§ 71. Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the circumstances of the death of an insured person named R. P. Darken; will he explain why this insured person was not sent to a sanatorium; and what benefit he received in return for his contributions?
§ Mr. MASTERMANAs the grossest misstatements have been widely circulated concerning this case, I must ask the indulgence of the House for a reply of rather more than the normal length. This patient first applied for benefit about six weeks after the Act commenced. He was certified as having suffered from consumption for nearly six months. He was examined by the expert medical adviser of the committee who reported "advanced disease, little expectation of improvement," and recommended dispensary or domiciliary treatment. Such treatment was offered, but the late Medical Officer of Health of St. Pancras reported that the patient declined to receive home treatment, unless he was assured that he would receive at home approximately the same drugs, medical 36 comforts and diet as he would receive in an institution, and 10s. a week sick pay after 13th January. The committee wrote again, explaining that he was recommended for domiciliary treatment, and pointing out the disadvantage to himself of declining this treatment, which in-eluded special food, and other assistance, but the medical officer of health again reported that the patient refused to accept the treatment offered without the assurance of the sick pay. The committee again pointed out the advantage to himself of accepting this treatment. A relative of the patient subsequently communicated with the chairman of the insurance committee, who gave personal consideration to the case, and further communicated with the patient. The patient, in reply, stated that he had not refused home treatment, and was willing to receive it, and the committee immediately instructed the medical officer of health to give him the assistance he required. For the ten weeks between that date and 7th January, the date of his death, he received medical attendance, drugs, extra diet, articles for supplementary warmth, and a separate bed, for all of which the committee paid. The patient was never advised by an official of the insurance committee (as has been stated) to go to the workhouse infirmary, nor was the St. Pancras Dispensary refused extra payment for the extra food, etc., provided for the patient, although some of the items on the list required to be submitted before actual payment for the sanction of the Commissioners. Had this patient been recommended by expert. medical advice for treatment in a sanatorium he would have been sent to one, with some thousands of others now in such institutions under the Act, and had the Act been in operation a few months earlier his life might have been saved. As it was, he received free payments of doctor's bill, £6 10s.; medicines, 13s. 6d.; special food: as milk, eggs, and cream; bedstead and bedding, blankets, etc., amounting to £12 13s. 7d., making a total payment in respect of his case of £19 17s., in return for insurance payments of less than 2s. 6d.
§ Mr. CASSELWere the articles which were ordered by the doctor in the first instance supplied partly by charity and partly by a dispensary; had they been refused before the patient died, and was payment for them only made after his. death?
§ Mr. MASTERMANNo, the articles were provided by the St. Pancras Dispensary, and the bill was sent in to the insurance committee. There was no refusal of payment of the bill. The bill was referred to the Insurance Commissioners in order that they might sanction the articles. The patient received all the articles and the bill has been paid.
§ Mr. CASSELIs it not. the case that several weeks had expired after the articles were applied for before the insurance committee decided whether they were going to allow them or not, and that they only paid for them after the man was dead?
§ Mr. MASTERMANNo, the patient was receiving treatment all the time, and the insurance committee was assured he was receiving the treatment. Some of the articles were queried, but they have all been paid for. The patient received full treatment, and the statement that the articles were refused is an absolute falsehood.
§ Mr. CASSELIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement he has made is not in accordance with that in possession of those who are familiar with the case—the doctor in charge and the relatives of the patient?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI thought the case of sufficient importance to go into it myself. I have seen all the documents in the case, and I can show them to the hon. Gentleman.