MANGONUI HOSPITAL

Northern Advocate, 23 October 1935, Page 2

MANGONUI HOSPITAL

GROWTH OF INSTITUTION j SAVING TO RATEPAYERS, j REMOVAL EXPENSES DETAILED, j The monthly mooting of the. Mangp- i nui Hospital Board was held at Kai-. tala on Thursday. Mr T. S. Houston presided over a - full attendance of members. .'lt was decided that -uncollectable fees totalling £4491 be written off. The chairman- explained that writingoff did hot preclude the possibility of ccllectipg, .when \.it could be shown that there was an ability to pay. A letter was received from the Hospital Boards’ Association, in reference to; insurance against claims from anyone treated at a hospital. It was stated that for the whole of the Hospital !B6ards, the premiums would aipouht to £2500, and as it was necessary, at the commencement, to have any scheme adopted backed by existiri'g insurance reserves, it suggested that the State Office’s offer; which would return to Hospital Boards o 0 per cent. d£ the profits, should be accepted.,,........ ... ... • A letter was read showing that the cost to the board for a policy providing for .a. cqver of £IOOO In .individual, cases and '£4OQO oyer all patients, - would mean a premium of £l9 or £2O, and it was’..decided, .oh the motion of the chairman, to take out a policy on this basis-with the State Office. -The secretary said particulars had been: received for another form of insurance. One dealt with any trouble ensuing .from- -blood-transfusion', and the other with’ accidehts whifih_ might happen, to' afiyone .' visiting .the, iristitd-r tion,” while in the grounds. ’ A proposal that a notice be put up warning the public ' that anyone entering ‘the grounds' did so.' at Their own risk was opposed by. Mr Michie, who was..ofthe opinion . Jhat, .the.* notices w euM-tend-tO' con sti tht liab il ity r ; the ■ board did not wish to admit. Anyone passing" through a farm might be in danger from a bull, but a farmer did not put up any warning notice. The secretary said that if the board wds liable in the case of a notice would not take away the liability. . 1 On the motion of Mr Houston, seconded by Mr Kitchen, it was decided to' refer tpe matter to the Hospital Boiards’ Association for an opinion. Logan Case Costs.

A letter was received from the Wai-

taki Hospital Board, asking for assistance in meeting the damage and costs incurred in the Logan case. The total amount was £2BOO.

Mr Hoskin: “The Whangarei Board

refused to assist, and held the view that the money should come out of the Consolidated Fund.” Gh the motion of Mr Hoskin, a resolution was passed that it be a recommendation to the Hospital Boards’ .Association that the matter be.taken up with the Government. As it was the first case of its kind,' it was only right, said Mr Hoskin, to spread the cost over the whole of the' people of New Zealand. It was further decided to inform the Waitaki Board that failing a favourable reply from the Government, the Mangonui Board would probably assist. Rugby Union Agreement.

The Mangonui Rugby Union wrote offering £29 14/ in full payment for feefe amounting to £59 8/- incurred in treating injured footballers at the hospital. Mr Steed, said that 90 per cent, of the' ratepayers"were opposed to the concession to the Rugby Union under the- proposed agreement. He was of the ; opinion that a man who could, pay should be made to pay. Mr ‘Mdtthews, while admitting that thefe .might be sothe footballers who could afford to pay, held that on the lawi of averages, the board would gain' by accepting half fees from the whole of the players treated at the hospital. Mr Michie thought, that, irrespective of any concession made, through the Rugby Union, any player treated at the .hospital should pay for the sake of his "town self-respect, if it was within, his ipower. Op. the motion of Mr Kitchen, consideration was deferred until it is, known whether the Health Department will consent to the proposed agreement with the Rugby Union. .Mb Matthews moved, and Mr Kit-

chen seconded, that in the event of the Health Department approving the agreement, the offer'of. the Rugby Union for patients already, treated be,-ac-cepted. The motion was carried, but'-Mr Steed- asked that his.-vote be recorded agaiffst it. „ The secretary .-reported - that; oh August 31, there were--29 patients in the’ hospital. During" the month, 40 had been admitted and 49 had‘ been discharged, leaving 20 in the -.institution on September *3O. The daily average since last report had been 2'£ißfe,..-.V Removal Expenses.

The secretary reported that out pf

£6BB 8/9 claimed by the contractor for, the removal and rebuilding of the new hospital as extras, £134 14/- only had been allowed. The .total cost of the

hospital was £4535 6/4. Mf Michie said they were about £ls to the good on the contract, exclusive of legal expenses, which only arose on account '.6f the bankrupjcj- .of the. contractor. ■ '• ■;> ■

Mrl Kitchen said that' last- year the levy | on the county council was £2740 11/7, whereas this year it had dropped ta. , £2468,7/1. ' The- county council had' cohsolidafed its rate, and the reduction would not-be apparent to the ratepayers from the rate notice. The secretary said'that for 1933-84 the levy was £2529, and for the previous year £2793’. . Mr Michie, said the..,remov-al of the hospital had • been fully justified , on economic grounds, and it was right that the facts should go out to the public, but, at the same time, they did hot want to - revive the old controversy. The following -particulars with regard to the. cost, of the. ...hospital were placed before the board by the secretary.! Mr Provan’s, contract-, £3119 10/; extras, £134 T 4/; electricity, £452- 2/; watef supply £646 17/10; P.W.D. supervision, £lll 3/6; latrines ' and sinks,! £33 .11/6; arbitration, £22 7/6; other: expenses, £ls; total. £4535 6/4. Six-monthly Financial Statement.

The secretary presented a statement of receipts and expenditure for the six months ended September 30, 1935, as follows, the estimates for the same period being shown in parentheses: Receipts: Patients’ payments, £1023 (£750); charitable aid recoveries, £95 f £ 60); levies, maintenance. £985 (£1438); subsidies, £720 (£1506); other; receipts, ‘ £7l (£54). Payments: Hospital maintenance. £2920 (£2950); charitable aid, £413 (£375); administration, £282 (£275); district nursing, £lso’ (£175); other boards, £7l (£10DT); other payments, £122 (£170). The aiverage number of occupied beds was 3,1.42. compared \yith 19.4 for 1934. Mr Matthews complimented the sec-

retary on the closeness o£ the actual figures to the estimates. A letter was received' from Dr. Watt, following on a report by the Department’s accountant, urging that in lieu of paying the secretary commission on fees collected, that his salary be increased by ani equivalent amount. The chairman contended that the board’s system had worked with advantage to the institution. The secretary had collected a lot of fees, which might have been regarded as irrecoverable. The commission was an incentive to get the money in. Mr Steed: “If we increase his salary, would that not be an incentive?” Mr Michie said the matter was a Dominion one and they would have to fall in line, notwithtanding the fact that the present arrangement had worked so well. The secretary assured the board that the collection of fees would receive the same attention from him as in the past. On the motion of Mir Hoskin, it was decided to accede to the department’s wishes, and instead of paying commission, to increase the secretary’s salary to £250.