§ 54. Mr. HOHLERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Kent insurance committee have refused to allow Mr. T. W. Brown, of 121, Livingstone Road, Gillingham, Kent, a member of the National Deposit Friendly Society, to make his own arrangements for receiving medical benefit, on the ground that there are no special circumstances which would warrant them in allowing him to do so; and whether, seeing that the language of Section 15 (3) of the National Insurance Act imposes no restriction upon the right of an insured person to make his own arrangements, he will require the committee to give effect to Section 15 (3) of the Act and allow the application?
§ Mr. MASTERMANAs I have frequently pointed out, Section 15 (3) does not confer on insured persons such a right as is suggested by the hon. and learned Member. It is within the discretion of the insurance committee to grant or withhold permission to an insured person to make his own arrangements for medical attendance and treatment.
§ 72. Mr. HICKS BEACHasked what steps can be taken by members of an approved society in a rural district to obtain medical benefit from panel doctors when no doctor resides within five miles of their residences, and those doctors who live outside that radius plead that they are prevented by the Regulations of the Insurance Commissioners from treating patients residing more than five miles from the doctor's home?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. There is nothing in the Regulations to prevent a doctor on the panel treating a patient residing more than five miles from the doctor's home, and I may remind the hon. Member that Parliament has voted a special Grant for the payment of mileage to doctors in exceptionally sparsely populated districts.
§ Mr. HICKS BEACHWhat is an insured person to do in the circumstances? I know that a case of this kind has actually occurred.
§ Mr. MASTERMANWe cannot provide a doctor for every person who lives in a mountainous or fen district. All we can do is to give the person as good, or, if pos- 2036 sible, a better chance of medical treatment than he would have received before the Act was passed.
§ Mr. HICKS BEACHI want to know what is an insured person to do in a case of this kind, which actually occurred in a rural district. To whom is the insured person to apply in order to obtain medical benefit?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe insured person has to apply to the local insurance committee to provide him with a doctor, and, if he has not chosen a doctor himself, the doctor provided will certainly treat him. In some special cases a special Grant is made in respect of persons who are so far away.
§ 78. Mr. LANE-FOXasked whether, in addition to Selby, the towns of Huddersfield and Holmfirth are included in the obscure villages in which alone free choice of doctor under the National Insurance Act is not now enjoyed?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The panel system is in operation in all three of the districts named. In Selby five out of eight doctors are on the panel, in Holmfirth three out of six, and in Huddersfield fifty-six out of sixty-eight; and there is free choice of doctors from among all who have accepted service under the Act.
§ Mr. LANE-FOXHow can the insured person have free choice of a doctor at the same time that he is restricted to the panel doctors? Is it not the fact that a considerable number of insured persons are paying privately for outside doctors?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI am not dealing with the question of doctors who decline to work under the Insurance Act, under which I have no power to compel them. I am dealing with the case of panel doctors, and insured persons have a free choice of doctors who care to work under the Insurance Act.
§ Mr. SHERWELLIs it not the fact that the administration of the Act in Huddersfield has given universal satisfaction?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI think so. When you have fifty-six doctors out of sixty-eight serving, some of the extra number not being engaged in industrial practice at all, I think I am justified in saying that persons insured have a free choice of doctor.
§ Mr. CLOUGHWill my right hon. Friend take into consideration the advisability of sending down an inspector to the Selby district to inquire into these complaints and into the general administration of the Insurance Act?
§ Mr. MASTERMANIf the hon. Member desires it, I will certainly call the suggestion made by the hon. Member to the attention of the inspector who has that district under his control.
81. Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the decision of the Court of Appeal, in the case of Heard and others versus the Court Abbey Foresters, as to the right of approved societies under the National Insurance Act to refuse to accept medical certificates for sickness benefit from any except doctors on the panels; and if, in view of this decision, instructions will now be issued to approved societies to make it clear that an insured person is entitled to sickness benefit on presentation of a certificate signed by any qualified doctor?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but the hon. Member seems to have misinterpreted the effect of the decision, which appears to be based on the precise rule of the society in question.
Mr. F. HALLWill the right hon. Gentleman say whether his statement which he made some time ago that it rested with the societies as to refuse doctors or not, was based on legal advice?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI do not know to what the hon. Gentleman refers, but I would respectfully suggest to him to make himself acquainted with what was the decision of the Court of Appeal.