nhs in england underfunded?

1
8 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH & OPINION NHS in England underfunded? Considerable differences exist in total NHS per-capita expenditure between the 4 countries in the UK, say researchers from King's Fund, London, and the University of Aberdeen Medical School, UK. However, a comparison, based on the evidence available, 'does not enable us to determine whether the NHS in England is underfunded relative to the other countries'. These are the main findings of their analysis. More funds for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland Data analysed for the financial year 1995-1996 showed that total NHS expenditure per capita was £855 in Scotland, £803 in Wales, £717 in Northern Ireland and £683 in England. This indicates that the NHS in Scotland received 25% more funding per capita than the NHS in England, and Wales and Northern Ireland 18 and 5% more, respectively. In Scotland, considerably more hospital beds were available per capita, compared with England (8.0 vs 4.3 per 1000 population). The respective values for Wales and Northern Ireland were 5.5 and 6.1 per 1 000 population. Furthermore, Scotland had more staff (hospital physicians, hospital nurses and general practitioners) per 1000 population. Better health outcomes? Also, Scotland had higher rates of outpatient and inpatient activity than England. However, higher funding in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was not associated with better health outcomes. Nevertheless, it appears that the Scottish NHS trust is under less financial pressure than the trusts in the other 3 countries, say the researchers. There is also evidence that people in England are more dissatisfied with NHS care than people in the other 3 UK countries, they note. The researchers comment that is it difficult to interpret the meaning of the between-country differ- ences. However, providing more funding to the English NHS 'would certainly make life easier for providers and might relieve fiscal stress', they conclude. Dixon J, Inglis S, Klein R. Is the English :-;'HS underfunded' British Journal318: 522-526, 20 Feb 1999 8007""'' PharmacoEconomics & Outcomes News 27 Feb 1999 No. 201 1173-5503/99/0201-0008/$01.00° Ad is International Limited 1999. All rights reserved

Upload: carlene

Post on 23-Dec-2016

214 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

8 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH & OPINION

NHS in England underfunded?

Considerable differences exist in total NHS per-capita expenditure between the 4 countries in the UK, say researchers from King's Fund, London, and the University of Aberdeen Medical School, UK. However, a comparison, based on the evidence available, 'does not enable us to determine whether the NHS in England is underfunded relative to the other countries'. These are the main findings of their analysis.

More funds for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland

Data analysed for the financial year 1995-1996 showed that total NHS expenditure per capita was £855 in Scotland, £803 in Wales, £717 in Northern Ireland and £683 in England. This indicates that the NHS in Scotland received 25% more funding per capita than the NHS in England, and Wales and Northern Ireland 18 and 5% more, respectively.

In Scotland, considerably more hospital beds were available per capita, compared with England (8.0 vs 4.3 per 1000 population). The respective values for Wales and Northern Ireland were 5.5 and 6.1 per 1 000 population. Furthermore, Scotland had more staff (hospital physicians, hospital nurses and general practitioners) per 1000 population.

Better health outcomes? Also, Scotland had higher rates of outpatient and

inpatient activity than England. However, higher funding in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was not associated with better health outcomes. Nevertheless, it appears that the Scottish NHS trust is under less financial pressure than the trusts in the other 3 countries, say the researchers. There is also evidence that people in England are more dissatisfied with NHS care than people in the other 3 UK countries, they note.

The researchers comment that is it difficult to interpret the meaning of the between-country differ­ences. However, providing more funding to the English NHS 'would certainly make life easier for providers and might relieve fiscal stress', they conclude. Dixon J, Inglis S, Klein R. Is the English :-;'HS underfunded' British ~edical Journal318: 522-526, 20 Feb 1999 8007""''

PharmacoEconomics & Outcomes News 27 Feb 1999 No. 201 1173-5503/99/0201-0008/$01.00° Ad is International Limited 1999. All rights reserved