No. An insurance decision is not the government’s admissibility determination or the full immigration decision.
Keep the decision-makers distinct
The official Gold Card outcome remains subject to EB-1 or EB-2 eligibility as appropriately determined, admissibility and visa availability. Follow the actual medical and documentary instructions rather than treating a policy as a substitute for immigration review.
A company payment does not replace the EB-1 or EB-2 basis, admissibility or visa availability. Treat the renewed passport as an update to one continuing identity record throughout government review. The official framework requires the application and processing fee, vetting, admissibility and an available visa in the resulting EB-1 or EB-2 classification. Only after successful vetting does the government request the US$1 million gift to the United States. The applicable EB-1 or EB-2 requirements, admissibility and visa availability still need assessment. A credible review produces a source list, a payment-path checklist, and a separate analysis of any underlying immigration classification. The mistake is treating an internally approved sponsorship line item as evidence that government review has already occurred. Health coverage answers a payment question, not the government's medical-admissibility question, which follows its own designated process. A required medical examination, performed by an authorized physician using the current official instructions, produces the actual finding used in that review. Carrying a policy does not substitute for completing that examination, and skipping ahead on the assumption that coverage settles the point risks leaving a required piece of the file missing.