HOSPITAL BOARD

Wairarapa Times-Age, 16 May 1941, Page 7

HOSPITAL BOARD

REPRESENTATION AND FINANCE

(Contributed.)

Some days ago. a correspondent writes, you printed a statement that ratepayers should have a larger- proportion of represenation on the hospital board, and that they provided all ■ the money required over and above the Gs per day per patient provided by Social Security. This is not so. At present the board comprises 13 members eleeted by ratepayers, and six members, elected in the boroughs on .the parliamentary franchise. These six are supposed to represent the people who provide the Social Security money (i.e„ the patients), and the Government’s subsidy from consolidated revenue.

' The proportion is aproximately £26 from the rates to £2O from the Government. If the £26 from the rates is compared with the £2O from consolidated revenue, plus the money from Social Security, it will be readily seen that the ratepayers form far too big a proportion of the board. Thirteen to six is absurd.

We choose town councillors for their knowledge of road and bridge-making, for their knowledge of abattoirs and gas, none of which is of any use in nursing the sick. Never in the history of the hospital have the ratepayers selected a woman for the hospital board (and there are some splendid women in the country districts who would be a credit to the board). Many suffering patients ask why.

Mr T. Jordan, president of the Municipal Association, who made the statement referred to, states that no reference whatever was made by him to the representation of ratepayers on hospital boards. The point he made, he observes. was that the whole of hospital expenditure should be paid from the Social Security Fund, which would have to be slightly increased for that purpose, and that no portion of it should be paid out of rates.