THE MEDICAL BILL

Wairarapa Times-Age, 24 September 1941, Page 7

THE MEDICAL BILL

GRAVE CONCERN EXPRESSED BY FRIENDLY SOCIETIES. REPLY BY MINISTER. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day. The declaration that the friendly societies viewed the Social Security Amendment Bill now before Parliament with the gravest concern as its passage would automatically put an end to the medical services these societies had been administering to onefifth of the Dominion’s population, is contained in a letter sent to the Prime Minister, Mr- Fraser, by Mr L. J. Retallick, secretary of the Dominion Council of the Friendly Societies, and Mr J. L. Stewart, secretary of the Manchester Unity, 1.0.0. F. (N.Z.) The letter also holds that, if passed, the Bill would deal a devastating blow to friendly societies and -that the. blow would have been dealt without any consultation with the societies upon the Bill. The Minister of Health, Mr Nordmeyer, has replied to the letter, inter alia, as follows: —“There is really little I can add to what I said in my letter of June 27, when I informed you that there was no intention on the part of the Government to regard the offer made to friendly societies as a temporary one. You express disappointment with the steps the Government has taken to carry out this assurance by incorporating Clause 4 (2) (b) in the Bill, but I think that if you read this clause carefully you will see that it fully carries out the promise of that letter. In effect, it means the Bill will not apply to any member of a friendly society which takes advantage of the Governments offer to refund medical dues. Any such member will continue to receive medical attention at the hands of the society’s medical officer, in exactly the same manner as if this Bill had not been passed. The only difference is that his medical dues, or at any rate, so much of them as represent the cost of general practitioner care, will be paid by the Government. It is probable that friendly society members, with their long experience of satisfactory lodge service, will prefer to continue this, rather than change to the general scheme envisaged by the Bill. “My view has always been that the capitation scheme established under the Medical Benefits Regulations is preferable to the fee-for-service proposals contained in the present Bill, and I have made no secret of my intention not to let the fee-for-service system displace the capita'tion scheme. In view of this, you will appreciate that the Government wished to give those doctors now operating the capitation scheme the greatest possible protection that it could in this Bill. It has given to them exactly the same protection that it has given to friendly societies. This can be seen by comparing paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 4 (2). Accordingly, I am rather at a loss to understand your statement that “it is idle to suggest that there is the slightest hope for protection under the provisions of Clause 4 (2) (b).

“I have given you my assurance that the Government would give friendly societies every assistance in this matter. In another letter dated September 9, 1941, you remind me of this, and I will make every effort to have legislation easing the present restrictions on friendly societies prepared in time for consideration during the present session of Parliament.”