Tooth and Claw
SIR,—I am afraid that your note under the above heading in the issue of May 22nd may be open to misunderstanding, particularly that part' of your comment which relates to the ten per cent. cut of dentists' fees. The ten per cent. cut was not the only unilateral reduction of fees which the dental profession has suffered. In June, 1949, the fees originally negotiated for National Health Insurance dental treatment were superseded by a new scale representing a reduction of between twenty per cent. and twenty-five per cent. The further ten per cent " cut " on aggregate fees took place in 1950, the total reduction in the original scale being therefore approximately thirty per cent. This was in spite of the fact that a Government committee of enquiry, under the chairmanship of Mr. William Penman, a past President of the Institute of Actuaries, satisfied themselves that the original scale of fees was, with one exception, calculated to provide the Spens Committee income for the Spens Committee working week, and that the higher earnings of dentists resulted from working longer hours. The earnings of the dental profession during this early period of the Health Service naturally attracted public attention and comment. It is, however, only fair to remember that the Penman Committee reported that "more dentists are working longer hours than is com- fortable or than would be good for them if continued for too long a period, and many of them are working more quickly than they would normally. . . . As a body they haVe been trying to cope with the difficult problem of keeping pace with demand without loss of efficiency and, as a body, the Working Party thinks they should have received more gratitude and less adverse criticism than has actually been the case."—Yours faithfully, S. DONALD Cox. British Dental Association, 13 Hill Street, Berkeley Square, W.I.
Previous page
