Procedure criticised

Press, 18 March 1977, Page 19

Procedure criticised

Criticism of the procedures hospital boards must go through when seeking approval for minor capital works and equipment from the Health Department has come from the chairman of the N?rth Canterbury Hospital Board’s finance committee (Mr C. F. Whitty). Mr Whitty, at a meeting of the committee, read remarks he had made at the 1977 Hospital Boards’ Association conference in Wellington last week when nutting forward a remit on behalf of the board. The preparation of the schedule of minor capital works and equipment was a long task, particularly in a major board, and required requests to be sought long before the beginning of the estimates year. It had then to go to Wellington where further time was taken in examining it. The effect was that the time between request and fulfilment was becoming longer. Programming of minor works and equipment for a hoard’s own use could be on a simpler basis, Mr Whitty said. In the remit which was passed by the conference Mr Whitty asked that the department review and simplify the present “time-con-suming” system. In his remarks Mr Whitty said the procedure was for the board to prepare its an-

nual schedule of works and equipment and to submit it to the department by the appropriate date. It could be assumed at that stage that the requests from various departmental and institutional heads had been thoroughly vetted by board officers before being submitted to the board and that the schedule finally submitted to the department correctly represented the board’s requirements. i The schedule was then examined in some depth by the department, and where ’ necessary, further information was sought before approval was given. The board thus had a list of works and equipment which had been fully examined and accepted by the de- , partment. In some cases ' items might be conditionally approved pending later clarification, but this did not affect the principle. Just before the start of each financial year the board was advised of its allocation of finance for that year and this included an amount for minor capital works and equipment. At that stage the board held two block approvals, said Mr Whitty. These were the approved schedule and the approved finance. Boards might therefore go ahead to purchase approved items but only if they did not exceed $4OOO in value. Where the value exceeded

$4OOO the board must apply for Ministerial consent to the expenditure. This in-: volved a further delay, said Mr Whitty. Where the board wished to purchase an item not on the approved schedule, it could do so up to a figure which varied between boards. This was $5OO for North Canterbury. Any purchase in excess of this value would require departmental lapproval. The figures of $5OO and ,$4OOO were far from realistic 'when one considered inflation, said Mr Whitty. On Today's values both figures should be at least 10 times the current allowance, he 'said. Further, said Mr Whitty, the frustrations of hospital boards in relation to finance was one reason why it was ■very difficult to get enough I people of the right calibre to stand for positions on them. Many people were not prepared to be controlled from Wellington to the extent that the board now was. In some quarters it was felt boards should be able to spend their block grants without further authority. Others contended that once the item had been approved on the schedule no further approval should be needed. ■ Alternatively, it could be that the value at which Ministerial consent was required .should be raised to a much 'higher level, said Mr Whitty.