Funding the National Health Service is the biggest single thing the government does, so it is not surprising that it is at the forefront of the election campaign. In this report, we look at how health spending has changed over the last 70 years and place funding increases since 2010 in the context of the pressures associated with an ageing population. We then compare existing spending plans for the NHS to those implied by the political parties' manifestos at the 2017 general election and examine capital spending on the health service. Finally, we consider the longer term outlook for health spending.
Government wants both to reduce carbon emissions and to reduce 'fuel poverty'. Energy prices have risen in part because of a multitude of policies aimed at reducing emissions. There are also multiple policies aimed at ameliorating these effects. Altogether, this leads to a complex policy landscape, inefficient pricing and opaque distributional effects. In this report, we show the effects of energy price rises over the recent past, look at what current policies mean for effective carbon prices and their impact on bills, and consider the distributional consequences of a more consistent approach to carbon pricing, alongside possible changes to the tax and benefit system that could mitigate these effects.
POLICY POINTS: US policymakers considering proposals to expand public health care (such as "Medicare for all") as a means of reducing inequalities in health care access and use could learn from the experiences of nations where well‐funded universal health care systems are already in place. In England, which has a publicly funded universal health care system, the use of core inpatient services by adults 65 years and older is equal across groups defined by education level, after controlling for health status. However, variation among these groups in the use of outpatient and emergency department care developed between 2010 and 2015, a period of relative financial austerity. Based on England's experience, introducing universal health care in the United States seems likely to reduce, but not entirely eliminate, inequalities in health care use across different population groups. CONTEXT: Expanding access to health care is once again high on the US political agenda, as is concern about those who are being "left behind." But is universal health care that is largely free at the point of use sufficient to eliminate inequalities in health care use? To explore this question, we studied variation in the use of hospital care among education‐level‐defined groups of older adults in England, before and after controlling for differences in health status. In England, the National Health Service (NHS) provides health care free to all, but the growth rate for NHS funding has slowed markedly since 2010 during a widespread austerity program, potentially increasing inequalities in access and use. METHODS: Novel linkage of data from six waves (2004‐2015) of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) with participants' hospital records (Hospital Episode Statistics [HES]) produced longitudinal data for 7,713 older adults (65 years and older) and 25,864 observations. We divided the sample into three groups by education level: low (no formal qualifications), mid (completed compulsory education), and high (at least some higher ...
Policy Points US policymakers considering proposals to expand public health care (such as "Medicare for all") as a means of reducing inequalities in health care access and use could learn from the experiences of nations where well-funded universal health care systems are already in place. In England, which has a publicly funded universal health care system, the use of core inpatient services by adults 65 years and older is equal across groups defined by education level, after controlling for health status. However, variation among these groups in the use of outpatient and emergency department care developed between 2010 and 2015, a period of relative financial austerity. Based on England's experience, introducing universal health care in the United States seems likely to reduce, but not entirely eliminate, inequalities in health care use across different population groups. CONTEXT: Expanding access to health care is once again high on the US political agenda, as is concern about those who are being "left behind." But is universal health care that is largely free at the point of use sufficient to eliminate inequalities in health care use? To explore this question, we studied variation in the use of hospital care among education-level-defined groups of older adults in England, before and after controlling for differences in health status. In England, the National Health Service (NHS) provides health care free to all, but the growth rate for NHS funding has slowed markedly since 2010 during a widespread austerity program, potentially increasing inequalities in access and use. METHODS: Novel linkage of data from six waves (2004-2015) of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) with participants' hospital records (Hospital Episode Statistics [HES]) produced longitudinal data for 7,713 older adults (65 years and older) and 25,864 observations. We divided the sample into three groups by education level: low (no formal qualifications), mid (completed compulsory education), and high (at least some higher education). Four outcomes were examined: annual outpatient appointments, elective inpatient admissions, emergency inpatient admissions, and emergency department (ED) visits. We estimated regressions for the periods 2004-2005 to 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 to 2014-2015 to examine whether potential education-related inequalities in hospital use increased after the growth rate for NHS funding slowed in 2010. FINDINGS: For the study period, our sample of ELSA respondents in the low-education group made 2.44 annual outpatient visits. In comparison, after controlling for health status, we found that participants in the high-education group made an additional 0.29 outpatient visits annually (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.47). Additional outpatient health care use in the high-education group was driven by follow-up and routine appointments. This inequality widened after 2010. Between 2010 and 2015, individuals in the high-education group made 0.48 (95% CI, 0.21-0.74) more annual outpatient visits than those in the low-education (16.9% [7.5% to 26.2%] of annual average 2.82 visits). In contrast, after 2010, the high-education group made 0.04 (95% CI, -0.075 to 0.001) fewer annual ED visits than the low-education group, which had a mean of 0.30 annual ED visits. No significant differences by education level were found for elective or emergency inpatient admissions in either period. CONCLUSIONS: After controlling for demographics and health status, there was no evidence of inequality in elective and emergency inpatient admissions among the education groups in our sample. However, a period of financial budget tightening for the NHS after 2010 was associated with the emergence of education gradients in other forms of hospital care, with respondents in the high-education group using more outpatient care and less ED care than peers in the low-education group. These estimates point to rising inequalities in the use of hospital care that, if not reversed, could exacerbate existing health inequalities in England. Although the US and UK settings differ in many ways, our results also suggest that a universal health care system would likely reduce inequality in US health care use.
This report, funded by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), examines the effect of UK government policies on energy use and carbon pricing. The work was undertaken by researchers from the ESRC Centre for the Microeconomic Analysis of Public Policy at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), in collaboration with the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). The report analyses and assesses: *the rationale and objectives of energy policy; *the current policy landscape faced by UK energy users; *how current and future policy has led to inconsistencies in the implicit carbon prices faced by different users; *potential ways in which to improve policy affecting domestic and business energy users.
