asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that an insured person under the Social Welfare Acts (name supplied) has been charged a fee for teeth extraction by a dentist (name supplied) on 8th March, 1965; and if he will take the necessary steps to prevent a recurrence of this practice.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Teeth Extraction Fee.
10.
In the case referred to by the Deputy the insured person required emergency dental treatment. Normally an insured person who wants dental treatment completes an application form which can be obtained from any dentist on the Department's panel. Such application form on which the particulars of the treatment required are entered by the dentist is referred to the Department. If the necessary contribution conditions are satisfied and the treatment is deemed necessary for dental fitness the application is approved and the dentist and insured person are so informed. In the case of emergency treatment such a procedure may not be possible and the dentist is at liberty to give the required treatment without reference to the Department. However, as the insured person at this stage has not been formally qualified for dental treatment and as no liability would rest on the Department if it should transpire that he was not so qualified, it would not be feasible to compel the dentist to give the treatment under the dental benefit scheme. It is, in fact, the type of case in which the goodwill of the participating dentist must be relied upon. As the number of cases giving rise to complaint is extremely small, I do not consider that any special action affecting all participating dentists is called for; I shall, however, have the matter further examined.
Is the Minister aware that this person applied for treatment and received it being a qualified person? Having received the treatment, this person was charged 35/- even though the dentist knew, because the insured person was asked, that he was an insured person. In view of that, would the Minister not have this case investigated, particularly as it appears to be a bit of a racket with the dentist concerned?
It is this case that I propose to have examined but the Deputy has not got his facts correct as far as my knowledge of the case is concerned.
My facts are based on correspondence from the Minister's Department which confirms what I I told the Minister. I shall let him have a copy of it after Question Time, if he so desires.
The correspondence I have from the insured person himself is completely at variance with what the Deputy says.
I have a copy of the correspondence sent by the insured person and it is not at variance with what I have said. I shall let the Minister have a copy of it because the Minister does not know what he is talking about.
The insured person's letter, which I read this morning, is completely at variance with what the Deputy says. However, it is that particular case that I am having examined.
I beg leave to raise the subject matter of this question on the adjournment in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply.
I shall communicate with the Deputy.