HOSPITAL COSTS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 136, 10 June 1932, Page 11

HOSPITAL COSTS.

REPLY TO CRITICISMS. «NO COMPLACENT ATTITUDE." DIRECTOR-GENERAL'S SURVEY. (By Telegraph.—Special to "Star.") WELLINGTON, Thursday. "From time to time loose criticisms are levelled against the New Zealand hospital system, the most common being that we have made a serious mistake in departing from the traditional British method of providing treatment in voluntary, as opposed to official, hospitals; that we have too many beds relative to the size of the population; that the average stay is too great; and, generally, that the coat of treatment is too high." said Dr. AVatt, Director-General of Health, in speaking at the conference of the Hospital Boards' Association to-day.

"These criticisms are hard to refute, on account of the difficulty of obtaining authentic information about the hospitals of other countries, but a survey has been made of the available reports and relevant literature."

Pits task of placing before the conference the facts he had been able to glean from these was made easier, he said, by a series of reports by Sir Arthur Newsholme. The first point brought out by a perusal of Sir Arthur's studies was that voluntary hospitals had nowhere proved equal to the demands, and had to be supplemented by State or municipal institutions. It was obvious this type of institution was sadly handicapped by its lack of an assured income. He quoted the post-war experience of London and other English hospitals, also the breakdown of finance in connection with the Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, where 200 beds had been closed Inet year, and admission wae refused to all but urgent and accident cases.

Tho second point Dr. Watt sec' out was that New Zealand waa n>t oversupplied with bed*. The figured per thousand of the population were quoted as follow:—New Zealand, 5.98; England and Wales, 5.88; Scotland, 5 75; Denmark, (5.75; Norway, 5.53; Sweden, 5.09. These countries were selected because the standard of living approximated most closely to that of the Dominion.

Di- Watt made his third point by quoting figures to show that the average stay in hospital also compared favourably, but he added that it did not follow that the average length of stay was incapable of reduction. In regard to the cost per bed, he quoted ae follows:—New Zealand, £200.3; London hospitals, with medical schools, £215.8; without tlio medical schools, £161.2; Canada, £200.8; and Victoria, £210.9.

In conclusion, he said that although no doubt we could derive a measure of satisfaction from a compaiativu etatement of this sort, we must not adopt a complacent attitude. We must recognise Now Zealand's present financial problems were of a peculiar complexity and magnitude, and, for that reason, we must not relax our endeavour to effect improvement* and economies wherever possible., especially wlicr , . it could be done without unduly impairing the efficiency of our hospital machine.