Manawatu Herald SATURDAY, MARCH 10, 1928. HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3765, 10 March 1928, Page 2

Manawatu Herald SATURDAY, MARCH 10, 1928. HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION.

THE Palmerston North Hospital Board has issued to contributing authorities a statement of accounts for the year ending 31st March, 1927 with comments regarding the Board’s activities with a view to furnishing members of local contributory bodies with full information of the Board’s activities, nature of the work, sources of revenue and expenditure and comparative figures of Boards of similar size. It is hoped that members of contributing bodies will make a careful study of the figures to enable them to criticise with a knowledge of the facts rather than indulge in speculative generalities. Comparative figures prove, and Departmental officials confirm, t lie statement that the Palmerston Hospital is second to none in economic and efficient administration. The cost per patient treated for 1926 (the latest year for whi h published details are available in respect of other hospitals) was £B:6, as against £13.8 at Hamilton. £12.2 Napier and £12.4 Wanganui. The recovery of fees from patients is the highest of those mentioned, whereas Palmerston’s subsidy is the lowest, viz., 14/- in file £ as against Hamilton 17/-, Napier 19/9 and Wanganui 17/9. Palmerston’s low rate of subsidy necessitates an increased levy. Palmerston’s levy was £19,435, Waikato £32,004, Napier £21,923 and Wanganui £20,223. To quote the report in this connection: “It is interesting to consider that despite the facts that our subsidy is the lowest and that the Government contributes a smal'er proportion of the expenditure of. the Palmerston North Hospital' than it does in any of the other cases, we still show the lowest rate of;levy on our Local Bodies. It will also be noticed that the principle “the lower the levy the lower the. rate of subsidy” is applied. In other words the more economical a Hospital Board is the less subsidy it gets from the Government. This Board has always opposed the present scheme of distribution of subsidy, but as under the present scheme, the majority of Boards receive a subsidy of over 20/- in the £ the difficulty in having any change made is very great indeed. The Government's contention in subsidising under the present scheme is that the subsidy is given where it is most deserved, i.e., where the tax is highest the subsidy should be the highest. It is interesting to note that a Board such as ours which is in receipt of a low subsidy of 14/in the £ is required to levy an extra amount. As against this, it the subsidy was as it should be on the £ for £ basis, we would be levying a much, smaller amount. Consequently, we are practically in the position of having to levy more to enable the Government to contribute an amount equivalent to the extra levy to some other District. The policy of this Board is to take every opportunity to press the Government to remedy the present position during the next year and would suggest that Local Bodies in the District should consider supporting the Board in its attitude.