SOUNDER POSITION

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 85, 11 April 1933, Page 9

SOUNDER POSITION

HOSPITAL BOARD.

IMPROVEMENT OF £24,713.

NO REDUCTION IN LEVY.

An improvement of £24,713 in the position of the Auckland Hospital Board at March 31 last is disclosed in the accounts for the financial year, a review of which was presented by the chairman, Mr. W. Wallace, to a meeting of the board this afternoon.

"The board is in a much sounder financial position than it was at March 31, 1932," said Mr. Wallace. "The deficiency was then £53,593. Now it has been reduced to £28,880. This will not make it possible to reduce the levy in the current year, for by maintaining it at its present rate, and still exercising the most rigid economy, the deficit should be wiped out by March, 1934, unless exceptional calls are made on our services."

Relief Costs. In the course of his "review, Mr. Wallace emphasised that the position must be faced that it was not possible to keep on reduciixg expenditure and at the same time provide v for improvements in hospital services in accordance with tho modern advancement in methods of treatment; an increasing population making greater and greater demands on the hospital, and growing demands for assistance for charitable aid cases. The last item alone was responsible for the board's present financial difficulties.

To bring the facts more into focus, Mr. Wallace quoted figures to show that payments in 1932 —£92,890 —exceeded the total maintenance levies on local bodiee (£91,223), that the normal expenditure, after allowing for ordinary increase on relief, was £20,000, and that in seven years relief payments had exceeded the normal expected expenditure by £243,000.

Payments on relief, the chairman said, in 1925-26 -were £18,000, a normal figure. Tho increases since that year were as f0110w:—1927, £28,138; 1928, £34,390; 1929, £45,034; 1930, £49,377; 1931, £07,827; 1932, £92,890; 1933 (direct unemployed relief for three months only), £65,000; total, £383.262. The relative position relief had occupied during the period was: Hospital services: 1927, 85 per cent; 3*932, 68 per cent; 1933, 78 per cent. Charitable aid relief: 1927, 15 per cent; 1932, 32 per cent; 1933, 22 per cent.

"Extensive Economies." Dealing with the Auckland hospital payments, Mr. Wallace said extensive economies to the extent of £28,000.had been effected in the last two years without impairing the efficiency of the institution. At the same time, the service rendered had continually increased, 205 more in-patients being treated last year. It was freely admitted that the authorities had been helped in effecting that large saving of over 20 per cent by the fall in commodity prices, reduction in wages, etc., but a large proportion was due to the increased efficient methods. The fact must not he overlooked that more and more of the patients were absolutely unable to contribute anything towards the cost of their treatment; in fact, hundreds had to be helped with relief while in hospital, and to maintain receipts as high as £40,000, as had been done, had required a tremendous effort.

While tliere was not" the same scope for saving at the Auckland Infirmary, a reduction in payments of £3163 had been made, and more and more patients had been treated of a hospital nature, involving a considerably greater outlay than the ordinary aged and infirm person.

Two Years' Record. When compared with tho costs of two years ago, reductions in ordinary payments totalling £34,265 had been made during the year now closed. These comprised:— Auckland Hospital '.. 28,000 Auckland Infirmary 3,163 Alexandra Home .......... 106 Franklin Hospital ........522 Warkwortli Hospital 447 Dental hospital ............ 1,112 Infirmary farm and laundry . 226 Administration 689 Total £34,265 During the previous financial year reductions of approximately £20,000 were made, so that for the two years the total reduction had been £54,000 — a truly impressive' record when it was considered that the increasing demands on the hospital services had been fuHy met.

"Estimates Hacked Down." " "Against these figures," Mr. Wallace continued, "we are, of course, faced with .the fact of the increased payments for relief, with consequent extra barges for interest on overdraft, which have prevented the aJbove reductions in ordinary expenditure being passed on to the local bodies in reduction of levy.

"As regards the fact that our estimates were exceeded by £28,800 last year, nothing else was to • be expected if we were to carry on existing services, and this was plainly stated at the time. The inclusion of the £32,000 advanced by the Government for relief in the previous year simply meant that our other estimates were hacked down to a ridiculous figure, so that the rate on local bodies should not be raised. The board should-never have been called upon to refund this £32,000, which was advanced

to meet extraordinary demands for unemployed relief .over and above that provided by the board, which had made provision for £51,200 in the year concerned—an amount of £30,000 in excess of normal requirements.

4 Ultimate Levy Reductions. "Interest, due to repayment of loans and reductions, will in tlie coming year bo reduced by £2900, and further reductions totalling £11,013 will be made by 1935, and this amount, together with £15,901 eaved in sinking fund payments, will be available to reduce the levy on local bodies after the next two years. When these loans are repaid, the board will be in a really sound financial position, and the effect of the early repayment will be a definite gain in interest and sinking fund to ratepayers of £14,000 per year."

The chairman furnished the following comparison of the cost of the four main boards for last year: All services, cost per head of population—Auckland £1 2/3, Christchurch £1 2/9, Wellington £1 7/1, Dunedin £1 1/1 lj hospital cost per occupied bed—Auckland £160, Christchurch £167, Wellington £211, Dunedin £212.

"The Auckland cost," Mr. Wallace commented, "is just lower than in Canterbury, and very considerably below both Wellington and Dunedin. In considering the cost per head of population, the large relief payments necessary in Auckland again adversely affect our position, the amount having risen from 2/4 to 7/2 per head in the past six years. Tho cost of' Christchurch is only 3/11 per head, so that, leaving out the item of relief, Auckland cost per head of population is 3/9, or 20 per cent below the next lowest."