156 
MAJORITY REPORT. 
side, it follows that an unrestricted non-contributory dental 
benefit would cost at least 4s. per insured person per annum, 
which is the equivalent of a penny contribution. If the percen- 
tage of applicants exceeded 5, as in course of time it probably 
would, or the average cost per case exceeded £4, as in many areas 
it does at present, the total cost of a ** 100 per cent.”’ service 
would exceed the equivalent of a penny contribution. 
353. The establishment of a complete dental service for the 
insured might, as we have said, be followed sooner or later by a 
reduction in the expenditure on sickness and disablement benefits, 
which would to some extent be a set off against the new expendi- 
ture. But this is a wholly conjectural factor, and no effect can 
be siven to it for the purpose of framing actual estimates. 
METHODS OF RESTRICTING LIABILITY. 
354. If an unrestricted service is too costly under present con- 
ditions, the question arises whether the liability could be limited. 
In examining possible methods of limitation we have to weigh 
the ultimate gain in the improved dental condition of the insured 
people against the claim to immediate relief of those actually 
suffering in health owing to neglect of the teeth. From the 
medical point of view there are obvious advantages in concen- 
trating on the treatment of young persons and in spending the 
money on conservative work. But such a policy is not likely to 
be acceptable, since it does nothing for those older persons whose 
mouths are in such a condition as to produce digestive and other 
disorders resulting in present suffering and, what 1s important as 
an insurance consideration, consequent demands on the benefit 
funds. The two conflicting points of view might possibly be 
reconciled by making no charge for conservative and operative 
treatment, but requiring the insured person to contribute a sub- 
stantial proportion (say 50 per cent.) of the cost of dentures. 
Such a proposal is open to the obvious objection that it would 
tend to exclude the most necessitous of the insured population 
who need dentures and who could not afford £2 or £3 towards 
their provision. (See Brock, Q. 23,943.) This difficulty might, 
to some extent, be met by allowing Societies some discretionary 
power in cases of proved need to contribute the balance as an 
additional benefit. We recognise that such discretionary benefits 
are difficult to administer and are liable to abuse. But it does 
not seem to us impossible to devise tests which would afford at 
least a partial safegnard against administrative abuses. No 
restricted service can ever be quite satisfactory, but the restrie- 
tion we have suggested seems to us least open to objection. 
355. An alternative method of limitation would be to make 
the benefit recommendatory and to leave the selection of cases 
to the Insurance Committees or their successors. on the basis