The Press SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1976. Grants to hospitals

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34089, 28 February 1976, Page 14

The Press SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1976. Grants to hospitals

The standards of care and service provided in the hospitals run by the North Canterbury Hospital board are of concern to all in the board s area. The chairman of the board (Mr T. C. Grigg) said this week that, unless the Government increases its grants to the board to match those of some other boards, the people of North Canterbury will soon be getting medical services inferior to those enjoyed by people living almost every where else in the country. If Mr Griggs claim is correct, the rest of the community will endorse the board s efforts to get larger grants.

The figures quoted by Mr Grigg to sustain his charge may appear to be sufficient for his purpose: yet they should be closely examined. When the Health Department decides each year how much to allot to each hospital board it does not do so in an arbitrary, random manner, but works by established formulas. Only a small proportion of the grants is calculated from the population in a boards area. The rest is based on the size of previous allocations, on known increases in the board s commitments, and on the special expenses boards incur when new buildings or facilities are commissioned. A hospital board in the process of commissioning a large number of new buildings will get a substantially larger grant A careful analysis of past building and plans for building in the future by each board may establish that the North Canterbury board may soon receive grants that seem disproportionately large when measured solely against the population it serves. The size of the grants elsewhere, which seem disproportionate today, e may diminish. Mr Grigg’s charge may carry less weight than it appears to at first glance.

The imbalance of which Mr Grigg has complained would not have arisen if the department simply gave every board the same per capita grant. Such a policy would be most unwise: the department would not be providing for extraordinary expenses, and it would not be allowing for the costs of establishing and running specialised units which may serve patients from all over the country. Nor would it take account of the fact that certain minimum services, staff, and equipment are required even when the population of a district is relatively low. Members of the North Canterbury board have already said that their board supports specialist units and also supports the training of doctors Some further evidence must be produced to prove that the department failed to take these costs into account when determining the size of the grant. Figures on the grants do not by themselves measure the service being given: that service must be weighed by other means. Staffing, the quality of treatment, the delays in giving treatment, and the range of hospital services must all be taken into account.

Until these points are cleared up. Mr Grigg’s figures must be considered cautiously. In fairness to Mr Grigg, it must be said that the disadvantage under which he claims his board is labouring appears to be too large to be easily accounted for. So he has a prima facie case to be answered. If the figures still stand up after scrutiny. Canterbury people will have proper cause for concern and a good reason for pressing the Department of Health and the Government to set matters right.