HC Deb 24 October 1916 vol 86 cc1000-1W

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the agreement made in October, 1914, between the insurance and panel committees for Middlesex under Regulation 35 of the Medical Benefit Regulations, an alteration suggested by the Commissioners was embodied limiting the power of the individual practitioner to refuse liability to treat insured persons not on the list of any practitioner; whether the minutes of the panel committee do not contain any record of such alteration being submitted to the panel committee; whether the chairman of the panel committee informed the insurance committee on 24th October' that he approved of the alteration; whether the Commissioners in formally approving of the agreement thus altered were governed by the belief that the alteration had been approved by the panel committee; whether, in view of the fact that the agreement imposed equal liability on all practitioners, the clause of the agreement excluding practitioners with 2,000 and over on their lists from sharing in the unallotted capitation fees is contrary to Regulation 35 of the Medical Benefit Regulations; and, if so, whether he will confer with the Commissioners with a view to having the practitioners affected compensated for the loss which they have sustained?


I am satisfied upon inquiry that the final form of the agreement in question (embodying the amendment to which the hon. Member refers) received the full approval of the Panel Committee, and I see no reason for reopening the settlement effected in accordance with the agreed arrangements. I should not, however, be understood as accepting the view suggested in the question as to the effect of those arrangements.