MAJORITY REPORT.
Sr
Dr. Harry Roberts.—*‘ In my experience there can be no ques-
tion as to the enormous advantage to insured persons resulting
from the medical provisions of the Insurance Act *’ (App. LI, 5;
Q. 16,136).
The Retail Pharmacists’ Union.—*‘ Taking into consideration
the enormous number of prescriptions dispensed, and bearing in
mind that in no sense is an insured person obliged to go to any
particular chemist, the number of complaints against the
chemists’ service has been almost negligible ’ (App. LXV, 21).
““ From every point of view the arrangements for the supply of
drugs and appliances through chemists have been successful. . . .
Insured persons have benefited very greatly by the arrangements
for medical benefit ** (App. LXV, 79, 81).
The General Council of Panel Chemists (Scotland).—** The
relationship between practitioners and pharmacists is one of
mutual respect and confidence and helpful co-operation. The
matters . . . . needing amendment are relatively few and
are mentioned with a view to their elimination so that a service
already on the whole satisfactory may be brought still nearer
to the ultimate ideal ** (App. LXIX, 28).
The Sons of Temperance Friendly Society.—‘‘ The medical
service rendered by panel practitioners is considered generally
satisfactory so far as it may be given within the definition of
range of service ”’ (App. LXXXIX, 41). ‘‘ The medical service
has improved very much upon what it was originally . .
1 believe the medical profession as a whole are doing the best
they can for insured persons’ (Q. 21,534).
The National Association of Trade Union Approved Societies.
—¢“ The Medical Profession as a whole has rendered competent
and conscientious service to insured persons *’ (App. XCII, 76;
Q. 22,039).
69. Adverse criticisms of the system have naturally been
received (see e.g., National Medical Union, App. XLIX and
Scottish Medical Guild, App. 1), but the examination of wit-
nesses did not convince us that, in the system taken as a whole,
there is anything seriously amiss apart, of course, from the limita-
tion of the scope of the benefit, with which we have already dealt.
Some reference was also made by certain witnesses (Joint Com-
mittee of Approved Societies, Q. 8026-8028, 8040-8041) to the
standard of the Insurance Medical Service in London, which was
stated to compare disadvantageously with that throughout the
country as a whole. We questioned the representative of the
London Insurance Committee on the subject (Q. 22,842, 22,899-
92.900), but we were not able to obtain any specific evidence as
to the foundation on which this general impression of the
inferiority of the service in London was based. We may, how-
ever. refer in this connexion to the statement of Mr. Brock
