THE ASHBURTON HOSPITAL.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20492, 10 March 1932, Page 14

THE ASHBURTON HOSPITAL.

REPLY TO MR CAMPBELL BEGG. COST TO RATEPAYERS. . [TIIO following reyly to Mr I!. Campbell Begg's articles on hospital reform, and particularly for tho merging of the Ashburton Hospital District with the North Canterbury clifctlict, is made by Mr Angus Horsey, Cuairman of the Ashburton Hospital Board.] I must thank Mr Begg for the trouble to which he has gone in placing what he considers are essential figures 'before your readers, concerning the proposal for the Ashburton Hospital district to merge into North Canterbury. However, with your permission, I would like to go into the various points which he raises. In making my initial statement concerning the proposal to merge this district into North Canterbury, I endeavoured to show that as the . law stands, it would result in an increased rate so far as the Ashburton district is concerned. Nothing in what Mr Bcgg says can alter this fact, unless thero ware .to be a vast decrease in the Hospital expenditure of tho North Canterbury district. Tho figures which he gives cloud the local issue, which is: Which will allow of the lesser rate, remaining as we are, or being included in North Canterbury? For tho purposes of argument, I will take this year's figures:— . Ashburton levy (i.e., amount received from local rates), £.7826 ( .157 d in the £ ). Capital value, £11,934,590. North Canterbury levy, £6>,304 (.216d in the £). Capital value, £74,765,303. _ Now suppose that we had merged into North Canterbury at the beginning of this financial year, and that our Public Hospital and Maternity Hospitals had been closed, and that no sanatorium expenditure or charitable relief had been necessary—in other words, that not one penny of expenditure had been necessary here —what would have been the local rate? The total rateable value of the combined district would have been £86,699,893, and' the rate required to meet the North Canterbury levy alone would have meant .187 d over the whole district, or .030 d greater than this district is at present paying—actually about £1492; and that without Ashburton having its own hospital. It must be remembered that we are rated on capital value, not on a population basis. Mr Begg states that "levies .. . from the Ashburton district would not materially increase. From this it can be assumed that Mr Begg anticipates an increase in the local rates, - but he does not tell us to what extent. The actual position now is that Ashburton Hospital rate is the lowest hospital .rate in the South Island, and I prefer this solid fact to a visionary prospect of our rates "not being materially increased."

Hospital Facilities. As for the increased hospital facilities to which Mr sßegg refers, I would remind my critic that at the present time we have not tho slightest difficulty ill getting all patients requiring specialist treatment into Christcliurch Hospi-tal.-with which we work with the utmost harmony. 'ln what respect, therefore, are the increased facilities to comcf Let me say also that the Wellington Board's scheme has included nothing whatever concerninjg an alteration in the law, so far as the basis of rating is .The fact of the , matter is that in .sucli a district as Ciiriatchfch, where there is a high' population and a low rateable value, a higher rate of Government subsidy is paid, thai' to " district with a high capital value a''"i a relatively low population such as Af :i----burton. Thus, over a period of eight years, North Canterbury lias received an average maintenance subsidy of 21f Id per £ of rates, against an Ashburton average of 16s 4d, and still the hospital rate is lower in the Ashburton district than it is in North Canterbury. Cost Per .Head. • Now, regarding Mr Begg's basis of argument as far as* the. actual .cost per head of the population is concerned, • I have already shown that tlie amount of Government subsidy (which represents Government , "taxation) is higher in North Canterbury than it is in Ashburrton. Therefore, it is illogical to work out the cost per head of the population

on a liaifwav, or rating basts alone, j Kates represent taxation in one form, subsidy is taxation in another form. This year the total amount require; l , from all sources of taxation, in North Canterbury was £130,039 16s, and in Ashburton £13,723 lis 9d.' Now, if these figures are divided by the population of the respective districts, we find that the cost for North Canterbury was 15s 5d per head of its population, namely, 108,905, and in Ashburton 14s 9<l per head of its population, namely, 18,565 —a difference of 8d per; head of the population in favour of Ashburton. In the other year to which Mr Bcgg refers, and ■worked out on the same basis, there is a great difference per head of the population in the capital expenditure of the two Boards. Ashburton was higher in that year than Christchurch, but the principal eontiibuting factor was the capital work carried out, and paid for completely, by the local Board. As I have previously pointed out, Ashburton has no loan indebtedness, but the North Canterbury Board. at March 31st last had a loan" liability of £137,000, which still has to be paid off out of r^tos and Government taxation. If Ashbur-ton-is' merged into North Canterbury district, our local taxpayers wilVhave to pay their siiare of that _ distric s loans for buildings erected in Uiristchurc.li and other facilities for the North Canterbury Board. Charitable Relief. So far as Mr Bcgg's final is concerned, he takes tho year as a basis for a gross cost comparison, but he excludes charitable relief, both indoor and outdoor. Why? Ho uses a tablo to prove that "Ashburton m joining North Canterbury would not be joining a .district-more costly than ifrself," yet in his comparison he leaves out charitable relief, which in the caso of North Canterbury amounted to £36,000. The gross cost per head of the population (see Health Department's Appendix Table 11. P* 14) shows North Canterbury £1 4s 9d, Ashburton £1 4s 3d. In such a comparison when an endeavour is made to prove a statement, the facts must be shown and all maintenance costs included, not excepting charitable relief. The same table for the year ending 1931 shows the gross cos't of Ashburton as 2s per head of the population less than North Canterbury. Population Basis. In his previous article, Mr Begg gave the source of liis population comparison, and while I do not dispute the fact that his source of information is doubtless later than mine, still I must say that the Health Department's tables showed the population of Marlborough at March 31st last as 17,110. If it has grown to 18,000 since then, there is probably some local transitory reason, and similarly Waitaki with a population of 17,530 which has since reached 19,000 has as a reason the number of men engaged on the hydro-electric works, which is only a very temporary increase. I notice by the way, that the Government purposes very considerably to curtail this work. Ashburton with a standing population of 18,565 has, from a population basis, its claim to its own hospital district, while Mr Begg supports the claims <-£ Marlborough and Waitaki districts for "B" grade hospitals on a population basis, but he proposes that Ashburton with a larger population is to lose its identity. I notice that'Mr Begg has ignored the other grounds on which I based Ashburton's ' claims for its own Board, i.e., natural boundaries and community of interest, and service. Let me repeat that last year we wore one of the 18 hospitals in New Zealand which treated over 1000 .patients; our outpatient department treated the ninth greatest number of patients in New Zealand, namely, 1000 patients, 5942 attendances, and our principal maternity hospital treated the seventh greatest number of j patients in maternity hospitals controlled 'j by, Boards. All of thrse functions ] represent service.. • Would our .people ; obtain the name service if we were rdminiolereil. by another Board;

Representation. Mr Begg states that Ashbuvton would remain an important district hospital, but his scheme shows that the questioh of the provision of necessary facilities would be vested in the North Canterbury Board, in which this district would have only a small representation, and that these facilities would b'p sublet to the approval of a Board of Hospitals sitting in Wellington. If the North Canterbury Board consisted of 14 members, this whole district Would be entitled to two representatives, or one-seventh. There cannot be many who can believce that this district is not better served by its- own Board, than it would be by a minority representation'or a largo combined Board, and if this be admitted, I think that I have shown that from any' other point of view, we: have nothing to gain and much to lose, by merging into the North Canterbury districts I do not propose entering into any further controversy on this matter until it has been discussed by a conference of Hospital Boards and the Department of Health, who are the ones most qualified to deal with any suggested alterations.