HEALTH SCHEME

Wairarapa Times-Age, 1 September 1938, Page 9

HEALTH SCHEME

CRITICISM OF GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS VIEWS OF FARMERS’ UNION POSITION OF RURAL RESIDENTS That the Social Security Bill does not permit complete freedom of choice between doctor and patient, that it fails to make specific arrangements for the treatment of country patients, and that it will not assist hospital finance, are the main criticisms offered by the New Zealand Farmers’ Union in an official statement issued today. “From a financial point of view a sound health insurance scheme is not open to the same objection as the pension proposals,” the statement declares. “It would not impose fresh burdens on the community, but would be merely a rearrangement of the methods of paying for medical services. A well-de-signed scheme should relieve the thrifty of some of the burden of providing medical and allied services for the thriftless who would then automatically make some provision for themselves. “A fundamental difference between the Farmers’ Unions idea and what appears to be the idea of the social security proposals in regard to medical benefits is that the Government desires the doctor to be the servant of the State, while we desire him to be the servant of the patient. Complete freedom of choice between doctor and patient is, in our view, a very necessary condition, and this is not secured by allowing beneficiaries to change, at prescribed times, the doctor on whose list they are. It is not clear from the Bill that having chosen a doctor there is a right to change to another doctor. It is certain that if such a right exists it can be exercised only at certain times which will apparently be prescribed by the Minister. This does not satisfy the Farmers Union’s idea of freedom of choice. “The Bill make? no specific arrangements with regard to the treatment of country patients, and we submit that definite provisions 'for doctors’ travelling expenses should be set out in the Bill. “The Farmers’ Union has always laid stress on the insurance aspect of health insurance and an enormous amount of detailed administration, with its attendant costs and regulations, could be avoided by giving beneficiaries the right to obtain medical aid from any qualified medical man registered under the scheme. The insurance scheme would pay for services of medical practitioners at an agreed scale of fees. This would also allow a patient who desired to do so to employ a medical practitioner whose services were more costly than the agreed-on rate, the patient, of course, bearing the extra expense. HOSPITAL FINANCE “We are profoundly disappointed that no provision has been made to deal adequately with the question of hospital finance. It seems to be generally assumed that the Bill provides a payment of 6s a day for each occupied bed hospitals, and it is argued that this is considerably greater than the amount which hospital boards are actually able to collect from patients at present, and to this extent is an assistance to hospital finance. “In our opinion payment on the basis mentioned will not help hospital finance, as the extra accommodation required and the extra services will necessitate increased capital and maintenance expenditure which will more than counter-balance any assistance from the social security fund. • “The position surely becomes ironical when wealthy people availing themselves, of the specialist services, such as radio and x-ray, may not be charged for services which struggling farmers must pay heavy rates to give them.

“Summed up, it appears that the medical scheme will mean that the farmer will (1) still have to pay his hospital rates, (2), have to pay his Is in the £1 like everyone else, (3), have to bear a large proportion of the extra taxation required, and (4) have his hospital rating greatly increased because of the extra capital expenditure which is bound to be required.”