HOSPITAL ACCOUNTS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22008, 15 January 1935, Page 11

HOSPITAL ACCOUNTS

COLLECTION OF FEES WHANGAREI DIFFICULTIES LEGAL ACTION PROPOSED [by telegraph—own correspondent! WHANGAREI, Monday " I wish to state quite openly that I consider many people who could pay their hospital accounts are not doing so and there is a growing tendency to regard hospital boards as fair game,' said Mr. J. N. McCarroll, chairman of the Whangarei Hospital Board at its meeting to-day, when the position of the board's collector was under review. Mr. McCarroll added that recently the board was compelled to write olf between £3OOO and £-1000 of unpaid fees and further writing off would be necessary in the immediate future. Mr. J. A. S. Mackay said a better policy would be to sue in all cases in which people could pay. r l his would have a beneficial moral effect and would be better than the present system which resulted in over 30 per cent being paid for collecting accounts that should be paid without pressure. Mr. Mackay moved that the agreement with the board's collector should be terminated and that in cases in which arrangements for payment were not made, the debtors should be sued in the usual way after due notice and investigation by the fees committee. Mr. F. Higginson said the magistrates were reluctant to make an order against a working man with a family and his experience was that little had been gained by Court proceedings. Mr. McCarroll pointed out that the collector had done excellent work in collecting and supplying the fees committee with valuable information, lne motion was merely to change the present method of collecting which members considered unsatisfactory. Mr. Mackay, in reply, said if the magistrate in his wisdom said a person could not pay the board had no further responsibility. If, however, they did not bring such cases before the Court the ratepayers had a perfect right to say, as they were saying freely, that the board was not collecting enough and was not making people pay who could afford to do so. The motion was carried by five votes to three.