HOSPITAL SYSTEM.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5456, 2 August 1929, Page 4

HOSPITAL SYSTEM.

SUGGESTED PRIVATE WARDS. NGATEA MEETING PROTESTS. A long discussion on hospital treatment took place at the monthly meeting of the Ngatea branch of the N.Z. Labour Party on Tuesday evening, after the reading of a letter from the Dominion secretary of the N.Z. Labour Party on the question of hospital treatment, in which he pointed out that it could not too often be asserted that the qualification for medical services should not be in any way dependent on the wealth of the person needing the attention. The supreme value of the present public hospital system was that no differentiation was made in the treatment of patients on account of financial position. Instead of continuing this policy and extending the present facilities, wrote the secretary, the Government proposed to provide special treatment for wealthy patients. Speaking at the Hospital Boards’ Conference, the Minister of Health had said : It seemed that the community hospital system must come, and that it would be accompanied by some system of hospital insurance which would materially aid the finances; by intermediate wards in which, for a reasonable charge and a moderate operating fee, would be accommodated persons at present utilising the general words who were able and willing to pay the cost of their treatment; whilst private wards would provide facilities at higher rates to the well-to-do, who at present were often unfairly denied the advantages of the institutions and oftentimes could ndt procure similar advantages elsewhere. Freedom, of choice of the stipendiary staff, or of their own medical practitioners, would be a feature of the private patients* portion of. the institutions.” The letter pointed out that the system proposed by the Minister would introduce class distinctions of the worst-possible kind. Separate types of treatment was proposed, and the quality of treatment, attention, accommodation, and surroundings was to be determined by social and financial standing rather than by the need of the patient. The matter was discussed fully. Members expressed the view that the introduction of private wards and the resultant distinctions that would be created would completely change the excellent hospital system at present enjoyed. There was the likelihood that the general wards of public hospitals would come to be regarded as charity institutions. Those people who desired privacy and special attention should enter private hospitals. If private wards and a choice of the staff were allowed, as the Minister had suggested, there would be the danger that the general patients would receive treatment only by the less competent or less popular members of the hospital staff. A speaker pointed out that the idea underlying the Minister’s suggestion was a means of easing the financial burden on taxpayers by permitting those people who could pay well for privacy and additional treatment to do so. Under the present system hospital charges were kept as low as possible for the benefit of the masses, and the difference in the cost of maintenance and the charge was made up by Government subsidy and a levy on the land. By charging the well-to-do a stiff fee for private wards a profit’ could be made and utilised to ease the burden on the general taxpayer. The view of the meeting was that the present system should not be altered, but that an alteration in the financing of hospitals should be undertaken, and the best method seemed to be a universal insurance scheme for hospital treatment. ?

It was decided to draw the attention of the district M.P., and the district’s representatives on the Thames Hospital Board to the statement of the Minister of Health, and to protest against any such step being taken, as it would lead to the worst form of class distinction.