NOT SUBSTANTIATED

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 288, 9 November 1925, Page 7

NOT SUBSTANTIATED

THE SCOTT CHARGES

HOSPITAL BOARD ENQUIRY

' The Palmerston North Hospital Board this morning conducted a public inquiry into allegations made by Mr AV. Scott, a settler, of Kimbolton, in connection with his wife’s admission into the institution and her treatment there.

Mr Scott’s complaint was first made to the Kiwitca County Council, and was referred to the Hospital Board by Mr L. T. McLean. The latter body thereupon decided to conduct an inquiry into the matter, and sot up a committee for the purpose. Sir James G. AVilson was in the chair, and others of the committee present were: Messrs J. H. Vincent, J. AV. Brarmvell, L. T. McLean and H. AV. Smart. Mr Scott and the managing secretary of the hospital, Mr A. J. Phillips, were also in attendance. At the outset the chairman told Mr Scott that the board was always prepared to make enquiries into any allegations that njight be made, as it was naturally desirous of seeing that all patients were given fair treatment.

DETAILS OF COMPLAINT

The chairman then read Mr Scott’s complaint to the board, made on October 21. This was as follows: “On my being taken to the office the girl there took all particulars in regard to my position, such as how much interest 1 paid, rates, how many cows I milked, how long I had been in the district, and also how long Mrs Scott had been in the district. That, of course, was five months. After that she asked me if they had taken Mrs Scott away to the ward, and I said they had. The girl then informed me that they were a little too previous, ns she would not be admitted on accouht of her not being in the district long enough; she would probably have to go to the hospital in the district in which she had been residing. She then rang up the secretary and said that Mrs Scott was to bo admitted, but she had only been in the district five months, and that her husband had resided in the district for six or seven years. Then he asked her if Mrs Scott would guarantee the fee of three guineas a week immediately on discharge. I said I would. I then had to give my word that I would guarantee the fee immediately on discharge. AVhilei Mrs Scott was in the hospital sho asked for a few shillings out of the £2 she had handed in on the day she was admitted. The nurse said she had asked, but they told her that that money was kept and taken off the account. AVhen 1 went in for my wife I asked for the account, and they said it was six guineas, less the money she had left, but, it being money she required at the time, I said that they could return it to her and I would give the cheque for the six guineas. These are the facts of the case 1 put to the council, as I felt a little hurt, being a ratepayer for over seven years, and I had been questioned in regard to getting Mrs Scott admitted.” In reply to the chairman, Mr Scott said that he did not desire to amplify the complaint, which was true in every particular, except that he had now learnt that Mrs Scott had been given 5s to purchase envelopes about two davs before she left.

Replying to Mr Phillips, Mr Scott said that he had been invited to place his complaint before the Kiwitea County Council. He knew that a newspaper report of his interview with that body contained allegations additional to those contained ’ll his complaint to the board, but the report was inaccurate in several particulars. Tno secretary was not absent from the office when ho had gone there, although ho was reported to have said that he was. When the speaker was being examined in the office as to his position, his wife was not present. She might have been already taken to the ward, but he did not know definitely. He certainly was examined at length before his wife was admitted. He was positive that the girl in the office had asked him how many pigs he had, and denied that Mr Phillips had seen him in the office.

ASSISTANT’S EVIDENCE. Miss Aisher, assistant in the secretary's office, gave evidence that she had interviewed Mr Scott vd’.en Ills wife had been brought to the hospital. She Had been previously told that Mrs Scott was going to he admitted to the institution. She denied that Mr Scott had been asked how many pigs ho had or what rates lie paid. It was customary to ask how many cows farmers had. Mr Phillips was present towards the latter part of the interview, when the guarantee was signed. Until the inquiry had been mentioned slie did not know that Mrs Scott had handed in any money the day she had been admitted; consequently, when she had made the account out on Mrs Scott leaving the hospital,- she could .not have said that the amount was £6 6s, less the money she had deposited on her admittance.

Mr Scott: I am very surprised at this; I had never seen the secretary prior to this inquiry, and Miss Aisher sits here and says that iie was brought over towards the end of the interview.

Mr W. H. J. Watson, cashier at the office, stated that, when Mrs Scott was discharged, her husband came o<er to the office with Miss Aisher. As Mr Scott had his cheque book in his hand, witness thought that he had come to pay liis account. He bud looked at tile office books and had found that there was £1 15s in trust. ’ He suggested that that amount be either deducted from the hospital charges or be handed back, and complainant could make a cheque out for the full amount. Ho remembered a nurso getting 5s from the £2 Mrs Scott handed in the day she was admitted, September 23.

AIRS SCOTT’S EVIDENCE

In evidence, Mrs Scott said that she had had difficulty in getting the os she had asked for, several days elapsing before it was handed her. Her first request for portion of the £2 she had deposited was on October I. Mr Phillips at this stage showed witness she had signed for the 5s on October 2.

Continuing her evidence, Mrs Scott said that Nurse Pringle had told her that the money deposited in the office was being held against payment of her account.

Nurse Pringle, who had been in charge of the Princess Mary ward when Mrs Scott had" been admitted, said that she had been admitted, according to a time-sheet, before Air Scott had been questioned in the office. She denied that she had tol/l Mrs Scott that the money .held in the office was being kept against payment of her account. Witness had had no difficulty in getting the 5s from the office on October 2.

