HC Deb 13 June 1921 vol 143 cc76-7W
Sir A. HOLBROOK

asked the Minister of Health why the payments to William Stroud, of Silchester Common, Hampshire, an insured patient with the Prudential Assurance Company, have been stopped for the past eight weeks; is he aware that this man has been certified by a local medical practitioner as incapable of work by reason of cardiac disease, and that a second doctor has examined him and has given small hope of his ever being fit again for work; whether the stoppage of payments is owing to some misunderstanding between the local medical practitioner and the regional medical officer; and whether he will order the payments to be continued to the patient pending settlement of the misunderstanding referred to?

Sir A. MOND

I have communicated with the approved society of which Mr. Stroud is a member and am informed that the payment of benefit to him is being authorised from the date on which it had been suspended, and that arrangements are again being made for the insured person to be examined by a regional medical officer, as the examination previously arranged could not be held by reason of the absence of the insured person from the locality.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT

asked the Minister of Health whether an insured person going into a hospital loses his sick pay; whether the medical officer of the hospital receives any remuneration from the Government for attending him; whether an insured person going into the union infirmary for treatment loses his sick pay; and, if so, whether the amounts so saved can be paid to the hospitals and other institutions whilst they are maintaining the insured person?

Sir A. MOND

The answer to the first and third questions is, that under the Insurance Acts sickness or disablement benefit is not payable to an insured person while he is an inmate of a hospital or similar institution, but the whole or part of the benefit is paid to his dependants, if any, or may be applied towards meeting any expenses for which the insured person may be liable otherwise than to the hospital or, with his consent, may be paid to the hospital if it is not maintained out of public funds. So far as the money is not used in any of these ways, it becomes payable to the insured person on leaving the hospital. The answer to the second question is in the negative. My hon. and gallant Friend will see that there is no part of the sickness benefit available for use in the way which is suggested in the fourth question.