HOSPITAL SUBSIDIES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17964, 14 December 1921, Page 8

HOSPITAL SUBSIDIES.

Many of the recommendations by the Royal Commission on hospital matters, whose report was published last July, have been embodied in the Bill introduced by the Minister for Health' last evening. ' But the most x important of its recommendations, that relating to the scale of the Government's subsidies toward maintenance charges, has 'been postponed because' the Minister for Finance is unable to find the additional sum of £60,000 which its adop 7 . tion would involve. The principal purpose in appointing the commission was to discover the most satisfactory basis for the national contribution toward the cost of hospital services, but, on the .score of economy, its report has been whittled down to a few administrative changes of minor importance. This decision is regrettable, because it continues a system which has been condemned by the Health Depart ment itsejf, and to which the hospital authorities are practically unanimously opposed. In the past the policy has bceft that the Government should contribute - one-half of the aggregate net maintenance requirements of hospital boards, the other half being raised by levy upon the

local'authorities.! But the basis of calculating the subsidies payable to the various boards, erriV bodiedin.the Act of 1909, has proved defective iti two *espects." ; ' It';has not 'secured/' to 'the /boards as a whole the j pound -for pound subsidy iniended,, ' the average rate having fallen to : 16s'; 3d in the pound, while in its application to individual boards the commission found that "it has acted.in many oases with gross unfairness, by giving to wealthy districts, whose hospital requirements could be met ; by a small rate, a larger subsidy than to poorer districts requiring to strike a heavy rate." Provided hospital expenditure is under effective supervision, it is difficult; to discover any advantage in maintaining the $tate contribution at 16V and forcing the local authorities to supply the deficiency, but if economy of that character is considered advisable, there is surely no need to continue a method of calculation that produces " gross unfairness." A more reasonable policy would surely be to adopt the basis recommended by the commission, the department, and the majority of the boards, modified to cost only the amount named by the Minister for Finance as the maximum available the purpose. The Government's decision will produce two grievances—that the subsidy has been kept down to an admittedly low rate, and that the contributions will not be fairly allocated.