This concluded the evidence. Air Scott then reiterated his previous statement that Air Phillips had not seen him the day Airs Scott was admitted. . Air Vincent u Aro you suggesting that

Mr Phillips and Miss Aisher are telling lies? Mr Scott - : No; I am not going to suggest that. Mrs Scott, who was then recalled to give evidence concerning tho time that had elapsed between her arrival at the hospital and the time sho was admitted to tho ward, said that there had been' no delay at all. Mr Scott: AVhat lam complaining of is the examination I was subjected to in tho office and at having to guarantee tho fees.

SECRETARY’S STATEMENT,

Mr Phillipps then made the following statement to the board:—“The committee has heard Mr Scott, and has heard the questions asked. It has been shown that Mr Scott was not subjected to an examination before his wife was admitted to the hospital. It has been shown that he was questioned concerning his means to pay for Mrs Scott’s treatment, and he willingly supplied all the particulars required, but only after Mrs Scott had already been admitted to'the ward. It has been shown that he was asked to sign a guarantee that ho would pay the fees and that he did sign it. This complied with by-law 273, which necessitates this being done where the patient is in a position to pay the full fees. As regards my asking Mr Scott whether, he was able to pay full fees immediately on discharge, this, of course, is part of the routine procedure in every case where people say they can pay, as it is the first attempt at collection.

“In this case this was done more particularly as I judged from the information that Mr Scott had given, and from his ppearance, that, if ho stated that he would do so, I could accept his word,_ and this would obviate tho necessity of notifying the Otago Hospital Board, in accordance with by-law 22, of Mrs Scott’s admission, and thus putting Mr Scott to the trouble of having to deal with the Otago Hospital Board in the matter of this account. In accordance with section 72 of the Hospital Act, Mrs Scott is still a resident of the Otago Hospital district and, if her account was not paid on discharge, the Otago Hospital Board, immediately became responsible for it. I did not explain this to Mr Scott in detail as he seemed quite anxious to pay the fees, and promptly said that he would do so, when I asked him if he could, not if he would.

“It has been shown that Mr Scott was not subjected to any undue examination, other than that which every patient, apart of course from urgent or accident cases, entering the hospital is subjected to, and that no suggestion was made that Mrs Scott should be brought back from the ward to which she had then been admitted and sent down to Dunedin for treatment. Then, as regards tho matter of tho envelopes and money. ■ The evidence quite clearly shows that tho complaint concerning the envelopes and tho money is absolutely unfounded, and that tho facts as alleged in tho complaint are incorrect. “Further, as regards what happened when the patient was discharged, the evidence is quite conclusive on the facts that Mr Scott was not told by the hospital authorities, as stated, that the account amounted to £6 6s less £2, nor that lie was asked for a cheque for tho nett amount, nor did he insist on Mrs Scott receiving a refund of £2. She received £1 15s. It will be seen that the complaint has in no part any foundation, except that Mr Scott was required to furnish information as to his circumstances, and, of course, that is required from every patient entering practically any public hospital in New Zealand, and it is of interest to note that if a patient seeking admiasison to a public hospital does not supply correct answers to questions as to circumstances, etc., such failure constitutes a legal offence. In this connection, on the Health Department’s admission form the following words are printed:—‘Attention is directed to the fact that it is a legal offence to make a false declaration in the above matter.’

“As regards the inquiry form itself, Air Scott has stated that the only items which ho could possibly object to were item 13 which requires income to be stated and item 14 which requires either rent or mortgage interest to be stated. In this connection I would like to point out that the admission form in use at this hospital was framed after considering admission forms used in practically all other hospitals in New Zealand. This form is exactly similar to that used in all Health Department institutions and by several other hospital boards, and asks for a minimum amount of information.

“The complaint as regards our admission procedure can be applied to every hospital of any size in New Zealand. The procedure of this board has been decided upon by the board in the adoption of its by-laws and, as the pertinent by-laws are those framed by the Health Department, this procedure is only what boards are bound to carry out to protect the interests of the ratepayers in their district, as of course if a patient who can afford to pay fails to do so then the ratepayers have to foot the bill.” Amplifying his statement, Air Phillipps said that nine persons out of ten did not keep their promises to the board. Air .McLean said he was of the opinion that the board should ask all users of the hospital whether they could pay for their treatment and should then stop at that, not enquiring into their financial position. Air Bramwell 6aid that many years of business life had shown him that it paid to find out anyone’s position before giving credit.

DUTY TO RATEPAYERS

The chairman: Our by-laws -have been framed for the purpose of getting as high a percentage of the fees that we can. If the board doesn’t it is not doing -its duty to the ratepayers. , . , , Air Bramwell: I think we are fortunate if we collect 40 per cent, of the fees. „ Air Vincent: Air Scott as a ratepayer will appreciate our trying to get all the fees we can. Replying to a question, Air Phillipps said that the reason why some hospital accounts had never been sent out was because of wrong addresses having been given by patients. The chairman: AVe want to give every person who thinks he has a complaint against the management of the hospital the opportunity to put that complaint before the board. To say that the management is not satisfactory is a very serious charge. In reply to Air Vincent, Air Scott said that the reason why he had not placed the complaint before the board prior to waiting on the Kiwitea County Council was because of the fact that he had first of all told Cr Hair, of the County Council, about the matter, and had thereupon been asked to wait on the council.

DIRECT COAIPLAINTS WANTED. Air Vincent: AVhen anyone has a complaint for the Hospital Board, the sooner they complain direct the better. Tho chairman: It is to be regretted

that Air Scott did not make his complaint to tho board first. Tho board then considered the matter in committee.

NOT SUBSTANTIATED

Sir James AYilson later informed the press representatives that the committee had decided that tile charges had not been substantiated, and that he had been instructed to prepare a report for tho board.