient.  The cruise line would make a claim to their P&I (protection and indemnity) insurance, but since this is a mutual insurance "club" part of the money comes from the cruise line anyway.

[Trevor33]

Interesting. What is the reason that Cunard recommend that passengers have health repatriation  from the ship in the event of a medical emergency/ insurance clause in their Travel Insurance as a term of travel in the small print/booking conditions at the back of the brochure. May be possible to save some money perhaps. Could it be just for longer cruises. Have paid £1500 for latest cruise insurance for world cruise - spoke to Cunard and they recommended we have that cover as a condition of boarding. Hope they have given me the correct information as I would hope they knew - No one likes paying for what they hope they may never use

[chengkp75]

20 minutes ago, Trevor33 said:

Interesting. What is the reason that Cunard recommend that passengers have health repatriation  from the ship in the event of a medical emergency/ insurance clause in their Travel Insurance as a term of travel in the small print/booking conditions at the back of the brochure. May be possible to save some money perhaps. Could it be just for longer cruises. Have paid £1500 for latest cruise insurance for world cruise - spoke to Cunard and they recommended we have that cover as a condition of boarding. Hope they have given me the correct information as I would hope they knew - No one likes paying for what they hope they may never use

Okay, I see that in the terms and conditions, it requires a worldwide health insurance policy, and the "repatriation" coverage is the stanadard medical repatriation (from the hospital where you were landed at, to your hospital of choice in your home country), and while it does mention the cost of evacuations from the ship, if no charge is made to the line for the evacuation, they won't make a claim to your insurance.  Secondly, I don't know of any cruise line, or any Captain, that would allow a private helicopter service to make an approach and evacuation to their moving ship.  These companies just don't practice this enough to do it safely, it is a very dangerous maneuver, both for the aircraft and the ship, and only those constantly trained to do so would be allowed.  Most of the language in that section is legalese, and just there to protect them in unusual circumstances, and I doubt they would be enacted.  Not sure how much the "medical evacuation from the ship" clause adds to the insurance bill.

[majortom10]

The problem is obviously where the ship is at moment of time and which country does the evacuation. I am sure like  many things if it be the case then not all countries will have signed up to UNCLOS so would be a hell of a gamble so therefore you should make sure that travel insurance covers you for any situation.

[Trevor33]

Thanks. I understood that in the event of a medical evacuation it would not be done by a private company. As you say it is a very skilled thing to do. I would like the Booking Conditions to be in a reasonable sized print and in clear English.

[chengkp75]

26 minutes ago, Trevor33 said:

Thanks. I understood that in the event of a medical evacuation it would not be done by a private company. As you say it is a very skilled thing to do. I would like the Booking Conditions to be in a reasonable sized print and in clear English.

"Clear English" and lawyers don't mix.

[chengkp75]

31 minutes ago, majortom10 said:

The problem is obviously where the ship is at moment of time and which country does the evacuation. I am sure like  many things if it be the case then not all countries will have signed up to UNCLOS so would be a hell of a gamble so therefore you should make sure that travel insurance covers you for any situation.

Most nations have signed UNCLOS (though the US has signed the Agreement, but not the Convention), only 15 nations have not, and they include the Vatican, Andorra, San Marino.  The biggest limitation is the equipment and training of the national forces in any country.

[majortom10]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Most nations have signed UNCLOS (though the US has signed the Agreement, but not the Convention), only 15 nations have not, and they include the Vatican, Andorra, San Marino.  The biggest limitation is the equipment and training of the national forces in any country.

So if considering a world cruise it is one hell of a gamble  if you are near a country that has not signed up when needing a medevac and one I wouldnt dare to risk so I would recommend everyone o make sure they have good enough travel/medical insurance to cover such incidents.

[exlondoner]

15 minutes ago, majortom10 said:

So if considering a world cruise it is one hell of a gamble  if you are near a country that has not signed up when needing a medevac and one I wouldnt dare to risk so I would recommend everyone o make sure they have good enough travel/medical insurance to cover such incidents.

Well, I don't think you would have to worry much about the three countries mentioned, nor the other land locked countries, so that might well amount to about fifteen.

[majortom10]

3 minutes ago, exlondoner said:

Well, I don't think you would have to worry much about the three countries mentioned, nor the other land locked countries, so that might well amount to about fifteen.

I wouldnt worry because I always make sure I have got good travel insurance adequate to cover me for all medical eventualities.

[Chunky2219]

Simple -

• Medivac by air or sea - provided free by the nation doing the collection.  I'm not sure that would be true off the coast of N Korea, but you get the idea.
• Ship diverts to meet Medivac - provided free by cruise line.  We don't know for sure if this is the case where your problem is due to your own gross stupidity (e.g. get blind drunk, decide to slide down the banister and crack your head open) but I'd guess they would be hard pushed to charge you.
• Your travel insurance is there to cover medical costs when you are back on land wherever it is and by whatever means and also to provide Medivac to home if the medical problem cannot be resolved locally in good time, etc.

On the stupidity front, I once went to check in for a flight from Sweden to the UK and when asked about hand baggage, declared that I had a tin of surströmming.  This is basically herring that has been allowed to go rancid in the tin, so much so that the tin becomes bloated and distended.  It smells every bit as bad as it sounds (but tastes good if you've necked enough aquavit). 

 

The check-in operator had a bit of a fit and told me that the previous year a tin of it had burst open at altitude and the cabin stench was so bad that the plane had to divert and land early , then had it to be be deep cleaned.  The offending passenger was potentially on the hook for the cost.  Needless to say, my tin ended up in the bin.

 

.