APPENDIX A.

381

——

(B) Husband insured: wife insured.
Item No. (4) is covered by existing medical benefit provided by the
wife’s society. The husband’s society will, therefore, bear a charge
of £3 5s. Tt is assumed that as the wife is independently insured
a sum of £1 in cash will be paid to her by her society in addition
to the payment of £1 by her husband’s society. At present a payment
 of £2 is made by both the husband’s society and the wife’s
society. The new provision thus represents an increase in the
liability on the former of £1 5s. and a decrease in the liability on
the latter of £1.

(C) Husband uninsured: wife insured.
The new medical charges (items (1)-(3)) will amount to £2 5s.,
item (4) being already covered.

As regards the cash benefit, under the existing Act an employed
married woman’s society pays two maternity benefits of £2 each
in the exceptional case in which the husband is not an insured
person. This provision does not, however, apply in the case of a
woman who has ceased to be employed on marriage, and who is
entitled to special benefits for a limited period (Class K).

The provision of a double benefit from the one society in the case
under consideration has been much criticised, and in view of the
fact that under the proposals before us the woman’s society would
have to pay £2 5s. for new medical services in this case, whereas
it would have to pay nothing under this head where the husband
was also insured, we consider that the double cash payment by the
woman’s society, where the husband is not insured, should be
terminated. The new cash benefit, where the woman only was
insured, would thus be limited to a single sum of £1 both for the
employed married woman and the ‘Class K’ woman, making a
total payment of £38 5s. in each case. The society would thus pay
15s. less in the case of an employed married woman and £1 5s. more
in the case of a ‘‘ Class K ”’ woman than at present.

(D) Unmarried Women.
The new services would be items (1), (2), (8) and (5), No. (4)
being already covered by medical benefit.
6. The relative numbers of the cases A, B and C have next to be
considered. As a preliminary, it is necessary to determine the proportion
 of married women, either employed or ¢ Class K,” whose
husbands are not insured. We find that in settling the present financial
basis of the system the former Actuarial Advisory Committee assumed
that one-tenth of the married women who were employed contributors
would have uninsured husbands and, on such facts as we have been
able to obtain, we do not consider that any other proportion would be
more appropriate. As regards the women of Class K,”” we recognise
the probability that among this class, consisting of recently married
and therefore, for the most part, young women, the proportion whose
husbands are not insured would he materially less than that obtaining
among the married women who are working for employers. The
question of discrimination is not, however, of material importance to
the estimates of cost (though the matter assumes another aspect in
regard to the arrangements to be made to meet the actual cost of the
medical service contemplated), and we propose, therefore, to adopt the
same proportion, namely, 10 per cent.

7. Coming now to actual numbers, we have obtained the following
estimate. on the basis of the rates of issue adopted in our first Report,