CONTIGUOUS DISTRICTS.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 4989, 18 June 1926, Page 3

CONTIGUOUS DISTRICTS.

POSITION OF HOSPITAL BOARDS. AMENDMENT TO THE ACT. Just recently there has been an amendment to section 72 GT the Hospital and Charitable Aid Boards Act, which now provides that a patient from any particular district requiring hospital treatment after under three months’ residence in another hospital district is a charge on the hospital district from which he first belonged. Im the old section of the Act a person had to be. a resident for twelve, months.

The matter was introduced a.t the last meeting of the Thames Hospital Board by a letter from the DirectorGeneral o>f Health, in reply to the board, advising that section 72 only operated .as from October 1, 1925, between contiguous boards, and, therefore, the Thames Boa,rd could only recover the cost of relief granted under that section from a contiguous boa,rd. In the case under review the person had resided for three months in the Thames district, and any relief to be granted was apparently the Thames Board’s liability.

Dealing with the same, subject, the Hospital Boards’ Association wrote a,s ’follows :—

“There is no question that Coromandel, Waihi, Waikato, and Tauranga are contiguous, but it is questioned whether Auckland is. However, I have viewed maps in the Lands'Department, and also the description of the Waikato County, given in the Wa.ikato and Kiiig Country Counties Act, 1921-22, and from these it appears that the Waika,to County abuts on the Firth of Thames along the coastal boundary for about oneeighth of a mile. Franklin County, in the Auckland district, and Hauraki Plains County, in the Thames district, are therefore not. contiguous. The chairmap (Mr W- Hale) remarked that it wa.s a good thing for the board .to lose Auckland.

POSITION OF OTHER BOARDS'. The Coromandel Hospital Board also wrote on the same subject, and asked if the Thames Board was prepared to enter into a reciprocal arrangement, a,nd, if so, the amount the board was prepared to adopt. The Waikato Hospital Board also wrote asking the board to consent to act reciprocally so far as section 72 was concerned. The Waikato Board stated that it was prepared to cancel any claims as at April 1, 1926, provided the board would do likewise. The letter also pointed out that the Waikato, before the law was altered, reciprocated with a large number of hospital boards, and it had been a great factor in making for amicable relations between boards. The , experience of the Waikato .Board had been that hospital boards, with the exception olf perhaps the four large ones, reaped no advantage, taking a period of years into 'consideration. The secretary stated tha.t there had always been a, 'reciprocal arrangement with Waikato, to tne advantage of the Thames Board.

It was resolved to reciprocate, with Waikato and Coromandel, and that the Tauranga and Waihi boa,rd be approached with a view to reciprocity.

Mr Walton thought that the arrangement should be for a definite term of 12 months. —Agreed to.

A member suggested that if Waihi e.ntered into the arrangement a term of a,bout five years should be asked for.

Mr J. Lange remarked that the member wa,s “a bit of an optimist.” The chairman agreed, and added tha a term Of 2'5 years would be better. ‘