HOSPITAL RATING

Wairarapa Times-Age, 17 June 1943, Page 3

HOSPITAL RATING

INCREASED SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENT BENEFIT TO WAIRARAPA BOARD. LITTLE MORE THAN THIRD OF TOTAL. “An impression which apparently exists among ratepayers that the board benefits to the extent of 3s as a result of the Government's increased Social Security allowance to hospital boards requires correcting. We only receive Is 2d of the increase,” observed Mr H. Thomas at yesterday afternoon's meeting of the Wairarapa Hospital Board. A detailed account of the effect of the increase on the board’s finances was submitted by the managing secretary, Mr Norman Lee. Mr J. F. Thompson said it seemed to be a topsy-turvey position in that the more the board spent the less the ratepayers were required to pay. He said the trouble lay in the fact that the capital value of the Wairarapa was too high in proportion to the population. The higher the district was valued the more the ratepayers had to find for hospital costs and the more the properties were improved the higher the capital value rose and there was more to pay. It was unjust and inequitable. Mr Lee said the increased Social Security payment by the Government brought down the Government subsidy to a minimum.

“Because we are a wealthy district we get less by way of subsidy,” observed Mrs S. Fletcher. Mr Lee said the present system of hospital rating was all right in 1923 but since then things had altered considerably. It was of little use asking for the co-operation of other boards in the matter as the more the Wairarapa Board paid the less the former paid, as they were placed in* a more favourable position.

“The less we spend the smaller the Government subsidy and the greater the burden on the ratepayers,” said Mr Thompson. "In effect, the greater the economy the more the ratepayers pay.” Mr H. Thomas said the incidence of hospital rating had been a burning question for 20 years to his knowledge. Mr H. H. Mawley, chairman, said the position would be clearer if the expenditure all over the Dominion was taken into consideration. Over a year the extra 3s would mean a reduction of expenditure by £12,000, of which the ratepayers in effect received £4,800 and the Government £7,200. The cost per patient had risen by 10s but an increase of only 3s had been granted. Under the present system of hospital rating no board would receive more than Is 6d of the Government increase on account of the way the Government subsidy was arrived at.