Long Live The NHS
The National Health Service has been a staple of British society since its humble beginnings in the late 1940s. Public funded and public served it has survived Thatcher’s iron, neo-liberal-forced, right hand and the modern financial crash (just about against the best efforts of Jeremy Hunt). But how is it funded? Too much, too little? And How will it survive in a world where privatisation and profits rule?
A King’s Fund report showed that since 1948 the average funding for the NHS has increased by 3.7% each year (adjusting for inflation). Before the Thatcher regime of the 1980s, NHS spending as a proportion of GDP stood at 4.1%. By 2017 this had risen to 7.2%, although this is still considerably lower than the 10% of GDP that proceeded the economic crash of 2008. In real cash values, this means we are spending more on health and the NHS than ever before £140 billion in 2017, £125 billion in 2018 before expecting to rise again to £127 billion by 2019/20. However, the increases in the funding have slowed in recent years – this has led to a widening crisis mainly due to the UK’s ageing population. The Labour governments between 1997 and 2010 increased investments by an average of 6% per year since then, however, spending increases haven’t risen much above 2% a year.
In comparison to other countries, the UK contributed around 9.7 % of GDP per year on health spending. This substantially below countries such as Canada (10.5%), France (11.5%) and the USA (17.1%). The value (or lack of it) of this funding resulted, in 2015-16, in 66% of NHS funds being in deficit. Of course, arguments can be (and have been) made regarding the efficiency of the NHS, but the trends highlight the issues cause when budgets increases and reduced along with a more dependent population.
The government has announced that £20 billion extra will be available for health by 2024, although how much of this will go to the NHS is unclear. If all were to be spent on the NHS this would represent a budgetary increase of 3.4% for the next 5 years. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, however, suggested that increases of at least 4% would be needed to see any improvement in the service. Major think tanks have suggested that this can easily be made up by a small increase in taxation, but have suggested that spending may be cut from other sectors (mainly the social services - where there have been budget shortages for years) to pay for the increases. The latter seems counter-intuitive with two strongly linked, and with pressure trying to be relieved off the NHS. An increase in tax seems the most likely sacrifice, but a welcome one to save a national institution.
The National Health Service has been a staple of British society since its humble beginnings in the late 1940s. Public funded and public served it has survived Thatcher’s iron, neo-liberal-forced, right hand and the modern financial crash (just about against the best efforts of Jeremy Hunt). But how is it funded? Too much, too little? And How will it survive in a world where privatisation and profits rule?
A King’s Fund report showed that since 1948 the average funding for the NHS has increased by 3.7% each year (adjusting for inflation). Before the Thatcher regime of the 1980s, NHS spending as a proportion of GDP stood at 4.1%. By 2017 this had risen to 7.2%, although this is still considerably lower than the 10% of GDP that proceeded the economic crash of 2008. In real cash values, this means we are spending more on health and the NHS than ever before £140 billion in 2017, £125 billion in 2018 before expecting to rise again to £127 billion by 2019/20. However, the increases in the funding have slowed in recent years – this has led to a widening crisis mainly due to the UK’s ageing population. The Labour governments between 1997 and 2010 increased investments by an average of 6% per year since then, however, spending increases haven’t risen much above 2% a year.
In comparison to other countries, the UK contributed around 9.7 % of GDP per year on health spending. This substantially below countries such as Canada (10.5%), France (11.5%) and the USA (17.1%). The value (or lack of it) of this funding resulted, in 2015-16, in 66% of NHS funds being in deficit. Of course, arguments can be (and have been) made regarding the efficiency of the NHS, but the trends highlight the issues cause when budgets increases and reduced along with a more dependent population.
The government has announced that £20 billion extra will be available for health by 2024, although how much of this will go to the NHS is unclear. If all were to be spent on the NHS this would represent a budgetary increase of 3.4% for the next 5 years. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, however, suggested that increases of at least 4% would be needed to see any improvement in the service. Major think tanks have suggested that this can easily be made up by a small increase in taxation, but have suggested that spending may be cut from other sectors (mainly the social services - where there have been budget shortages for years) to pay for the increases. The latter seems counter-intuitive with two strongly linked, and with pressure trying to be relieved off the NHS. An increase in tax seems the most likely sacrifice, but a welcome one to save a national institution.