The dispensary should be the active working centre from which home visitation is undertaken; and this is especially important in “following up” work. Following up is needed for persons who have been examined once, concerning whom there is doubt as to their freedom from disease and who fail to present themselves for later examination. It is needed also for patients who have been under treatment and neglect to continue it; and for patients who after having been treated have been discharged and fail to report themselves at intervals as directed. It is important to have efficient arrangements for ascertaining these leakages and for making the necessary inquiries. The method of securing this will vary according to local circumstances; but the following example given by Dr. Chapman of an official method may be placed on record: When a patient is instructed to attend again at the dispensary his name is noted in a diary under the date upon which he is asked to attend. In some instances a definite time is fixed for the appointment so as to save the patient’s time. The names of all patients who attended the dispensary upon the day appointed are ticked off as they are seen, and at the end of the day the names of patients who have failed to attend remain on the list. Letters are then sent reminding these patients of their engagement and making another appointment. If they still fail to attend they are visited by the dispensary nurse or the health visitor. Failure to attend may be due to relapse, and, when this is likely, an early visit of inquiry by the nurse is advantageous. Examination of a register kept for facilitating work of this kind showed that the majority of the patients followed up attended subsequently, and that in the cases of the remainder non-attendance as a rule was satisfactorily explained. In areas having, as yet, no adequate system of following up, an appreciable percentage of patients usually cease to attend during the course of treatment at a dispensary, and many are lost sight of after discharge from a sanatorium. The value of the work of a dispensary and of after-care work is materially impaired in the absence of a system of “following up.” As schemes develop, more stress will doubtless be generally laid upon this branch of the dispensary function. _“Sanatorium Benefit.”_ Under the National Insurance Act the annual sum of 1s 3d (30 cents) was set apart for each insured person; as the result of subsequent bargaining with medical practitioners 6d of this was devoted to the domiciliary treatment of tuberculosis patients (payable on the number of panel patients on each doctor’s list, not on the number of his tuberculous patients), the remainder being payable to local authorities who undertook the provision of institutions for the treatment of tuberculous insured patients. Thus the “Sanatorium Benefit” comprises