HEALTH SERVICE

Greymouth Evening Star, 28 April 1938, Page 7

HEALTH SERVICE

DOCTORS AND STATE NO “SIT-DOWN” STRIKE [FEB PBESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, April 27. At this afternoon’s sitting of the Select Committee on the National Health and Superannuation scheme, at the conclusion of Dr. Jamieson’s At the conclusion of Dr. Jamieson’s statement Hon. AV. Nash asked him if the British Medical Association agreed that medical attention should be given to everybody. Dr. Jamieson: We don’t, say it should bo given to everybody. ' Mr. Nash: Do you think it should be available to them? Dr. Jamieson: We say it should be accessible to them.

Mr. Nash: That means that the best medical, surgical, and radiological service should be available to all, irrespective of whether they have money to pay for it? Dr. Jamieson: Yes; but those who can pay for it should pay for it. Mr. Nash: Do you agree that there should be no differential treatment? Dr. Jamieson: No differentiation in the character of the service. Mr. Nash: The same skill should be available for an old-age pensioner as for the man with £lO,OOO a year? Dr. Jamieson: Yes.

Mr. Nash asked if, in the event of the Government- deciding to institute a complete service for everyone, the British Medical As.-xiaticn v.'Ot..i co-operate;

Dr. x. D. M. Stout (who supported Dr. Jamieson): AVe disagree that the State should provide it. There is a difference between compulsion and cooperation. A lot would depend on the methods adopted.

Dr. Stout said there was no intention on the part of the medical profession to treat one section of the community differently from another section. At the same time, the treatment given would not be exactly the same. Did the Government intend that it should be? It might be suggested that the same food, the same raiment, and the same shelter should be given to everybody. Mr. Nash: You are making a speech now that has nothing to do with the matter.

To Mr. Atmore, M.P., Dr. Jamieson said the profession did not intend to refuse co-operation in a national health scheme. “The idea of a sit-down strike never entered the minds of the doctors,” he said, replying to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Cobbe asked whether the scheme would be of benefit to the health of the community. “No,” replied Dr. Jamieson, “that is what we have tried to point out.”

FURTHER CRITICISM To Mr. Holland, M.P., Dr. Jamieson said that under the insurance scheme doctors would have to limit themselves to the work provided for in their contracts. The tendency would be to lower the general practitioner service. The hospital population would be substantially increased if the scheme as proposed were inaugurated. Dr. Gordon emphasised that instead of providing a service which the public was normally able to provide, the Government should make provision for what he called medical catastrophes, when a member of a family underwent prolonged surgical treatment. Dr. Lynch said that if a universal practitioner service were suddenly launched on the community, it would mean a tremendous increase in the amount of doctors’ work, which already occupied 67 hours a week. Many people would consult doctors for small things, which were of no account. Dr. Lynch said the increased amount of work would mean that the newly qualified men would hurry into practice, and men from overseas who were not established would attempt to start practice in New Zealand. “I am not suggesting that there should not be more doctors in New Zealand,” he said, ‘‘but it would be a grave mistake suddenly to increase the number.” Dr. Jamieson agreed with Mr. Nash that there should be no differentiation in giving medical attention, but those who could pay should pay. ‘‘Would not realisation of inability to pay a doctor’s bill retard a patient’s recovery?” asked Mr. Robertson. Dr. Jamieson: The realisation that the costs were being borne would also tend to retard recovery. Discussing the possible increase in hospital population, Dr. Gordon said he understood that in New Plymouth the rate of admission to hospital was four times greater for friendly society members than for private patients.

Mr. Nash: Doesn’t that mean that others are not getting the attention they need? Dr. Gordon: I believe it simply means that under a contract system, it is easier to enter hospital. Mr. Nash, in discussing payment for doctors under the scheme, said the basis need not be on a per capita system. A general fund might be set up, out of which doctors might apportion payment as they themselves decided. The Government was ready to discuss the whole matter with the profession. If it were decided to recommend a salary exemption of £3OO, with £5O for each dependant, could the support of the British Medical Association be expected? Dr. Stout answered that the association had decided that how the income was earned, as well as the amount of the income, should be considered. A man whose earnings were on a weekly basis was on a different footing from one with an assured yearly income, for instance. The chairman (Mr. Nordmeyer) thanked the representatives of the association for their assistance.