Thai tourism industry backs THB450 fee but rejects insurance plan
Tourism groups back Thailand’s proposed THB450 foreign visitor fee but oppose using the revenue to buy insurance, questioning unpaid hospital bill figures.
- Thailand's tourism industry supports the proposed THB450 fee for foreign visitors but opposes using the revenue for a mandatory insurance plan.
- Industry groups argue the government's justification for the insurance is based on flawed data that inflates unpaid medical bills by including non-tourists like migrant workers.
- They contend that most tourists, particularly higher-spending ones, already have their own travel insurance, making the proposed scheme redundant.
- Tourism associations advocate for the fee revenue to be used primarily for destination development, infrastructure improvements, and a crisis management fund.
Thailand’s tourism industry has backed the principle of a proposed THB450 foreign visitor fee but is opposing plans to use part of the revenue to provide insurance for tourists, arguing that the money should primarily support destination development and crisis management.
The issue was debated at an October 6 consultation involving government agencies, private-sector representatives and civil society.
The Thai Hotels Association (THA) and the Association of Thai Travel Agents (ATTA) were among the industry groups questioning the proposed insurance component and figures cited to justify it.
Under the current proposal, eligible foreign tourists arriving by air would initially pay THB450 per entry. Collection from land and sea arrivals would be postponed for one year.
Revenue would be paid into the Thailand Tourism Promotion Fund, with part earmarked for insurance covering eligible visitors and the remainder used for tourism development, conservation and restoration.
Industry questions THB7 billion hospital bill gap
Tourism representatives challenged Health Ministry figures showing a large gap between medical charges billed to foreign patients and the amount actually collected by public hospitals.
Figures cited during the discussions showed 1.12 million cases involving foreign patients, with total medical charges of THB16.957 billion.
Hospitals collected THB9.935 billion, leaving about THB7.021 billion unpaid.
Private-sector representatives argued that the figures cover foreign patients broadly rather than foreign tourists alone, and may include migrant workers and people crossing Thailand’s borders specifically for medical treatment.
Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos were identified as the three leading nationalities among foreign patients in the data.
Industry representatives argued that these groups should not automatically be treated as tourists when calculating the potential healthcare burden that the proposed tourism fee is intended to address.
They also questioned using figures covering foreign arrivals through all border channels while the proposed fee would initially be charged only to eligible tourists entering Thailand by air.
Some representatives warned that if medical costs were calculated too broadly, insurance expenses could absorb a large share of the tourism fund.
THA says most quality tourists already insured
THA President Thienprasit Chaiyapatranun said the association opposed using part of the tourism fee to purchase insurance for all foreign tourists.
He argued that travel insurance should generally remain the traveller’s responsibility and that many higher-spending visitors, particularly Europeans and travellers using organised tours, already carry travel insurance.
Some tourists can also obtain travel insurance through other products and services, he said.
If the government wants to deal specifically with foreign visitors who arrive without cover and later leave hospital bills unpaid, Thienprasit suggested offering supplementary insurance for voluntary purchase at immigration checkpoints.
A similar approach was used towards the end of the Covid-19 pandemic, he said.
With more than 30 million foreign arrivals a year, a THB450 fee could generate more than THB10 billion annually, according to his calculation.
However, Thienprasit said there was still insufficient clarity over how the THB450 would be divided between insurance, tourism development and other purposes.
He also questioned a proposed 30-day insurance period when many tourists stay only seven to 10 days, and said rules for multiple-entry visitors had yet to be made clear.
The government has indicated that it aims to begin collection from air travellers in the first quarter of 2027.
Insurance costs raise further questions
Industry representatives also raised concerns over whether the amount allocated from the THB450 fee would be sufficient to buy meaningful insurance coverage.
The meeting heard suggestions that around THB200 per visitor could potentially be allocated to insurance.
Tourism representatives argued that the amount could be too low for insurers to provide adequate cover, particularly if policies included general medical treatment rather than only accidents and emergencies.
They also warned that government-provided insurance could unintentionally discourage tourists who normally buy their own comprehensive travel insurance.
Visitors might assume they were fully protected by the government scheme only to discover after an accident or illness that the coverage was insufficient, they argued.
THA also raised concerns that broad medical coverage could create unintended incentives for people from neighbouring countries to enter Thailand by paying the THB450 fee specifically to obtain treatment.
Thienprasit called on the government to clearly define who qualifies as a “tourist” and separate migrant workers and other categories of foreign patients when calculating unpaid healthcare costs.
ATTA wants funds directed towards tourism development
ATTA Honorary Secretary-General Adith Chairattananon also opposed using the tourism fund to buy basic insurance for every visitor.
He estimated that 80–90% of foreign tourists already have personal health or accident insurance and argued that the government should instead require uninsured travellers to show proof of cover or purchase insurance on arrival.
Adith also questioned the THB7 billion figure for unrecovered medical expenses.
He argued that most cases covered by the figures involved people from Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia, including migrant workers and cross-border patients, rather than conventional international tourists.
He contrasted the latest figures with earlier estimates of several hundred million baht a year in unpaid medical charges and called for a detailed breakdown showing how much of the debt was genuinely attributable to tourists.
If tourism-fund money must be used for healthcare or accident support, Adith proposed placing a clear ceiling on the allocation.
He suggested limiting it to 3–5% of the fund, or around THB200–300 million.
Tourism groups call for crisis fund and infrastructure spending
ATTA said tourism-fee revenue should focus primarily on strengthening Thailand’s destinations and managing risks that affect the industry.
Adith proposed creating a Risk and Crisis Management Fund that could provide financial support following unexpected events such as severe flooding or major accidents beyond tourists’ existing insurance coverage.
Funding should also be directed towards supply-side development, including tourism infrastructure and service improvements, he said.
The aim should be to ensure that foreign visitors can see tangible improvements from the fee they are required to pay.
The Tourism and Sports Ministry said after the October 6 consultation that it would consider feedback from the public and private sectors before finalising collection methods, exemptions, insurance arrangements and the allocation of tourism-fund revenue.
The proposal must still go through the National Tourism Policy Committee and Cabinet before taking effect.
