The Waikato Times FRIDAY, JULY 23, 1937. THE HOSPITAL SYSTEM

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20253, 23 July 1937, Page 6

The Waikato Times FRIDAY, JULY 23, 1937. THE HOSPITAL SYSTEM

The Royal Commission that recently investigated matters in connection with the Napier Hospital may have gone a little beyond its order of reference in mentioning in its report issues touching the general hospital system, but when read carefully it will be found that the statement regarding a nationalised system was most guarded. “ There is much to be said,” the report stated, “for the contention that the hospital system of New Zealand should be, in a large measure, nationalised.” Much has been said, in the past, and there can be no objection to the whole subject being again discussed, because the findings of a commission, after investigating the affairs of one institution, cannot be accepted as conclusive regarding national policy. It would have been interesting had the Commission stated its reasons why the process of nationalising the hospital system should only be “in a large measure,” and not altogether, and to what point, in the opinion of the members, the process should be carried. As a rule divided control is neither efficient nor progressive, and if the Commission thought that there was a line where national and local control could be fused then it might well have gone a little further in its report and have stated how this could be effected. Apparently as an alternative to full control, the Commission thought that the Government, having to provide a share of the revenue of the boards, should have a representative on those bodies. To many people that would appear to be reasonable. It has puzzled them why the Government should have a nominee on harbour boards, to whose revenue the State makes no direct contribution, and not have one on hospital boards where it does provide a full share of the money. Possibly the all-important question of finance was deemed by the Commission to be outside the scope of its inquiry, but it cannot be excluded from any discussion with respect to the hospital system generally. The basic principle that those who provide the money should have a voice in the expenditure applies. If the hospitals were to be removed from local control then the rating system for the upkeep of the institutions also must go. The finance, as well as the control, must be on a national basis. In view of the undertakings of the present Government to institute a national health insurance scheme, and the election pledges to make available a skilled home nursing service, probably the question of hospital accommodation and the system generally will come under review. If the Commission found that some of the difficulties at Napier were due to district rivalries, it would not be hard to find an instance where central authority had insisted on a hospital being built in a town, despite the fact that there were two fairly large hospitals within twenty-five miles and the board did not regard an additional small hospital as necessary. It would not be advisable to conclude that any national system would exclude the full use of political influence whenever possible. There can be no objection to the present and any constructive proposals, being frankly and fully discussed, but it should he realised at the outset that a system of national control implies national finance.