DOCTORS' CONSULTATION FEE IS STILL 73 6D

Wanganui Chronicle, 10 November 1950, Page 5

DOCTORS' CONSULTATION FEE IS STILL 73 6D

No Authorised Increase

PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Last Night (PA).—An allegation that a Health Department circular to all doctors gave the authority to increase their charges for a consultation fee was refuted by the Minister of Health (Mr Watts) when the Bill was further discussed in the committee stage today. The acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr Nash) had referred to a circular sent by three doctors in a partnership to their patients alleging that the Government and the B.M.A. had reached agreement on the additional charge—to be 10s 6d, where formerly it was 7s 6d a visit—and also to a Health Department circular implying that the charge could now be 10s 6d a visit.

Mr Watts said that no such agreement had been made. No circulars from the Health Department contained any instruction for an increase; nor had any direction been made by the Minister, the B.M.A. or the department. No doctor could take from the circulars that there was any instruction to increase charges, or that there was any intention they should be increased. ONLY AN ILLUSTRATION The circular referred to last night by the member for Petone and today by the member for Hutt only illustrated the method of cnarges under the refund system. There was nothing in the circulars to give any indication at all that doctors had authority to make a greater charge than at present, continued the Minister. He said'he had interviewed B.M.A. officials earlier today and they said thaj no instruction or circuler, or anything else, had gone from that organisation to indicate that increased charges could be made. Mr Skinner (Opp., Buller), referring to the three doctors’ circular: What is the Minister going to do about it? Mr Watts: I’m going to deal with it quick and lively. The Minister added that he expected the members for Hutt, Petone, Lyttelton and St. Kilda to give him the names of doctors who they claimed had increased their charges. The Minister of Education (Mr Algie): It is another mare’s nest. Mr. Mohan (Opp., Petone) said there was an agreement between the previous Government and the doctors that 7s 6d should be the charge under the fee-for-service. Yet the fact remained that, some doctors had recently raised their charge to the patient from 7s 6d to 10s 6d. The people were paying the doctors £2.4 million during the present financial year through the Social Security Fund- for general medical services, and the people wanted to know if that payment was not sufficient. The Attorney General (Mr Webbv said the 7s 6d was the amount which could be claimed from the Social Security Fund, but did not limit what the doctors could charge patients. 7s 6<l AN ADEQUATE FEE. Mr. Mohan said the Minister himself had said that 7s 6d was an adequate fee for an ordinary consultation, ana unless there were exceptional circumstances the patient should not be charged more than the 7s 6d recoverable from the fund. Mr. Anderton (Opp., Auckland Central) said doctors paid nearly 6,000,000 visits a year to patients and, if an extra 3s was to be charged in each case the doctors’ income would be raised considerably. He estimated that doctors, as a group, drew nearly £4,000,000 a year from the national income if their operation fees and other income were added to what they drew from the Social Security Fund. It was no good saying, as the Minister had done, that doctors could now charge less than 7s 6d for minor services unless there was evidence they were doing so. Mr. Anderton said the principle behind social security had not been helped by the doctors or the Health Department in countenancing an increase in fees. The public was getting tired of the humbug talked about "a fee for service,” and wanted a service for the fee. The doctors were paid from the Social Security Fund out of taxation. Mr. Watts said he accepted full responsibility for any circulars issued by the department. Mr. Anderton and others now advocated stricter supervision over payments to doctors. Why had they not done so when in office? During five years under the previous Government a small group of doctors, in partnership in a certain part of New Zealand drew £250,000 from the Social Security Fund. The Minister said some doctors were now charging only 5s for minor services. Mr. McCombs (Opp., Lyttelton) said there had been an obvious misunderstanding on the part of some doctors. It might have arisen from the fact that in a Health Department, circular setting out examples of how . claims were to be made. The only fee cited for attendance at a doctor’s I surgery was 10s 6d. Mr. McCombs , suggested that to clear the matter up finally, the Minister, despite his denials in the House of any Government action to approve higher fees, should send a further circular to doctors to make the position clear. Mr. McCombs congratulated the ' Minister on standing up for his de--partment instead of sheltering behind i it, as some of his colleagues had done on occasions. The Bill was put through the committee stages. The Bill was later read a third time and passed.