4 ms·

Well, it is underfunded [1]. The UK spends a lot less per capita than any other developed nation. [1] https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6326 https://www.b

Well, it is underfunded [1]. The UK spends a lot less per capita than any other developed nation. [1] https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6326 https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6326

nvm0n1 3y ago
Your study doesn't actually say that. You'd expect their comparison to be with other developed countries given how it's worded, but in reality: The UK had the lowest healthcare expenditure per capita relative to our comparator countries (UK, $3825 (£2972; €3392); study average, $5700), although this was roughly in line with the average healthcare expenditure of the OECD member states ($3854) and the EU member states So the UK spends about the same as other EU and OECD countries. It only spends less compared to a set of hand-picked "comparator countries" which are: Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the USA. That's a remarkably cherry-picked list. If you average such a small list then the mean will be dominated by healthcare spending in the USA. To get better and less cherry-picked data you can turn to the ONS. See Figure 1 (2017) here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/articles/howdoesukhealthcarespendingcomparewithothercountries/2019-08-29 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan... The UK is around the same level as Finland, New Zealand and other developed countries. This chart really makes it obvious how they picked their "comparator countries": all the countries that spend the most on healthcare. That isn't surprising. It's hard to get a more biased source on British medical spending than the British Medical Journal. Of course academics specializing in healthcare will claim the UK doesn't spend enough on healthcare.
- MattPalmer1086 3y ago
  Thanks, must read my sources more carefully! Still second lowest in G7 though.
  - nvm0n1 3y ago
    Maybe. There's a lot of noise in these measurements. A lack of error bars doesn't mean a lack of errors. For many years activist orgs and newspapers liked to claim the UK was at the rock bottom of EU healthcare spending, that it spent far below other nations. When new accounting standards came in that tried to unify the way healthcare spending was measured between nations, overnight the UK went up to be about the middle of healthcare spending. The reason was, social care spending hadn't previously been reported as healthcare spending in the UK whereas in other places it was. Standardizing that fixed the disparity. There are still big sources of error in these numbers. It's not obvious, but spending on IT systems and hospitals (capital investment) isn't included in these numbers, yet these have sucked up a lot of NHS spending over time especially in the form of large failed IT projects, and capital expenditure on hospital buildings has often been done "off the books" in the UK using PFI schemes. Unfortunately the ideological basis of the NHS means that many people feel a nearly moral obligation to argue its failings are always about money, especially Brits who work in the healthcare world themselves. It's a risk free strategy. To criticize the way the NHS is actually structured or operates would come dangerously close to wrongthink.
    - MattPalmer1086 3y ago
      The NHS is pretty much like a religion in the UK, it is true. Most of us are very wedded to the idea that health care that is free at the point of use for all is a very good thing. We are also used to people who would rather we had a more US-like health system pretending that they care about it while actually trying to make it fail, effectively to privatise health care by the back door. So it's a hard subject to debate rationally here for sure.
      - ghusto 3y ago
        It's crazy how weird people get about it, but I think it's a class-shame thing. I grew up in a poor council block, and have _no_ qualms calling it out for what it is. Also, completely-free or U.S.A.-style-nightmare are not the only two options. There's a whole rainbow in between, those are extremes! I'm now in a country that's got the balance right; everyone has healthcare, and everyone who can afford it (most) pay affordable insurance for it. The standard of care is _amazing_!

Well, it is underfunded [1]. The UK spends a lot less per capita than any other developed nation. [1] https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6326 https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6326

nvm0n1 3y ago

Your study doesn't actually say that. You'd expect their comparison to be with other developed countries given how it's worded, but in reality: The UK had the lowest healthcare expenditure per capita relative to our comparator countries (UK, $3825 (£2972; €3392); study average, $5700), although this was roughly in line with the average healthcare expenditure of the OECD member states ($3854) and the EU member states So the UK spends about the same as other EU and OECD countries. It only spends less compared to a set of hand-picked "comparator countries" which are: Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the USA. That's a remarkably cherry-picked list. If you average such a small list then the mean will be dominated by healthcare spending in the USA. To get better and less cherry-picked data you can turn to the ONS. See Figure 1 (2017) here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/articles/howdoesukhealthcarespendingcomparewithothercountries/2019-08-29 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan... The UK is around the same level as Finland, New Zealand and other developed countries. This chart really makes it obvious how they picked their "comparator countries": all the countries that spend the most on healthcare. That isn't surprising. It's hard to get a more biased source on British medical spending than the British Medical Journal. Of course academics specializing in healthcare will claim the UK doesn't spend enough on healthcare.

MattPalmer1086 3y ago
Thanks, must read my sources more carefully! Still second lowest in G7 though.
- nvm0n1 3y ago
  Maybe. There's a lot of noise in these measurements. A lack of error bars doesn't mean a lack of errors. For many years activist orgs and newspapers liked to claim the UK was at the rock bottom of EU healthcare spending, that it spent far below other nations. When new accounting standards came in that tried to unify the way healthcare spending was measured between nations, overnight the UK went up to be about the middle of healthcare spending. The reason was, social care spending hadn't previously been reported as healthcare spending in the UK whereas in other places it was. Standardizing that fixed the disparity. There are still big sources of error in these numbers. It's not obvious, but spending on IT systems and hospitals (capital investment) isn't included in these numbers, yet these have sucked up a lot of NHS spending over time especially in the form of large failed IT projects, and capital expenditure on hospital buildings has often been done "off the books" in the UK using PFI schemes. Unfortunately the ideological basis of the NHS means that many people feel a nearly moral obligation to argue its failings are always about money, especially Brits who work in the healthcare world themselves. It's a risk free strategy. To criticize the way the NHS is actually structured or operates would come dangerously close to wrongthink.
  - MattPalmer1086 3y ago
    The NHS is pretty much like a religion in the UK, it is true. Most of us are very wedded to the idea that health care that is free at the point of use for all is a very good thing. We are also used to people who would rather we had a more US-like health system pretending that they care about it while actually trying to make it fail, effectively to privatise health care by the back door. So it's a hard subject to debate rationally here for sure.
    - ghusto 3y ago
      It's crazy how weird people get about it, but I think it's a class-shame thing. I grew up in a poor council block, and have _no_ qualms calling it out for what it is. Also, completely-free or U.S.A.-style-nightmare are not the only two options. There's a whole rainbow in between, those are extremes! I'm now in a country that's got the balance right; everyone has healthcare, and everyone who can afford it (most) pay affordable insurance for it. The standard of care is _amazing_!