QUALIFIED APPROVAL

Evening Star, Issue 24004, 1 October 1941, Page 6

QUALIFIED APPROVAL

RECEPTION OF MEDICAL AMENDMENTS SEVERAL FEATURES UNACCEPTABLE SIR JAMES ELLIOTT'S VIEWS (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 1. ■' Un the whole I am pleased with the amendments to the Bill and I think the medical profession will assist to make it a more workable measure and carry it out in the proper spirit if one or two of the difficulties I have enumerated are surmounted,” declared Sir James Elliott, when asked for a comment on the changes made in the Social Security Amendment Bill. “It all goes to show that tinkering with a system that has lasted and given satisfactory service for more than 2,000 years is not the simple job that some politicians fondly imagine,” Sir James said.

Sir James added that many of the most obnoxious principles in the original proposals had been removed by the latest amendments. Ho could not seo any objection to the people, under the so-called Free Medical Services Bill, getting their own money back which they had paid out in taxation towards payment of their medical accounts. This, in his personal opinion, was as beneficial to the patient as it was to the doctor, because for many years the doctors bad attended various physical derelicts for no payment at all. “I think the profession will have cause to feel grateful to the more moderate and open-minded members of Cabinet for the concessions they have made in the proposed amendments to public opinion,” said Sir James. There were one or two points that still remained obscure. The principal flaw, as far as he could see at present, was the withholding of the rights of doctors as citizens to have access to courts of justice to x'ecover foes justly due. This, he understood, was fundamentally the right of every citizen under the British Constitution, and it looked at first sight as if the Minister of Health in this respect was going to take on himself the rights of a court of law. “ I should think that this putting the doctors outside the common protection of the law will be a very objectionable feature of tho Bill, unless it may bo justified as a temporary or war measure.” Ho added that it was difficult to understand the somewhat clumsy arrangement made "for the payment of medical services. “It seems that the doctor must give a receipt to the patient, who will take that receipt to the post office and draw money out of the Social Security Fun,” lie said. “ Supposing tho patient has no money to pay at the time of consultation or visit, how is he to receive a receipt for payment?” HIGHER FEES AT OPTION OF DOCTORS SIGNIFICANCE OF AMENDMENTS (Special.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 1. I’owcr to the doctors to charge a higher fee than the schedule rates provided for in the medical practitioner amendment to the Social Security Act is contained in one of the now amendments outlined in the House of Representatives last night by the Minister of Health (Mr Nordmeyer). In the original Bill it was provided that doctors’ fees, whether obtained from the Social Security Fund or from tho patient direct, were strictly limited to the scheduh rates specified. These rates have now been increased by the latest amendment. Although tho position was not fully apparent from what was said in tho House last night, a comparison of the Minister’s statement on the amendments and the clauses in the Bill relating to the fees indicates clearly that power is given to the doctor to ask for a fee higher than the schedule rates. The patient, however, may recover from the Social Security Fund a proportion of the account equal to the schedule rates. There is no provision for payment from the fund of tho balance, and although the doctor may charge more than the officially prescribed rates, he has not been given tho poxver to take legal proceedings for the recovery of the amount over and above that provided for. The question lias already arisen of whether the doctors as a body will be likely to take advantage of the right they will have to ask for higher fees, but it was pointed out in one quarter to-day that tho competitive aspect will probably regulate the position. All that the Minister of Health has done so far has been to announce the effect of the latest amendments in a bx - oad outline. They have not yet appeared before the House in the detailed legal form necessary for their incorporation in the law.

FULL DISCUSSION NO DICTATORS IN B.M.A. (P.A.) WELLINGTON. Oct. 1. The Government had changed its ground so much that the whole matter would have to be considered de novo, said the president of the Wellington division of the B.M.A. (Dr Shirer). There would bo a meeting of the division to-morrow, when the position would be discussed. There were no “ big men ” in the B.M.A. who told the others what to do. The minority could express themselves freely, and there was probably no more democratic body in the community. In view of that, the solidarity and unanimity shown regarding the Govornuu'nt’s proposals wore remarkable. All the recent decisions of the Wellington division had been unanimous.

DR JAMIESON RETICENT FURTHER CLARIFICATION NECESSARY (P.A.) WELLINGTON. Oct. 1. “It seems there are amendments proposed which are to come down in committee. There has been a general

statement as to what the amendments are to be, but what their actual words and effects will be 1 do not know,” said Dr Jamieson, chairman of the Health Committee of the New Zealand Branch of the B.M A., when communicated with at Nelson to-day. “For that reason I would not like to comment on the new proposals in the meantime.” Dr Jamieson also declined to comment on the general statement made by the Minister of Health,