§ 30. Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer from what source the funds were provided for circularising the medical profession throughout the country in favour of working under the panel system and breaking the doctors' strike?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman)I do not know what circulars the hon. Member has in mind. The only document issued to the medical profession by the Commissioners was the explanatory statement sent out on 7th December to all registered medical practitioners in Great Britain describing the medical arrangements under the Act and Regulations, which has been laid on the Table of the House.
§ Sir J. D. REESIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a circular was sent round to all the doctors in the country on behalf of the strike-breaking association?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI have not seen anything of any circular, and I know nothing of any "strike-breaking association."
§ 31. Sir J. D. REESasked the right hon. Gentleman whether it is laid down by Section 18 (1) of the National Insurance Act that a mother is to have free choice of doctor and midwife for her confinement; and, if so, whether he will explain why the Commissioners have issued Circular A.S. No. 73, by paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), of which it is proposed that a limited list of doctors and midwives shall be provided with whom the society administering the benefit had previously made arrangements, 403 and that the mother shall forfeit maternity benefit*if she refuses to employ one of such listed practitioners or midwives; and whether this circular has the approval of the Government, seeing that it does limit the choice of doctor and midwife.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe provision in question is expressly recited in the second paragraph of the circular to which the hon. Member refers. The circular does not contain, explicitly or by implication, any such statement as that which the hon. Member attributes to it.
§ 33. Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether in some districts, in London the nearest doctor on the panel is resident several miles distant from the insured persons; and whether he is prepared to remove this disability by allowing insured persons to be attended by doctors not on the panels who are willing to comply with the provisions of Section 15 (3) of Part I. of the National Insurance Act?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not therefore arise.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEIf, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, the answer is in the negative, will he allow me to bring to his notice something in the affirmative?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI shall be delighted to have any communications from the hon. Member.
§ 34. Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether the insurance committees in London and else where have any power to alter the policy stated by him when explaining the Government policy regarding the National Insurance Act at Whitefield Tabernacle on 14th October, 1911, that under that measure any insured person could have the doctor of their own choice?
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)I adhere to the statement which I made on 14th October, 1911. Providing the doctor is prepared to serve under the conditions of the Insurance Act, an insured person is entitled to his services under that Act.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEAre we to understand that even if the doctors are prepared to serve under the Insurance Act 404 the insured person is to have the choice of his own doctor?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGECertainly. Any doctor has the right to go on the panel under the Insurance Act, and if he goes on the panel there is a free choice of doctors.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEDoes the right hon. Gentleman mean to imply that doctors who are not on the panel can come within the provisions of the Act, as he himself stated, and that the insured person shall have the benefit of the choice?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is in the nature of a speech.
Mr. FRED HALLWill the right hon. Gentleman give his official confirmation in this House to the statement he made at Whitefield's Tabernacle that any insured person was allowed to have whatever doctor he required?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat is not the statement I made. I referred to the doctors on the panels. If doctors refuse to serve under the Insurance Act, there is, of course, no free choice of doctors.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThese are really all matters for debate, which might keep the House sitting till next Session.
42. Mr. FRED HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if list doctors are entitled to prescribe and limit the hours during which they will attend insured persons; is he aware that in some cases doctors have intimated that their services are only available for insured persons between the hours of 9 and 10 a.m., and 5 and 6 p.m.; and will he state what is the position of persons who cannot attend during such restricted hours?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Each doctor on the panel is required to see patients at his own residence or surgery or other place appointed by him at stated hours, such hours being agreed upon between the doctor and the insurance committee. Any patient whose condition so requires must be visited by the doctor at the patient's own home.
Mr. HALLAre not the times I have given the times at which some doctors on the panels have decided to see insured persons?
§ Mr. MASTERMANIt is a perfectly normal practice amongst all doctors.
§ 55. Mr. GWYNNEasked whether it is proposed to limit the number of patients which doctors on the panel are allowed to contract to attend; and whether such limit will exceed 3,000?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI would refer the hon. Member to the answers already given to similar questions by the hon. Members for Wolverhampton West, Enfield, Dulwich, and Eastbourne of 11th and 19th December, and 6th, 7th, and 9th January. No doctor ought to accept more insured persons upon his list than he considers he can properly be responsible for, and any insured person who has reason to believe that he is receiving inadequate attention from a doctor under the Act, can bring his case before the medical service sub-committee set up by the regulations.
§ Mr. GWYNNEIs there no limit?
§ Mr. MASTERMANNo limit is laid down.
§ Mr. MASTERMANIt is not a question of how many are on the list, but whether an insured person is receiving adequate treatment.
Mr. HALLWill he receive adequate treatment where each doctor on the panel has to attend 4,500 insured persons as in Marylebone?