asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware of the relative insignificance of his Department's subvention in respect of some dental benefits for insured persons; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dental Benefits.
18.
The scheme of dental benefit administered by my Department is designed primarily for the maintenance and restoration of dental function. It provides for scaling, filling and other treatment of teeth and gums as well as for extractions and the provision of dentures. With two exceptions the full cost of treatment is paid by my Department to the dentist and no charge is made by the dentist to the insured person. In the case of dentures, however, while the overall cost of the provision of dentures is controlled, the insured person pays two-thirds of the cost and the Department pay one-third. In the case of certain sophisticated items of treatment such as gold crowns, gold inlays, bridges and chrome cobalt dentures, the Department make a fixed subvention and the insured person pays any balance. In most of these cases the fixed subvention paid is £10.
The overall cost of the scheme of dental benefit is in the main borne by the Exchequer, and I cannot accept that the subventions payable in regard to the specific treatments I have mentioned are in any way insignificant.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary saying that crowning is a sophisticated process?
I referred to gold crowns.
I am talking about ordinary crowning treatment, that availed of by young women or young teenage boys. Is the Parliamentary Secretary saying this is a sophisticated process in dental treatment?
No.
I do not regard such dental care and treatment as sophisticated. Will the Parliamentary Secretary accept that with regard to crowning, the subvention made is relatively insignificant in relation to the charge?
I did not imply in my answer that crowning as such would be regarded as sophisticated, but the choice of gold crowns or gold inlays would be so regarded.
That work is not done nowadays. It went out with Queen Victoria.
I will accept the Deputy's word, not having much acquaintance with that era.
The Parliamentary Secretary is responsible for the administration of the dental scheme and he talks about gold crowns.
I think the Deputy is mixing the Queen Victoria age with the Fianna Fáil approach to social welfare in general.
I should like to get back to the question. I am speaking about the young lady who has been paying a contribution, which entitles her to get dental care. She is presented with a bill for £45 and the Department say they will give her £10. Surely she is entitled to more than that?
The Deputy is implying that the insured person was not aware of her entitlements under the scheme. That information is readily ascertained. The implication of the Deputy's supplementary would be that a person could get a dental job done for £300 and expect the Department to pick up the bill, irrespective of how extravagant the expenditure may have been.
That is a distortion which the Parliamentary Secretary is putting on the case I mentioned. I am talking about a case where a contributor finds himself or herself in need of dental care. Is the subvention which the Department makes relatively insignificant? I am proving my case by stating that where dental treatment costs £45, the Department will only pay £10.
The Deputy is quoting a figure of £45. I do not know what that entails, what was required to restore the person's dental health, what was done by choice, the types of treatment available and the type chosen. The amount paid by the Department in my opinion could not be described as insignificant.
If I submit details to the Parliamentary Secretary will he promise to get his teeth into it?
Will the Parliamentary Secretary admit frankly that the dental service provided for insured persons is totally and hopelessly inadequate and, after two-and-a-half years of his Administration, this service is worse than when he took office?
No, I would not.
I gather from the Parlimentary Secretary's reply that people who were entitled to dental health treatment are treated as second class citizens.
That is not a question.
It is not a fact either.