Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 24 Oct 2002

Vol. 556 No. 2

Written Answers. - Industrial Disputes.

Dan Boyle

Ceist:

39 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her views on the current situation regarding the provision of dental care for PRSI contributors; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [19384/02]

Bernard J. Durkan

Ceist:

42 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when optical and dental benefit entitlements will be restored to those who have been deprived of such benefits for the past six months; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [19518/02]

Breeda Moynihan-Cronin

Ceist:

46 Mrs. B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the position regarding negotiations between her Department and the Irish Dental Association on the ongoing dispute over the level of fees imposed on PRSI workers for dental treatment; when the negotiations between the two parties are to be resumed; if PRSI workers who acquired treatment during the dispute will be reimbursed for the cost of the treatment received; if dentists sacked by her in August 2002 have been reinstated to the scheme; the estimated amount of money saved by her Department during the dispute; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [19494/02]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 39, 42, and 46 together.

The current dispute referred to applies only to dental benefit and not to optical benefit. 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 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 resolution 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 their contracts.

Due to the progress made in the discussions with the Irish Dental Association on 9 October the association agreed to recommend to its members to return to operating the dental benefit 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, suggesting that most if not all dentists in dispute are operating the scheme.

The negotiations are being resumed on 1 November and I look forward to a fair and equitable conclusion. Because of time lags 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. It is only then that an indication will be available of the extent to which persons have opted for private treatment or delayed treatment until the dispute was resolved.

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 newspapers 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 is outside the terms of the dental benefit 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.

I want to refute any suggestion that my objective in this dispute was to save money. My objectives was to preserve the scheme for the benefit of insured persons and this is still my objective in the context of the discussions which are now taking place.
Barr
Roinn