FRIENDLY SOCIETIES

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 122, 21 February 1928, Page 11

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES

PAYMENT TO HOSPITAL BOARDS. Sir, —I noticed in your, issues of February 9 and 16 letters from the pens of Wm. Milne and "Observer” on the above subject, and would have replied earlier only for pressure of business. With reference to Air. Milne’s statements, he should certainiy derive the fullest comfort from the fact that the Minister has the right of veto so far as hospital agreements with friendly societies are concerned, but I take strong exception to his gratuitous insult . of friendly society members (and particularly the Oamaruvians) when he states that it is to be hoped that the Minister of Health "will see that not only the ratepayers but the Government itself is not imposed upon.” The friendly societies have an honourable record throughout the history of this Dominion, and it is regrettable that Mr. Milne exposes his want of knowledge of the subject by such an unwarranted and vapid utterance. This is on a par .with another ridiculous assertion of his in respect of reserve funds, "said to be in the hands of the Public 'Trustee.” This officer has not the slightest connection with friendly society sick funds to which he refers. I can only refer Mr. Milne to page 3 of the friendly societies* report of 1926, wherein he. will discover that the sick’ and funeral funds are held against sick and funeral insurances. Mr. Milne is again sadly astray in his reference to “some new arrangement between friendly societies and their medical attendants, which (ho says) has largely increased the number of hospital patients and attendants has lately been arrived at." Quite the contrary is the fact. The general opinion stressed by both sides at the recent conference was to the effect that, the medical faculty doing friendly society work throughout New Zealand did not go through, the thorough examination of their patients as had been the case in the past, and they, thereby, loaded up unnecessary charges against friendly society hospital funds and also hospital funds by rushing patients into the hospitals for observation, diagnosis, etc., in some specific cases it was shown that hospital schemes were practically wrecked by such methods. It was, however, mentioned that generally speaking, Wellington was an exception. I would advise Mr. Milne to get in touch with officials of friendly societies in his own town, in cider that' he may get, even a slight knowledge' of the subject he handled so futilely. I now come to the champion of public interests, "Observer,” who leads off with a most palpable misstatement that I resented publicity. Quite the contrary is the case. My objection was against, misrenresention. At the recent conference, the friendly societies were prepared to lay their balance-sheets on the table, and they are prepared to submit to the Minister of Health any information he may desire in this respect. We strongly object to the attempt, of ■writers to isolate us from the general public, and infer that wo are a speciallyfavoured portion of the community-. That is not sq, I could quote quite number of instances to the contrary. I mentioned in mv former teller that "there are a number of hospitals, including some of the largest ones, whose average fees collected from- the general public do not exceed 34 ner cent. _ T will instance Timaru. and the per capita arrangement there does not leave the friendly societies under any compliment to the board, in comparison with public collections. Let us also fake Wanganui. The arrangement there, when the cost of collection is taken into consideration, does not leave the friendly societies under any compliment. Now, we will get right home to Wellington. I say, without fear of contradiction, that tho amount of fees collected by the local board docs not exceed 34 per cent., although it has the services of a well-known agency company as collector. The arrangements between Hie friendly societies and the Wellington Board ‘in no way place us under any compliment on tho fifty-fifty basis, when we take tho general public, of which "Observer” is so concerned, into consideration.

Unlike what Mr. Milne has stated, the friendly societies of New Zealand do not represent the wealthy class—quite the contrary. Many Orders pay medical and hospital benefits for indigent members, widows and orphans, out of a special relief fund, and thus save the hospital burden. If the friendly hospital funds did not exist. I can <nly faintly imagine what the added burdens to the already existing ones would be, as the more affluent or wealthy members do rot avail themselves of medical or hospital benefits at all—they have their own private doctors and use the private hospitals at their own expense. A word aaant the .wealthy member. These

members, at the time of joining a friendly society many years ago, were poor men, but as time rolled on their thriftiness has secured them a comfortable position in them declining years, and they should be commended instead of being unjustifiably trotted out as a bogey to bolster up a weak case. Perhaps the most serious phase of the unsatisfactory state of hospital finance is the infectious disease case, which is forced into hospitals by tho Health Act and its officers. The majority of these cases give a very poor return if any to the hospitals, and no special provision is made by the Department for this added burden to both the hospitals and the friendly societies’ schemes. We, however guarantee the payment for these cases, and 1 can assure your readers that the great majority ot the hospital boards recognise our arrangements as being quite satisfactory from their standpoint and their experience of collecting from the public. "Observer” has quite overshot the mark. His mission should lie in the direction of exhorting his much concerned public to do its duty and return more than 31 per cent, in fees. It is quite a fine field for exploitation. I would here quote an experience under the Canterbury scheme. A list of som 20 cases averaging over £25 each and from whom very' little or nothing could be expected, was read in which the scheme paid up. and a case of an indigent family whose fees amounted to over £4OO and were paid up, -were quoted. I would strongly advise "Observer,” I who wields a faci.le pen, to penetrate a little deeper and make inquiries from some responsible officers of the friendly societies and health departments, and also the secretary of the hospital boards’ associations. He will then be in a position to get away from the "general public” microbe and obtain a more comprehensive grasp of a very wide subject. as there are always more sides than one to every question. I have to thank you, Sir, for your kindness in allowing the friendly societies so much of your valuable space.— 1 am etc., WM. McLAUGHLIN, Chairman of the late Conference of Friendly Society Delegates and ' the Executive of the Friendly Societies’ Hospital Associations of N.Z. Wellington, February IS. Sir, —"Observer,” in a long letter, insists that the friendly societies’ hospital scheme is a eleven method of obtaining a State subsidy. This absurd idea is possibly held by others, hence the effort to make the societies’ claims clear. Statistics go to show that on an average the hospitals are able to collect from the general public about 30 per cent, of fees, the collection of which costs considerable sums. The societies desire fo'know why they should be called upon, not only to contribute through rates, etc., but also to pay 50 per cent, of fees. Some of the societies pay about 40 per cent., which involves no expense in collecting some are paying 50 per cent., and some, getting operations included, pay 66 per cent, in every case more than tho general public pays, yet "Observer” says ratepayers and taxpayers have a compulsory contribution exacted from them to keep the society funds strong. A paragraph is devoted to details of large funds. Despite such large amounts the Registrar reminds many societies that they are "uniinancial," and in any case such funds the societies have no power to use for hospital treatment. The burden of hospital maintenance averages 16s. to 17s. per day, we are told. What makes it so unreasonably heavy? Is this including X-ray, operations, etc.? Because these the members of the societies have to pay for apart from the maintenance charge. Lastly the societies are not losing their spirit of self-reliance or discontinuing their lessons in thrift. Nor are they aiming at State assistance nor meekly submitting to being obliged to collect from their members a contribution still greater than the general citizen is now paying.—l am, -to., FRIENDLY SOCIETY. Masterton, February 15,