158 
MAJORITY REPORT. 
would probably not be safe to attempt to provide such a service if 
the amount available was less than 6s. While we do 
not anticipate that the cost would be as high as 6s. at first, 
it might easily approximate to this as insured persons 
become better acquainted with their rights and realise the 
advantages of dental treatment. But we think that the re- 
stricted service we have suggested could be provided at the outset 
for about 3s. a head if the insured persons were required to 
contribute half the cost of dentures. A contributory scheme 
would reduce the number of applications, and the saving on 
denture cases would be considerably more than the amount con- 
tributed by the insured persons. But if the sum which it will 
ultimately be found possible to set aside for this purpose proves 
to be less than 2s. 6d., it would not in our opinion be desirable 
to attempt to provide a general dental benefit. A dental service 
costing less than 2s. 6d. a head would not be worth offering. The 
restrictions necessary to keep the cost within any lower limit 
would make the benefit irritating and to a large extent illusory. 
Treatment would tend to become a matter of chance rather than 
of right. 
359. An alternative suggestion, which has much to commend 
it on medical grounds, would be to provide all conservative and 
operative treatment free but to leave dentures to be paid for by 
the patient or to be provided by the Approved Societies as an 
additional benefit. Such a dental service would be of great 
value to the younger insured persons and would not be costly 
to provide ; but a benefit which fails to provide the one form of 
treatment which the older insured people desire is not likely to 
be welcomed and we have not made any attempt to estimate 
the cost on this basis. 
METHOD OF PAYMENT OF DENTISTS. 
360. If dental benefit were to become a normal benefit the 
question of the method of payment of the dentists might arise 
as a more important issue than it does at present. With the 
precedent of the success of the capitation method in medical 
benefit before us, we thought it desirable to examine witnesses 
on this point. Mr. Brock, in reply to Q. 23,952, stated 
that °° dental benefit does not lend itself to payment on 
a capitation basis at all. To begin with, there are no 
sufficient data available on which you could calculate a capitation 
rate, and if the adoption of a capitation system were proposed 
to the dentists they would be tempted naturally to insure them- 
selves by demanding an excessive rate.” He goes on in the 
same reply to cite other objections of a fundamental nature, and 
adds that there are really only two practicable methods of pay- 
ment, one the attendance basis with an agreed scale specifying 
the fee for each separate kind of service, and the other, payment