According to research, individuals in the United Kingdom have a worse chance of surviving curable diseases, like breast cancer and stroke, than people in affluent countries.
Per the analysis by The King's Fund, a think tank, the performance of the NHS may be directly responsible for the issue. It claimed that the U.K. health system has fewer people and equipment than other systems because of below-average funding.
However, the study found that the NHS used its funds very well and spent less on administration than other countries. The NHS is one of the most well-managed healthcare systems, according to the government, and investments are being made to enhance services further.
The think tank compared the performance of the NHS with that of 18 other health systems, including those in Europe, Japan, the United States, and Australia, before the NHS's 75th anniversary happening on July 5.
The research recognized that several variables other than the caliber of NHS treatment would impact the country's life expectancy, which is among the lowest.
Fewer people in the U.K. put off getting medical care because of the expense. Just one in ten of those who participated in the survey said it took a lot of work to get treatment through the NHS. The NHS spent less than 2% of the budget on administration, making it the sixth-lowest spender overall.
According to the analysis, waiting lists for standard procedures like knee and hip replacements were growing in many nations, with waiting times in the NHS being around average. These factors led it to conclude that the U.K. health system was neither a "leader nor a laggard."
Siva Anandaciva, the report's author and The King's Fund's Chief Analyst, acknowledged that the NHS had "sadly seen better days."
While the NHS is managed somewhat effectively, and the U.K. stands out in removing the majority of financial obstacles to healthcare access, it lags behind its foreign counterparts on some of the most critical indicators of a sound healthcare system.
- Siva Anandaciva
He said, "The pandemic's pressures on our health service compounded the effects of more than a decade of squeezed investment."
The U.K. must do considerably more to lower the number of young people dying from heart disease and cancer. As a result, the NHS performs at best mediocrely.
According to Anandaciva, the results were not a justification for switching to a new funding model, he added, and there needed to be more proof that one method of financing healthcare was superior to another.
"This report recognises the NHS is one of the most efficiently run healthcare systems and we are investing up to £14.1 billion to improve services and cut waiting lists, one of the government's top five priorities."
While the number of employees in the NHS was rising, he claimed that this was funding brand-new community diagnostic facilities, according to the health department. A workforce strategy the government is about to release is anticipated to considerably boost the number of training spots available for physicians and nurses.
The report concludes: "Ultimately, it should be a serious concern for political leaders and policy-makers that the UK health system continues to fall behind so many of its peers on health care outcomes – on health care outcomes specifically, our health care system is, unfortunately, more of a laggard than a leader. The UK performs worse than many of its peers on several comprehensive measures, including life expectancy and deaths that could have been avoided through timely and effective health care and public health and preventive services."
Your email will not be published. All fields are required.