When people look at insurance,
they usually focus on this.
How much medical coverage there is.
If it’s 100,000,
they think it’s enough.
But the real problem
is not the hospital cost,
it is the transport cost.
If you get this wrong,
you may still have to pay out of pocket
even with insurance.
Q. Isn’t the medical coverage amount the most important in travel insurance?
A.
At first, everyone looks at it that way. I also checked the medical coverage amount first when comparing insurance. 100,000 looked sufficient, and I thought it would be enough.
But after seeing a real case, my criteria completely changed.
An acquaintance was seriously injured abroad. The hospital treatment itself was more manageable than expected. The problem was that they had to be moved to another hospital.
That transport cost was tens of thousands of dollars.
That’s when I understood for the first time.
The most important part of insurance is not treatment cost, but transport cost.
So this is what I do.
When I look at insurance, I check evacuation coverage before medical coverage.
Q. Is it really possible for transport costs to be higher than medical costs?
A.
Not just possible—it happens often.
In major cities, hospitals are well-equipped, so transport is usually not needed. But in remote areas or islands, the situation is different.
Basic treatment may be available, but serious treatment requires moving to another city or even another country.
I once saw a similar situation during a trip in Southeast Asia. There was a hospital, but the facilities were not sufficient, so transfer to another city was required.
At that time, I heard the air transport cost being discussed in the tens of thousands of dollars.
What I realized was simple.
This is not a hospital cost issue. It is a transport structure issue.
So this is what I do.
If the trip is not in a major city, I always check evacuation coverage.
Q. Doesn’t card insurance cover this kind of situation?
A.
Most of the time, it does not.
Card insurance usually covers cancellation, delays, and rental cars. In many cases, even medical is not included, and evacuation is almost never included.
I once relied only on card insurance and later found that what I actually needed was missing.
What I realized was this.
This is not full insurance.
It is partial protection.
So this is what I do.
I treat card insurance as a base and fill the critical gaps separately.
Q. Then what should you focus on when comparing insurance?
A.
Evacuation amount, not medical amount.
For example,
evacuation coverage of 100,000
is much more important than medical coverage of 100,000.
I once almost chose a plan based only on medical coverage, but then noticed this.
There was a plan with evacuation coverage limited to 25,000.
After seeing that, I changed my choice immediately.
That was not protection. It was a structure with a gap.
So this is what I do.
When I review insurance, I check evacuation limits first.
Q. Is evacuation coverage important for every trip?
A.
It depends on the conditions.
In major European cities where hospitals are well-developed, it is relatively less important.
But for islands, remote areas, or trips involving long-distance movement, the situation is completely different.
Now I divide the criteria like this:
City travel → medical-focused
Remote travel → evacuation-focused
So this is what I do.
I evaluate insurance structure based on the travel location.
Q. Then how do you summarize the conclusion?
A.
It’s simple.
Hospital costs are predictable.
Evacuation costs are not.
So the real problem is always evacuation.
This is not a choice issue.
It is a priority issue.
So this is what I do.
For international travel, I check evacuation coverage first.
Published date
2026-04-27
