§ Mr. INGLEBYasked the Secretary to the Treasury what provision, if any, has been made by the National insurance Commissioners to enable the 20,000 to 30,000 persons employed by the showmen of Great Britain to obtain medical benefit, having regard to the nature of their work, which compels them to be continually moving from place to place.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman)The Commissioners have recently issued a memorandum pointing out that where insured persons belong to a profession which is constantly moving from one place to another, and staying in each of them for a very short time, they would appear to be among those to whom Section 15 (3) contemplates that permission might, in view of their special circumstances, be given to make their own arrangements for medical 236 attendance and treatment, and to receive a contribution towards the cost of the same.
§ Mr. INGLEBYDoes the right hon. Gentleman think that is possible under existing circumstances?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI think that is the class of person to whom it is suitable. I think it is the only practical way in which medical attendance can be given to them.
§ Mr. INGLEBYMust they make arrangements in every place they visit?
§ Mr. MASTERMANNo; they come under the same system as those who make arrangements and receive money towards medical attendance wherever they receive medical attendance.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDWill the right hon. Gentleman allow them at short notice to have medical attendance wherever they happen to be?
§ Mr. MASTERMANIt is contemplated that the money will be paid towards medical benefit from the amount available from the funds provided by those who make special arrangements.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThere are special arrangements in connection with that type of person, which is a very large type, and they are being considered by the Commissioners.
§ 28. Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had under his notice the verdict returned at the inquest held on the body of Benjamin Emsden, of Plumstead, and the preceding inquiry, at which the panel doctor said he was unable to see the patient when the latter called because his surgery was full, practically all insured persons now coming for treatment, and the coroner stated that a great many doctors had too much work thrown on them by the National Insurance Act, and that people resorted to doctors for much slighter ailments, so that patients in urgent need of attention had to wait, perhaps with serious results; and whether, in view of repeated cases of this kind, drastic amendment of the Act will be undertaken at an early date?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI have seen a newspaper report of the inquest in the case referred to, and I am making inquiries. I 237 am informed that the doctor stated that ho doubted whether he could have done the patient any good had he seen him earlier; and that had the patient rung the bell he would have been attended to at once. The initial pressure of registration, selection of insured persons, etc., is now over and the lists are being completed; and I know of no reason to suppose that any greater or other difficulties will arise in the case of insured persons and panel doctors than exist of necessity in the adjustment of different urgency calls between doctors and patients in ordinary practice.
§ Sir J. D. REESHas it not been admitted in this case that the man who received sick pay could not see the doctor, and is not this the third or fourth case of a coroner's inquest at which it has been found that there was inability on the part of the insurance doctor to attend the patient?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI have only the statement of the doctor at the inquest. It is rather unfair to enter into controversy as to his statement until I have made some further inquiries.