Doctors’ fees

Press, 19 May 1984, Page 16

Doctors’ fees

Sir, — As with usurers, doctors get threats rather than the instant muscle applied to wage earners, but if the Minister of Health, Mr Malcolm, wants to talk about blackmail and holding patients to ransom, he should try telling the truth himself. The Government does not "provide over $3O million a year to medical practitioners in general medical service benefits.” The benefit is paid to the patient and collected by the doctor on the patient’s behalf. The Minister’s distortion tries to disguise the fact that the benefit has failed miserably to keep pace with inflation because the National Government bitterly fought social welfare legislation, and medical bodies were its allies. The benefit started at 7s 6d (75c), a visit, representing two and a half times the hourly rate for a tradesman. On the inflation-adjust-ment principle (approved for investors), the benefit should now be $l5 a visit. — Yours, etc., VARIAN J. WILSON. May 17, 1984. Sir, — Dhave been surprised at the lack of correspondence on this very public issue. It would seem to me that doctors have been singled out from all the professions and trades because it is possible for the Government to control their fees, to a certain extent. Were this not possible some other unlucky group would be in the firing-line instead. The big question is, however, are their fees unfair in relation to the service they provide? Is a $lO fee for essential medical service not justified when compared to a $2O entrance fee for a rock concert where the star performer arrives in a private jet, and collects $lOO,OOO for a 45-minute appearance? Where has our sense of values gone? — Yours, etc., PADDY FREANEY. May 17, 1984.

Sir,—lt appears that taxpayers’ contributions towards the education and training of doctors has been overlooked in the recent discussion on doctors’ fees. Businessmen buy their own businesses, without State subsidy. Many professional people pay their own education fees and establish their own practices, without State subsidy. But doctors are virtually trained by the State and may receive assistance in establishing private practices, and the public face what is in essence, a monopoly service and pay heavily for it. The Government should control the doctors’ fees, and perhaps have a look at the money spent on training these people.—Yours, etc., J. MCDONALD. May 18, 1984.

Sir,—ln today’s issue of “The Press” three doctors make fairly severe attacks on the Minister of Health. The public may be excused for believing that doctors are not enjoying the Minister’s actions in placing them under public scrutiny following their co-ordinated and crude attempt to substantially, boost their incomes. Only simple mathematics are required to assess that many doctors are now collecting increases of $3OO plus a week. Evidently none have been able to substantiate this increase with evidence of additional overheads.

Their protestations may carry credibility if they were able to produce some more hard facts.— Yours, etc., E. R. RADCLIFFE. May 18, 1984. Sir, — In view of recent threats by medical practitioners, is it not time that hospital boards reopened the free clinics which used to operate at every board hospital? The Government should consider introducing a supplementary State medical service, staffed by immigrant doctors, if blacklisted by local practitioners. Most of the population cannot afford the dollar-a-minute service offered by the New Zealand Medical Association, as well as being heavily taxed to pay for the doctors’ free medical education in the first place. — Yours, etc., S. L. DONALDSON. May 18, 1984.