Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

NHS 'more efficient in England' than rest of UK


The NHS in England provides better value for money than elsewhere in the UK, a research group’s study suggests.

The report, by the Nuffield Trust think-tank, highlights how England is doing better on a number of counts than the other countries in the UK despite lower per head funding.

The government in England used the years of ‘feast’ to reduce long waiting times, and governments in the other countries may find it had to catch up

Scotland, in particular, compares badly on many measures, even when compared with the North East SHA region, which is broadly similar.

The trust found Scotland had the highest rate of spending on the NHS, as well as the highest rates of hospital doctors, GPs and nurses per person.

In contrast, the report found the NHS in England spent less, had fewer health staff per head of population, but made better use of its resources with higher activity levels.

The report highlighted some of the differences in health policy between the four countries, with Scotland having brought in free personal care, while prescription charges have been abolished in Wales. But Scotland also had the highest levels of poor health.

The report said: “The government in England used the years of ‘feast’ to reduce long waiting times, and governments in the other countries may find it had to catch up with performance in England during the years of ‘famine’.”

Nuffield Trust director Jennifer Dixon said: “Some of the differences and trends….will reflect the different policies pursued by each of the four nations since 1999, in particular the greater pressure put on NHS bodies in England to improve performance in a few key areas such as waiting and efficiency, via targets, strong performance management, public reporting of performance by regulators, and financial incentives.”

But shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley said the improvements in the NHS in England had largely been driven by the extra capacity created by “Labour’s tripling of the NHS budget”.

“I have consistently made it clear that Labour have not got value for money as productivity has fallen,” he said.

A Scottish government spokesperson said the report was based on data that was at least three years old and out of date. “Since then there have been significant improvements in NHS Scotland’s performance.

“The measures of productivity in particular fail to take into account the complexity or severity of cases before treatment - nor the quality of outcomes. These measures also only cover a narrow range of hospital procedures and do not reflect the shift in the balance of care from the acute sector into the community in Scotland.”

But Paul Flynn, deputy chairman of the BMA’s consultants committee, said: “Targets have an impact on reducing waiting times but they also have other effects such as distorting clinical priorities.”

A Department of Health spokesman said: “Devolution allows each country to have the freedom to make decisions about the health needs of their population and to focus on disease prevention, health promotion and health services in a way that is best for their public.”

Richard Barker, director of operations and performance at NHS North East, said: “We are obviously pleased to see our combined efforts resulting in positive comparisons with socio-demographically similar areas; however, we would never be complacent or lose sight of the need to do more – particularly within the current economic climate.”


Readers' comments (3)

  • Just because something is more "efficient" and gives "value for money" doesn't necessarily mean it is better.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Doesn't Scotland have greater problems with excess alcohol drinking and with junk food?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • MillerT

    I don't think the article claims it is necessarily better; it's simply reporting that it appears to be "efficient" and offer "value for money".

    I've suffered two medium-term sports injuries in the last 12 months and have been referred to physio sessions at my NHS hospital by my GP on both occasions, and this has seriouesly aided and quickened my recovery. Sports physio sessions and consultation is expensive privately or through specialists so this seems to me excellent value for money.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs