FRIENDLY SOCIETIES

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 56, 29 November 1929, Page 9

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES

INCREASED HOSPITAL FEES APPEAL TO THE BOARD A deputation of seven representatives from friendly societies of Wellington waited upon the Hospital Board yesterday to protest against the decision of the board to,increase maintenance fees. The delegates were Messrs. W. McLaughlin (A.0.D.), G. F.' .Rudkin (1.0. F. J. Mcllraith (A.0.F.), R. Russell (1.0.0. F. G. Guise, J. Sullivan, and R. ‘ Bell. (1.0.0. F. Manchester Unity). ’ . .. .■ . • , : Mr. McLaughlin said the friendly societies realised the work that the board was doing in the interests of humanity and the betterment of their fellowmen, and the friendly societies were in. the same position. The fees collectable by the Hospital Board, for the year. 1928 were about £82,0U0, but the amount collected was £22,500, and the deficiency was £59,500. ; The amount which should have been collected on the friendly societies basis was £41,000. The board received 50 per cent, of fees from friendly societies, and not 3 per cent, .of : their members came on the board charitable aid fund. The Mayor (Mr. G. A. ,Troup) had himself stated that of the numerous eases, of poverty for which appeals had been made he was glad to say that not one of them belonged to a friendly society. The only amounts held for such purposes by friendly societies in New. Zea? land were the widows’ and orphans' funds £26,508,-and distress funds £80,679. It was strictly laid down in the Act that funds eould ouly.be applied to those purposes for which they were contributed, and could not be used temporarily or permanently for any other fund. Not Rolling in Wealth. Statements had been made, said Mr. McLaughlin, that friendly societies were rolling in wealth, and could well afford to pay hospital fees. The chief fund was the sick and funeral fund, which could not be used for any other purposes. That fund amounted to £3,214,131 at the end of 1928, and the total membership was 100,928. The amount of liability per head to cover £3O funeral allowance and sick pay commencing at £1 per week was £32. These sums were held against the societies’ liabilities under their sickness and funeral insurances. The amount of sick pay paid to .members since, the inception of the friendly societies movement in New Zealand was about , two and ’three-quarter millions, and the amount paid out for 1928 was £128,897. He contended that those figures would show that they were not rolling in wealth. . How They.are Affected.

The hospital rating in Wellington was about three farthings in the £1 on the unimproved value! Some of their members had small residences which' they were paying off.with the assistance of the State Advances Department, had to pay the hospital rates, and in • addition ; pay into the-, hospital schemes. All members and their dependents . contributed to the Consolidated revenue from which the hospitals obtained their subsidies. The 'friendly societies considered on the results of the • hospital collection of fees that they were under ho obligation whatever so far as the public were concerned; quite the contrary. They maintained that from the business standpoint they were, a help to the hospital. Auckland Hospital Board recognised that fact, and after many years’, experience had decided not to increase the fees to the public or friendly societies (£3/3/- per week and 50 per cent, reduction). The North Canterbury Hospital Board had just entered into an- agreement with the friendly societies oh the basis of £45 per occupied bed per annum, which meant a cost to the friendly society association of 2/4 per day. That board considered it.good sound business after many years’ experience. Increase Not Justified. It was no fault of the friendly societies, contended Mr. McLaughlan. that a deficiency of £59.500 should occur in the collection' of fees, and ’they considered that the board was not justified in increasing their fees by one-third per cent. They had had to' increase their, levies by one-third to endeavour- to meet the scale of 50 per cent., of £3/3/-, and the proposed increase', by, the board . would break down the whole of their schemes as at present framed ,by the members. The great majority of the hospital boards agreed to a limitation of the period of treatment which'they considered absolutely necessary, and they .drew attention to the recommendation' of the Hospital Boards’ Executive in the matter, viz.; limiting the period to 30 weeks. In regard to members who were wealthy or in fairly affluent, circumstances, they rarely went in the publie hospital. From their experience it was the last place the B.M.A. doctors recommended their patients to go, and the. board consequently lost a good amount in respect of recoveries which went to private hospitals.Bnt friendly society funds had to pay private hospital fees on the public hospital basis. , The Alternative. Mr. Rudkin stated that if the increase was proceeded with they would have ,to reduce benefits or take other steps to meet the situation. It was possible that some would cease contributing and would come on the hospital in the ordinary way., ns they would not be able to keep up increased payments. The friendly societies had been skating on very thin ice for some time past and were up against it. and if they eouM not ,get some relief they would either have to wind up or go on the refund system. Hospital Board’s Position. The ehairman pointed out that the increasing eost of hospital service had made it necessary to increase the fees to the public, and therefore they could not avoid making some increase in the friendly society fees. Where it used to cost £75 per head per year it now cost £240. nnd this only included' those departments where medical and surgical services were rendered. About 50 per cent, of the board’s revenue came from small ratepayers, and any increase in the cost of an institution like theirs meant an increase in rates. The board sympathised with the friendly societies and would go fully into the matter again with a view to giving their reply in the course of a few days.