DOCTORS PROTEST

Taranaki Daily News, 20 February 1935, Page 6

DOCTORS PROTEST

UNFAIR COMPETITION OPEN OUT-PATIENT DEPARTMENT. REQUEST TO HOSPITAL BOARD. NOTICE TO RESCIND MOTION. An emphatic protest against the action of the Stratford Hospital Board in deciding on an open out-patient department at the hospital for the unrestricted treatment of patients at private fee rates was expressed by the private practitioners of Stratford in a letter to the board yesterday. After a conference with the practitioners, notice of motion to rescind the board’s resolution was given by the chairman, Mr. W. L. Kennedy. The letter, signed by Drs. Doris Gordon, W. P. P. Gordon, B. B. Armstrong and D. Steven, read as follows:— “We, the undersigned medical practitioners of the Stratford district, wish to protest against the establishment of an open put-patient department in the Stratford hospital, for the following reasohs:—

“No necessitous or urgent case has ever suffered, or need suffer, because of the lack of an out-patient department. “We consider it unfair for a public institution which we, with other ratepayers support, to enter into direct competition with private enterprise. “It is, in our opinion, an added and unnecessary expense to the ratepayers. “We would welcome an opportunity of discussing this and other hospital matters with your board or a committee thereof.”

The board decided immediately to invite the doctors to meet the board in the afternoon, and the invitation was accepted. Mr. W. L. Kennedy presided. On behalf of the medical profession of the town, said Dr. W. P. P. Gordon, he wished it made clear that they were anxious to co-operate with the board for the smooth running of the hospital. “Our

object as well as yours is to help the community in matters of health,” he said. “We are not looking at the thing purely from the personal aspect, though we can’t help looking at the personal as-

pect when we consider that the system bears unfairly on outside practitioners.” THREE MAIN POINTS. The three main points in their argument were outlined in the letter, said Dr. Gordon. The fact that the fee for the out-patients’ department had been set at private practice rates suggested that the board was not out to help those in financial, difficulties. Again, if the department was thought necessary at those rates, it implied that the attention available outside the hospital was not sufficiently skilful. “What if other local bodies did the same thing,” he asked. “There should be no need to compete with us in our own field.” Thirdly, they were of the opinion that the expense of running an efficient out-patients’ department was not warranted.

The fact that the system was adopted in other centres was not a sound reason for its adoption at Stratford, he said. He criticised the Hawera system. In most other centres it was necessary for a patient to show why he should not avail himself of a private practitioner before coming to an out-patient department. Dr. Gordon mentioned that in every other respect the outside practitioners and the board could co-operate, and their relations with Dr. Brown had been very cordial. If this system was gone on with, however, they had a just grievance.

Mr. Kennedy: Would we be competing less with outside practitioners if we charged only half fees? Dr. Gordon: That is the Hawera system, and it is worse than this one. Mr. Kennedy: You are in favour of an indigent out-patient department? Dr. Gordon: Yes.

In larger centres, said Dr. B. B. Armstrong, the outside staff was purely honorary. In fairness to those practitioners the people who could afford to should pay the private fee. The out-patient department was for those who could not afford medical attention, and who would therefore receive free service. For all ordinary attention he thought that the public was amply provided for without an open out-patient department. “If a man is unable to pay we will give free attention,” he said. .‘No man should suffer through being unable to pay a private fee.” SUGGESTED ARRANGEMENT. A suggested arrangement was put forward by Dr. W. Gordon, whereby if a patient came to a private practitioner and said that he could not pay, and the practitioner knew that that was correct, the practitioner could give him a certificate for attention at an out-patient department. Mr.. G. P. Harkness: That means you get the patients who pay and we have the ones that will not. Dr. Gordon: Exactly. But is not that what your board is constituted for? The outside practitioners had gathered the impression from reports of the board’s last meeting, said Dr. Doris Gordon, that the board’s opinion was that if a patient came to a doctor to get admission to hospital he was invariably charged 10s 6d. That was not so, she said. She had herself put through 12 patients to hospital recently, not one of whom was on her books. It was understood, she said, that no fee was charged for just giving a patient a certificate for hospital. She suggested that the board should revert to its former system of an indigent out-patient department only. The outside practitioners were only too willing to work in with the board over patients, she said, and over apparatus, too. For instance there was over £2500 worth of X-ray plant in Stratford, all in different places, no one plant being used to the full. Costly instruments were duplicated the same way. It was not right. “We are not the ‘Merchants of Venice* of this town,” she concluded. Mr. Kennedy pointed out that in his report Dr. Watt had not been in favour of an open department. Following the retirement of the visitors, the board continued the discussion. Mrs. Phillips expressed her disapproval of the department except for indigent patients. The board knew definitely of people at Stratford who could afford to eend their children to’ expensive schools, for instance, she said, and who had openly boasted of the opportunity they would soon have of receiving medical attention from the superintendent for 2s 6d.

Mr. Anderson: The point is that the ratepayers who support the hospital are not able to use it. They are paying for the hospital and yet when they wish to ■use it they must pay a practitioner an examination fee before they can obtain admission. It’s not right.

Mrs. Shannon thought Dr. Doris Gordon’s comment on the examination fees always being waived did not apply as extensively as had been stated. She pointed out, however, that that system applied in nearly every centre.

Mr. Anderson: I don’t care what other centres do. We have our own hospital to attend to.

The board should endeavour to work amicably with the doctors of the town, said the chairman. In his opinion the board should rescind the motion previously passed and act in accordance with Dr. Watt’s recommendation. Mr. Anderson: I’m definitely sticking to my guns on this resolution. It’s not a

question of competition at all. It’s a question of service. We have here a young doctor fresh from the most modern schools, and it is only right that the ratepayers should be able to avail themselves of his services..

Mr. Kennedy gave notice of motion that that part of the resolution dealing with the open out-patient department be rescinded. The resolution involved reads: “That an out-patient department be opened, the fees to be the same as those charged by the medical practitioners in the district and that the medical superintendent be authorised to admit any patient he thinks fit into the hospital. Hours of attendance for out-patients to be defined by the medical superintendent.” The matter will be considered again at a later meeting of the board.