Are we spending too much on health?

September 26, 2008

In this poor economic climate and period of lower growth is it time to consider limiting spending on healthcare budgets? Two experts debate the issue on bmj.com today.

The key challenge is to get more value for money from the already vast sums of money spent on health services rather than increasing spending, argues Professor Nick Bosanquet from Imperial College, London.

In the UK, health care spending is growing 2% points faster than GDP and this is unsustainable in an era of lower growth when the government says it has reached the limits of taxable capacity, he writes.

"There will be no incentive to invest in a new kind of health service while the easy option of continued growth in high spending in the old one remains", he warns.

Bosanquet suggests that capping spending to current percentages of GDP (8𔃇%) would encourage more efficiency and better financial management by creating pressure to redesign more effective health systems.

Decisions on health spending should be made on the basis of value, and priority must be given to raising value from the pound or Euro, he writes. From 1990𔃆 the return on health expenditure was 148% in the UK—for every pound spent, we got £2.48 worth of health gain back, and the USA has had similar gains.

Indeed, he says, many of the most effective health interventions are low cost. Examples include the UK's recent cancer reform strategy which increases investment in prevention, part financed by reduced hospital admissions, and the national service frameworks for coronary heart disease and diabetes, which identify and treat patients at high risk of vision loss.

Increasing efficiency may be the only way of reconciling rising demands for health services, such as those of the ageing population, with public finance constraints. The challenge for the next five years will be to redesign more effective services for the future, he concludes.

But Werner Christie, the former minister of health for Norway argues that health spending should reflect medical need and not economic performance.

Although, he says, a lack of effectiveness and efficiency may justify temporary caps on spending to provide incentives for improvements, they are not a long-term solution. Both the progress of medical science and an ageing population will increase the relative benefit and cost of healthcare, but they will require greater expenditure.

According to Christie, although it is difficult to quantify the value and benefit of health and health care to individuals and the community, it saves lives, reduces suffering and is a basic precondition for enjoying life.

In addition, health institutions are some of the biggest employers, generate a substantial amount of tax revenue, as well as demand for supportive products and services such as drugs and medical devices, which make considerable contributions to GDP.

He therefore suggests that if we were to revaluate health care's GDP we would find that increased investment in health is actually quite "profitable".

Although there must be limits to spending on health care, they should not be defined by a "fixed fraction of GDP" or by projections of current growth, he argues. Rather, data and experience from democratic countries suggests that it is possible to reach a level of health care that is politically acceptable to citizens by spending 8󈝸% of GDP, he concludes.

Source: BMJ-British Medical Journal

Explore further: Three reasons the U.S. doesn't have universal health coverage

Related Stories

Three reasons the U.S. doesn't have universal health coverage

October 26, 2016

Amidst the partisan rancor and the unusual tilt toward questions on civility during the second and third presidential debates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump drew the attention of health experts when they articulated their ...

2014 US health spending grew at fastest rate of Obama years

December 2, 2015

U.S. health care spending last year grew at the fastest pace since President Barack Obama took office, driven by expanded coverage under his namesake law and by zooming prescription drug costs, the government said Wednesday.

Recommended for you

Baby teethers soothe, but many contain low levels of BPA

December 7, 2016

Bisphenol-A (BPA), parabens and antimicrobials are widely used in personal care products and plastics. The U.S. and other governments have banned or restricted some of these compounds' use in certain products for babies and ...

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.