§ 31. Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what error has been discovered in his calculations as regards medical benefit under the National Insurance Act which allows him to pay 8s. 6d. a head, while his actuarial calculations were based on taxation sufficient to 'allow of the payment of 6s. per head; and, since it is not possible to pay the larger amount out of the smaller collection, will he inform the House from what source the 'Government proposes to make good the deficiency?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman)No error has been discovered in the calculations, in regard to medical benefit under the National Insurance Act. As regards the remainder of the question the position has already been fully explained to the House in the answers given to the hon. Member for St. Pancras on the 1st and 9th instant.
§ 32. Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it has been found that the 1,956 names printed and published as those of members of panels in London are reduced to 738 when names entered more than once are excluded, that names are entered without any regard to the place of residence of the owners of such names, and that in some cases they are repeated as often as ten times; and, if so, whether such proceedings have his sanction?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for North Islington yesterday. The list published by the London Insurance Committee on 13th January shows 759 doctors on the London panel. These are shown in lists for the different boroughs for the convenience of insured persons making their choice, each doctor being named in the list of any borough in which he has stated that he desired to attend insured persons. The number of doctors on the London panel is now 930.
§ Sir J. D. REESIs there any difficulty in filling the panel when doctors' names are inserted without their permission, and repeated in various quarters?
§ Mr. MASTERMANNo name is entered without the doctor's permission, and no doctor's name is put as serving on any panel except at his specific request.
§ Sir J. D. REESMay I supply the right hon. Gentleman with cases of that nature, not in London, but in Middlesex?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI shall be glad to investigate any such allegations.
66. MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked if an insured person wires for a doctor, and is unable to get medical assistance owing to the roads being blocked with snow, the amount of premium due for medical benefit for that period will be refunded?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe answer is in the negative.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEBut is it not unfair to ask an insured person who may be snowed up for weeks to pay contributions for which he can receive no benefit?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe man is in the same position in respect to a doctor as he is at present. The doctor takes the same liability as a doctor does at present in attending a patient.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEBut is it not the fact that in former days he had not to pay 4d. for taking the chance and now he has got to do it?
§ Mr. MASTERMANIf he was under a contract system he paid so much a year. A doctor took no account of such acts of God as a snowstorm.
§ Sir H. CRAIKIn how many cases throughout the Highlands did the contract system prevail, and did the doctors charge fees when they did not pay a visit?
§ Mr. MASTERMANIt is not a question about the Highlands at all. It is a general question as to snowstorms blocking the attendance of a doctor.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEBut may I ask if Providence in the old days extracted 4d. from the people in the same way as it's modern prototype the Chancellor of the Exchequer does now?