APPENDIX A.
377
The full contributions required would thus be brought up to 901d. (men)
and 9:09d. (women). The present contribution is 9d. for a man and 84d.
for a woman. The suggested extension of sickness and disablement
benefit would therefore be almost exactly covered in the case of men
without an increase of the present contribution provided that the con-
tributions to the Contingencies Fund were not increased as a conse-
quence of the increase of one-fifth in the rates of sickness and disable-
ment benefits. So far as women are concerned, the contribution would
have to he increased to at least 9d. a week, and if it were no higher than
this rate a reduction in the contribution of women to the Contingencies
Fund from °25d. per week to "16d. would be necessary. In our previous
report (paragraph 27) we stated reasons which led us to the conclusion
that the contribution to the Contingencies Fund should be the same for
persons of both sexes. Apart from the question of equity which is in-
volved we should view with some apprehension any alteration which sub-
stantially reduced, in the case of either sex, the low rate at which we
have recommended that the future contribution to the Contingencies
Fund should be fixed, even if no extension of risk connected with an
increase of benefits were contemplated.
II.—DisSABLEMENT BENEFIT.
3. As an alternative to 1, the possibility of an increase of disablement
benefit only is submitted to us for examination. So far as men are con-
cerned, we pointed out in paragraph 17 of our previous report that the
expenditure on this benefit appeared likely to become stabilised at 33%
per cent. above the average of the Selected Societies’ Experience in the
years 1921-23. This conclusion was, however, founded on observations
of expenditure at the rate of 7s. 6d. a week, and we cannot assume that
if in cases of protracted sickness this rate were materially raised, with a
consequent reduction of the difference between the rates of sickness
benefit and disablement benefit, the volume of claims for disablement
benefit or their average duration would remain unaffected. In com-
puting the liability involved in an increase of the rate of benefit we feel
compelled, therefore, to provide for a greater amount of claims than will
arise with the benefit at its present rate. The extent of the further
provision to be made to meet this factor is a point of great difficulty.
We do not think that until actual experience has been gained of the cost
of the benefit under the new conditions it can safely be put at less than
20 per cent. If it be taken at this rate the margin in the contribution
would permit of an increase in the benefit of 2s. 6d. a week. We recom-
mend, therefore, that if it should be decided to apply the available
margin to the increase of disablement benefit, the rate of this benefit
should not be raised to more than 10s. a week in the case of men.
4. In the case of women, the margin in the contribution is only ‘16d.
a week (after providing for the increased cost of medical benefit), and
it is sufficient to say that this margin, with the related State grant,
would not allow of the increase of the present disablement benefit of
7s. 6d. a week bv more than ninepence.
ITI.—BeNEFIT TO DEPENDANTS.
5. We are asked to advise on the cost of providing allowances, similar
to those under the Unemployment Insurance scheme, in respect of the
wives and children of insured persons in receipt of sickness or disable-
ment benefit. We assume, in regard to the wives of insured men, that
the proposal is to pay the dependants’ benefit in all cases in which an
insured man is married, not excluding those cases in which the wife is
herself a wage earner. Such a wife is not ordinarily a dependant for
the purpose of Unemployment benefit, but if it were proposed to exclude
her from this benefit under the Health Insurance system, while retaining
the ¢“ flat rate ”’ contribution for the whole body of insured men, a point
of some difficulty in the financial operation of the svstem would arise.
5 7
LT OY
9
