[Report 1954] / Medical Officer of Health, Canterbury Borough / City & County.

  • Canterbury (England). City & County Council.
Date:
1954
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Credit: [Report 1954] / Medical Officer of Health, Canterbury Borough / City & County. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    6/56 (page 2)
    There was a sharp drop in the cost of local health services when the National Health Service Act, 1946, was implemented in 1948, because the cost of hospital treatment for infectious disease, tuberculosis, complicated maternity and other such services was met by the hospital section of the National Health Service. There was also a greater grant from central government funds towards the remaining and newly created local health service. But it must not be thought that this has lightened the local cost. It has merely levied the cost of such grants and of the other national health .services by means of income lax and an allocation of a portion of the national insurance contribution, instead of by local rating. There is only one national pocket and we all have a hand in it. Therefore it is right that we should all, individually, consider the manner in which we incur cost in our use of the National Health Service. In looking as a local authority at the cost of our local health services we must also consider their value as a contribution to the health of the community. None will object to 21% of the cost going to provide a home nursing and midwifery service, for the care and comfort provided in partnership with the family doctor is real and clear. It maj'^ surprise you that the home visiting service of the health visitors, the provision of child welfare and ante-natal clinics, immunisation and vaccination, extra nourishment for the tuberculous, the after care of illness and other preventive services only call on 17% of the cost, or that 5% goes to help the mentally ill or handicapped. The Home Help Service which seems now to be approaching full stature and which helps to buffer rising costs in the welfare services for old people, gives much household help to those suffer- ing from chronic illness and infirmity, as well as to other deserving cases at 16% of the cost. But none will be entirely happy that a proportion of 24% of the cost goes to the ambulance service. Let me hasten to assure you that the ambulance service makes a most valuable contribution to the curative health .services. It has bridged the gap between home and hospital, but the bridge toll is two shillings and twopence a mile. It has made possible an improvement in the survival and comfort of a vast number of arthritics, hemiplegics and other disabled persons by bringing them within reach of routine outpatient hosintal treatment, and it makes a lively contribution to the greatest use of hospital beds and integration of treatment at dispersed hospital departments. Its quality and value is not questioned, but concern is certainly felt at the volume of the demand made on it. We need a sharpening of the public conscience on the use of ambulance transport to ensure that no demand is made to trans- ]>ort a case that can travel otlierwise. Any such unwarranted demand is another ])ick at the national pocket. Any suggestion which may reduce costs by closer co- ordination between sections of the national liealth service is