Vol. 556 No. 2
1 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when the dispute between her Department and the Irish Dental Association will be settled; the amount of money saved by her Department during the dispute; and the amount of compensation which will be paid to the PRSI workers who have lost out due to this dispute. [19552/02]
Seo mo chéad uair mar Aire úr agus gabhaim comhghairdeas le mo chomhleacaí agus tá súil agam go mbeidh comhoibriú againn go ceann cúig bhliain agus an Rialtas seo i réim. This is my first opportunity as Minister to take parliamentary questions and wish my colleagues every success. I am sure we will have a wonderful and fruitful working relationship over the next five years.
The dispute between my Department and the Irish Dental Association arose out of a claim by the association for substantial increases in the fees payable to dentists under the dental benefit scheme and the imposition of increased charges by some dentists, in breach of the contractual arrangements for the provision of dental benefit. The action by dentists started in early March this year. Patients continued to be treated under the scheme at that stage while efforts were made to find a solution to the underlying issue. In the absence of a resolution my Department ceased to accept claims from dentists who were not prepared to adhere to the contractual arrangements in early August. However, the scheme continued to operate and patients continued to be treated by dentists who were prepared to adhere to these contracts.
Due to the progress made in recent discussions with the Irish Dental Association, the association agreed to recommend to its members to return to operating the scheme. The level of inquiries from dental practitioners in relation to their patients' entitlements under the scheme are now at or close to pre-dispute levels. This suggests that most, if not all, dentists previously in dispute are operating the scheme.
To benefit under the scheme insured persons must be treated by a dentist who has contracted to provide services. During the dispute insured workers were advised through the press to check that their dentist was not imposing increased charges prior to starting treatment. Patients were advised that where dentists offered to treat people as private patients this was outside the terms of the scheme and the Department will not be in a position to refund any costs arising. Those who could not obtain treatment under the scheme during the short period when service was disrupted should now be able to receive treatment.
Because of a time lag between authorisation of claims and the issue of payments to dentists in respect of treatment provided, it will be some months before the impact of the resumption can be properly assessed. For the same reason it will be some months before the impact on scheme expenditure will be available.
I refute the insinuation in the Deputy's question that my objective in refusing to deal with dentists involved in this dispute was to save money. My objective was to preserve the scheme for the benefit of insured persons. This still remains my objective in the context of the discussions now taking place.
I wish the Minister well on her appointment and I am looking forward to having a good working relationship with her. I am afraid, however, judging by her first answer, that her officials have taken control of her already. I am disappointed because I know her a long time and thought that she would be a Minister who would control the Department rather than the Department controlling her. However, I wish her well and look forward to working with her—
I might take control of the Deputy yet.
—not for the next five years, but perhaps for the next year. That is how long I give the Government, judging by the way people outside are talking.
I stand over the statement in my question. The dispute continued for months. The Minister and the Department did not make any great effort to resolve it. If the Minister insured her car tomorrow morning, paid the insurance premium, was involved in a road accident and the insurance company then refused to pay out, something would have to be done. I ask what she will do for the PAYE workers who paid their contributions and then had to pay money out of their own pockets to obtain a service. How will she resolve this matter and pay back the money?
One of the objectives of the scheme is to ensure those who are insured under the scheme get value for money. I am sure the Deputy will agree that where dentists are working outside the terms of their contract, charging over and above what was agreed with the Department, that is equally unfair and unpalatable to those who pay PRSI. There was a dispute over the past two years and a review of the scheme. My predecessor offered to have it independently evaluated, but that was not agreed to. I reiterated that offer when I was appointed Minister in order to facilitate the concerns of dentists, but it was not acceptable to them. I was, therefore, left with no option but to protect those involved in the scheme and ensure they received what had been agreed by contract with the Department and that an extra charge would not be imposed. I had no choice but to take the course of action I took. I regret very much that people were inconvenienced. My Department did its utmost to facilitate them by referring them to dentists working within the terms of the scheme.
As I indicated, I am not in a position to evaluate the cost of the scheme as a consequence of the dispute. If patients are being treated privately, the Department and I cannot refund the fees paid.
The Deputy may ask a brief supplementary question.
The Minister must be aware that her Department has been told to cut back €101 million. Because of the number who use the scheme, the Department has saved €1.5 million during the dispute.
The Deputy must ask a question.
If a person takes legal action against the Department, it will cost a lot more than what it would cost to pay them. If a person produces a genuine receipt to show that he or she has paid for a service for which they had already paid through PRSI, the Department should reimburse him or her.
The Deputy is answering his own question. The crux of the problem was that people were not being provided with the service for which my Department had contracted with dentists—
They had to receive treatment privately.
They were being charged over and above what was agreed with the Department. That is the reason the dispute arose. As I have said on numerous occasions, there are no adjustments or cut-backs in my budget this year.
