Private Hospitals

Press, Volume C, Issue 29497, 26 April 1961, Page 14

Private Hospitals

The statement by the I director of the Health De- " partment’s Division of Hospitals (Dr. C. A. Taylor) that the Government is considering setting up a committee to investigate Government subsidies to private hospitals is hardly surprising in view of the undertaking in the National Party’s 1960 General Election policy. A certain ambiguity in the policy does not appear to have been cleared up; its explanation that the investigation would be made “with the object “ of reducing the cost to the * taxpayer and at the same “ time removing an “ anomaly ..." might imply some hope of curtailing the total subsidy. On the other hand, the reference to “the cost to “the taxpayer” might well refer to the saving to the taxpayer through patients using private instead of public hospitals. Most will prefer the second interpretation because the saving at the present rate of subsidy is substantial Whereas the average cost of an occupied bed in all New Zealand’s hospital institutions last year was about 74s a day. Government subsidies to “A” class private hospitals are 28s a day for patients in surgical and obstetrical hospitals and 35s 8d a day for maternity hospitals. Increases to “A” class hospitals were granted last year and to “B" class hospitals (including Plunket Society hospitals) from the beginning of this month Both increases were to meet increased costa. The private hospitals—with more than 2500 beds compared with about 15,500 beds in hospital board and Health Department institutions—provide a substantia] proportion of New Zealand’s hospital services; and it is essential for the proper use of these services that the private

hospitals be used to capacity. If patients are deterred from using them because the fees are too high private hospital facilities will be wasted and this will put greater demands on the public hospitals. It must be ' remembered that private hospitals, to retain staff, must pay wages and salaries comparable with those paid in public hospitals.

Governments are rightly cautious about spending taxpayers* money on projects that may benefit private owners and shareholders. Mr Nash mentioned this consideration last year when discussing with the Private Hospitals Association capital for new private hospitals. However sound the objection, in principle, to what Mr Nash called "profits distributable “to private persons”, it is at least equally sound

administrative practice to support private undertakings where they demonstrably lighten the taxpayer’s burden and discharge a function the

government is unable or unwilling to discharge itself. The lists of 25,000 patients waiting to enter public hospitals may well be the key to the principal finding of such an inquiry as the Government now proposes. It should point the way to a clear, consistent policy towards an important part of the hospital service that in the past has had little enough encouragement