Hospital Board overspent by $260,000 in 4 months

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33933, 28 August 1975, Page 5

Hospital Board overspent by $260,000 in 4 months

In the first four months of this year, the North Canterbury Hospital Board has overspent its basic allocation by $260,000. Unless urgent assistance was given patient services might have to be cut. the board was told.

Also, unless more money is supplied for staff training, the longawaited buildings just built at Christchurch Hospital will be underused for the next few' years. The chairman of the finance committee (Mr C. F.; Whitty) said that the major) areas of overspending were! I institutional maintenance,! (laundry and linen services,) and the central store,) amounting to $240,000. Student nursing salaries and wages were overspent by $66,609. dressings by 862.304. drugs and chemicals

(by 531,000 and hostel services salaries and wages by) .$18,534. Laundry and linen services were overspent by j I $30,221, and the central store by $30,839. Mr Whitty said that the board had sent a deputation to the Minister of Health (Mr McGuigan) and the, Director-General of Health (Dr H. J. Hiddlestone) in' April and had sent a letter i earlier expressing concern about its finances. It was a matter of concern that overspending should) develop so early in the new 1 (year, said Mr Witty. There had- been no reply to either the letter or the deputation, said Mr Witty. The chairman of the board (Mr T. C. Grigg) had sent another letter recently. Board members felt that since the Auckland Hospital Board had received a reallocation of slm, all hospital boards should receive assistance. particularly the four teaching institutions in tlie j four main centres. “As a teaching hospital considerable additional cost is incurred. The present, method of financing does) not fully recognise this sign- ; lificant additional burden. “A special grant has been allowed for the additional

service costs incurred by the i Christchurch Clinical School, but such £osts are often di-; fficult to identify and cer-, tainly not all costs are) claimed,” said Mr Witty. “A considerable, widening) disparity now exists between) the relative maintenance al-'

locations of this board and ; ■the Auckland, Waikato and Wellington boards. This goes ) back to the establishment of lithe base allocation in 1967. "At that time North 1 1 Canterbury was a low-costl ijboard,” said Mr Witty. Without additional funds, (the board would not be able) i to continue its natural! ( course of expansion, said the; (acting chairman (Mrs L. C.i IGardiner). The board agreed to. write , to the other three main j teaching hospitals to get 'their support to approach the Minister of Health as a ■ group concerned about the ■ future roles within hospitals, . and to press for additional I finance. The medical-superinten-dent-in-chief (Dr L. McH. Berry) said he belived that a reallocation should be made to all hospital boards. “I believe that if one l

Ijboard is given a grant, there His no option but for every) p board to be given the same," he said. i A serious anomaly existed, : because hospitals with “bad, house-keeping” received a .(grant, but those who looked, :) after their affairs were not I recognised, said Dr Berry. ;). The board had been told; ..by the Department of Health that they did not have any) : staff members to send to, i Christchurch to look at the board's affairs. “But, they! i were able to send some tc i Auckland,” said Dr Berry. j Those who squealed received additional finance, said Mrs M. McG. Clark. “We believe that the Min- ■ iste of Health (Mr McGui- . gan) is sympathetic and rect ognises our need. Now we i require a tangible example of this recognition,” said Mr J Witty. ~