Dentist who overclaimed welfare fees still on panel

A DENTIST who overclaimed between £13,000 and £27,000 from a Department of Social Welfare dental treatment benefit scheme is …

A DENTIST who overclaimed between £13,000 and £27,000 from a Department of Social Welfare dental treatment benefit scheme is still involved in the scheme, the Public Accounts Committee has been told.

The Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr John Purcell, said it was not his position to question the wisdom of the decision to retain the dentist but he was concerned that it would send out "the wrong signal".

A Government TD, Mr Eric Byrne (DL) said, however, it was "shocking" and "upsetting" that the dentist was still on the panel. It showed double standards between the treatment of social welfare recipients and of medical professionals.

Mr Purcell told the committee the dentist's claims were five or six times the panel average. The dentist, who was not identified either by name or location, overclaimed by up to £27,000 between 1990 and 1993, the Department of Social Welfare estimated. The overclaiming was identified through routine examination of the dentist's file of monthly payments.

READ MORE

Mr Purcell said the dentist admitted some of the overclaiming and the verifiable amount was set at £13,000, most of which had been recouped by the time of the audit. The scheme operated on trust and the Department relied on the honesty of dentists. It was only in recent years with computerisation that the scheme could be better monitored.

The Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare, Mr Edward McCumiskey, said there was a higher level of control and they were effectively monitoring the scheme. He believed this particular case had strengthened the scheme.

Mr Tommy Broughan (Lab) asked the secretary why the case had not been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Mr McCumiskey said he suspected they could not have proven the case. A lot of the overclaiming was admitted by the dentist "and if there was a prosecution any cooperation would have ended".

Mr Byrne said that "rogue solicitors are struck off the books in a very public way". It was remarkable that a medical professional could defraud the scheme and still remain on the books.