HOSPITAL FINANCE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXI, Issue 19050, 1 July 1924, Page 3

HOSPITAL FINANCE

The following report is to be submitted to the Wanganui Ratepayers’ Association on Thursday evening:— As instructed, I have obtained some information with reference to hospital finances and submit a report thereon. There seems to be a general opinion that the local institution is being managed in an extravagant manner; this idea probably originated through the recent press notices to the effect that the cost per occupied bed had, of recent years, rushed up in an alarming manner, also that the levy to be paid by the borough for current year was £6033 instead of £4908 as per last year; this is partly (but not wholly) explained by the fact of amalgamation with Gonville and Castlecliff. The cost per head of population for 1923-24 period was 4s 7|d, this year it is 5s 2Jd. I will first deal with the subject from the taxpayers’ point of view, and in doing so will take the Wanganui and Napier (or Hawke’s Bay) districts, as the hospitals there are the same class, having over 100 beds; other districts will be mentioned for comparison sake. Tho population and capital values used are taken from local Government statistical report; fractions are not given. The Wanganui Hospital District has a population of 51,129, and a capital value of £26,002,976; Hawke’s Bay 38,010 and capital value of £17,231,315 (hospital levies are collected on capital value). Wanganui has a hospital at Wanganui, a smaller one at Taihape, and another small one at Raetihi. Hawke’s Bay has one at Napier. It would seem that the country districts pay more per head than the people in towns; for instance, the County of Rangitikei, with a population of 8260 and capital value of £9,917,664, pays a levy to the Hospital Board amounting to £9359, or 18s lid on every £lOOO capital value and £1 2s 7jd per head of population. The levies to be collected for current year are: —Wanganui district, £24,685; Hawke’s Bay district, £17,626. These amounts work out:—Wanganui, 18s lid on every £lOOO capital value, or 9s 7Jd per head of population; Hawke’s Bay, £1 0s 5Jd per £lOOO, or 9s 31d per head; therefore for present year, both districts are taxed at practically the same ratio.

To earry the matter further, we will take the boroughs of Wanganui and Napier, beginning at the period 192122. For that year, Wanganui Borough, with a population of 16,970, paid £2831, the next year £2990, the next £4908 and for current year—amalgamated borough, population 22,042 —has to pay £6033. Napier Borough, with a population of 14,762 for same periods, paid £4764, £5304, £4051, and present year £3301. These figures show that Wanganui Board, during the past four years, have very materially increased its levies, and Hawke’s Bay Board have reduced theirs, explained probably by economy at Napier and the reverse at Wanganui, but it must be kept in mind that at the present time the two districts cost the taxpayers practically the same.

Now we will take a few examples for other centres, 1922-23. Dunedin City, with a popultion of 59,061, and capital value of £13,387,558, paid hospital levies amounting to £26,610, or £1 19s 9d per £lOOO capital value and 9s OJd per head of population. 1921-22, Christchurch City, with a population of 74,621 and capital value of £18,828,773, paid £15,945, or 16s lljd per £lOOO and 4s 3}d per head. 1921-22, Invercargill Borough, with a population of 15,535 and capital value of £3,607,760, paid £3481, or 19s 3}d per £lOOO and 4s 5Jd per head. 1921-22, Nelson City, with a population of 9511 and capital value of £1,779,640, paid £1179, or £1 per £lOOO and 2s 5Jd per head. 192324, Wellington City, with a population of 91,581 and capital value of £30,280,890, paid £36,000, or £1 3s 9}d per £lOOO and 7s 71d per head. 1022-23, Napier Borough paid £1 12s BJd per £lOOO or 7s 2{d per head. The same year, Wanganui Borough paid Ils lOd per £lOOO, or 3s 6}d per head. This demonstrates that for the period 1922,23, Wanganui Borough was extremely low in hospital and charitable aid taxation compared with other centres. We will now deal with estimates for the present period:—Napier Borough pays £3301, or £1 0s per £lOOO and 4s 54d per head, which means a reduction since 1922-23 period from £1 12s BJd per £lOOO and 7s 2}d per head. Wanganui Borough pays £6033, or 18s lid per £lOOO and 5s 5Jd per head, having advanced in two years from Ils lOd per £lOOO and 3s 6Jd per head. The explanation may be the cost of upkeep in the two small hospitals at Taihape and Raetihi. It certainly seems that, taking into consideration the population and capital value of the districts feeding those institutions, that the percentages must work against the one at Wanganui. With reference to the cost per occupied bed, here again it is alleged that Napier is coming down and Wanganui going up. I do not pretend to understand what is meant by cost per occupied bed, but judging from the returns and balance-sheets, it does not mean anything that will benefit the taxpayers. We are told that for tlie period 1922-23, tho eost per occupied bed at Napier was £166, and at Wanganui £205, but to arrive at that result only certain costs in connection with the institution are taken into consideration, and give a wrong impression, probably right for statistical purposes. Ono board may enter certain expenses as to eost per bed; another may not do so, consequently the average given is an absurdity. The true test is what the institution costs the taxpayers. At Napier Hospital, for 192223 period, the dairy average number of beds occupied was 188, and the total expenditure connected with the hospital and charitable aid was £46,853. This amounts to £1 4s 7}d per head of population. The cost per head in the Dominion was 19s Old; for the corresponding year in Wanganui district, the total eost for hospital upkeep and charitable aid was £38,960. This amounted to 15s 7ld per head of population, well under Dominion cost. Napier district, with a population of 38,010, had a daily average of 188 occupied beds. Wanganui district, including Taihape and Raetihi, with a population of 51,129, had a daily average of 175. It seems remarkable that at Napier, about double the amount of patients’

fees are collected, to that in the Wanganui district—there must be some reason for this. For the current period, the expenditure by Wanganui Board is estimated at £54,188 for maintenance; this is £1 Is 2Jd per head. The Napier Board estimates its expenditure at £46,060, or £1 4s 2Jd per head, the result being that in three years, the expenditure in Wanganui district has gone up from 12s 6Jd to £1 Is 2Jd per head. At Napier it has gone down from £1 4s Bjd to £1 4s 2|d. At Wanganui for 1920-21, it was Us 4Jd, for 1921-22 it was 12s 6)d. It can, therefore, be seen at a glance that there is need for some reform; the abnormal increase cannot be put down to new buildings. If Wanganui Board could run their institutions for the period 1921-22 at a cost of 12s 61d per head of population, there does not appear to be any valid reason why it should now take £1 Is 2}d to carry out the same work. Many reasons arc given by the man in tho street, but for the present, I consider that the matter can safely be left to the chairman. The press has drawn attention to the urgent need of action, which is having good effect. The chairman, at last meeting of the board, is reported as having said: “I want to impress on the members the urgent necessity of trying to retrench in some wap; the expenses per bed are rather out of the ordinary. I am afraid we often vote for expenditure without due consideration. I trust that the members will be with me, and try to economise as much as possible.” Those who know the chairman will be satisfied that he will carry out his part, and it is up to all to assist him in what is at all times anything but a pleasant duty. We all know that for some time past, wc have all been apt to go the pace. Hospitals or any other institutions cannot be run as cheap to-day as they were some years ago, but above all, the management must not be parsimonious. We must admit that even now the Wanganui institutions are costing the taxpayers less than some of the others. In conclusion, I thank Mr Kirby, secretary of Wanganui Board, and Mr Rees, secretary of Hawke’s Bay Board, for the information that they have given me. J. SIDDELLS, Secretary.