This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

This has been a lost decade for tackling health inequalities

Dr Kailash Chand

Who could disagree with Professor Sir Michael Marmot: ‘If health has stopped improving, it is a sign that society has stopped improving. When a society is flourishing, health tends to flourish.’

If you are living in poverty, you get ill quicker, more often and you die sooner. Life expectancy is flattening and declining for the poorest 10% of women. Health inequalities are widening and the North/South health gap has increased. All this increases strain on the NHS in general and general practice in particular. The latest report out today, by Professor Marmot – who I greatly admire - comes 10 years after he first published data on the growing gap between rich and poor, and between north and south, in England.

Our health is determined by a complex mix of factors including income, housing and employment, lifestyles and access to health care and other services. Professor Marmot today says: ‘If everyone in England over the age of 30 had the same low mortality as people with university education, there would be 202,000 fewer deaths before the age of 75 each year.’

Three million extra years of life saved each year. This could be multiplied all over the planet.

Lifestyle principles across the board are much more powerful than anything a doctor can do for his patients. Much more than 90% of modern diseases are preventable through education. A heart attack can cost £20,000 to treat. If it can be prevented, that has huge cost implications. I would estimate that something like 50% to 70% of my patients’ medical costs would not just be reduced but eliminated if their diets were healthier and they exercised more.

Politicians and policymakers openly recognise the relationship between state of economy, lifestyle and poor health. In his first speech as health secretary, Matt Hancock said everyone has a part to play in preventing ill health, ‘from the education we receive, to the home we live in to, to the job we do… all of this shapes our physical and mental health.’

But what has he done to walk the talk? Surely there can be no greater social injustice than people dying sooner due to poverty. Professor Marmot’s devastating report today shows that after ten years of grinding austerity, health inequalities are actually widening.

If the minister does believe this, he must agree to reversing the swathe of public health cuts

If the minister does believe this, he must agree to reversing the swathe of public health cuts to council budgets, increasing substantially primary care funding, would be a sensible place to start.

Public Health England (PHE) recently mapped mortality rates across the country so that local people and councils can see where they rank for premature deaths from the four main killers: cancer, lung disease, liver disease, and heart disease and stroke. The figures show that people living in the worst performing area, are more than twice as likely as people in prosperous areas, to die before the age of 75.

In the face of a worsening demographic picture nationally, local authorities have now been asked to find additional in-year savings of millions. This was described by the Kings Fund as ‘the falsest of false economies’ – a judgement it seems difficult to disagree with.

In addition, there will be considerable pressure on the public health function in England in coming months and years to deliver short-term savings. Perhaps the greatest impediment faced would be the reduction of funding from social care budget, causing the passage of older patients through the system to grind to a halt.

Public health interventions deployed over the short term that potentially offer quick savings are an appropriate part of tackling the public health challenge. But NHS England should not lose focus on longer term and potentially genuinely transformative interventions directed, for example, toward changing unhealthy behaviours and addressing the social determinants of health.

Ultimately, like any other part of the planet, patients in this county hope for a health and social care system with both the energy and passion to bring about the kind of radical strategic change the UK needs to become a healthier and fairer society – which is how the World Health Organisation defines a healthy country.

Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock must tackle health inequalities if they are serious about saving the NHS.

Dr Kailash Chand OBE is a retired GP in Tameside

Rate this article  (5 average user rating)

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Readers' comments (10)

  • Alternative headline:
    This has been a decade of Conservative Government

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To coin a phrase. 10 years of Tory austerity and nhs reforms have almost destroyed it producing cracks that are so big they can be “seen from space”

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • well, if we banned high calorie food, limited access to red meat and alcohol, reduced salt in food and discounted costs for exercise classes and gave vouchers for kids to attend free swimming lessons, provided dietitians in supermarkets to teach people how to cook and read food labels, banned smoking completely, ban fast food shops within 2 miles of any school or college and introduced cycle only lanes in towns, then yeah, we would save lives. Happens in other countries. However, in the UK, people don't want to pay more taxes and feel its an infringement of their civil liberties to be banned from killing themselves. you reap what you sow. otherwise the decimation of public health funding, which should be responsible for all of this, not us, tells you everything you need to know about the UK. Most people, really don't care, until its too late.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • And the paradox of it all is that the governmental approach allows this "assisted decrepitude" to flourish but withdraws the right to assistance to actually end ones sorry life at the very last.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Somebody made an argument to me that "anorexia is a lifestyle choice not a naturally occurring disease". I was convinced.

    Why do leftist dunderheads like the author believe that absolute equality has anything to do with the human condition

    People make free choices.( good thing) Those choices shape their lives (accept it)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • work is best way to improve life styles

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Ivan Benett

    I agree with Kailash and would add that the biggest impact on the NHS has resulted from swinging cuts to social care. This has limited our ability to prevent people needing admission to hospital, and impeded our ability to discharge people home. Longer lengths of unnecessary stays lead to exponential increases in hospital acquire morbidity.
    However, dwarfing all of this has been how austerity generally has impacted on determinants of health, in particular poverty, clean air, and social resilience.
    Boris has made big promises. He needs to deliver now. I hope these pages (amongst many others) will hold his Government to account.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Austerity my arse, Ivan. Fake news alert: spending has been increasing, debt and deficit growing, population growing despite increasing concerns about it and a below replacement rate for 'native' British i.e demand. You seriously don't know your economics. The bigger the state, the poorer you are, simples.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Ivan Benett

    "Christopher Ho | GP Partner/Principal02 Mar 2020 10:57am
    "Austerity my arse, Ivan."
    At least you make me laugh! Seriously, you don't believe there has been an austerity agenda? Seriously, you don't believe it's had an impact on health and social care? Seriously you believe a 'big state', by which I think you mean more public spending on public services, leads to poverty. And you reckon I don't understand economics? I'd say don't make me laugh, but it's too late.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yes. Go look at the Treasury figures. And here's a BBC article no less.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42572110

    Why the sharp jump in those middle years you might ask? Well, it was a Blair govt, and he relaxed immigration. MAYBE that's contributing to the increase in demand? I see you fail to address it. It's certainly not coming from the below-replacement population of native Brits. And yes, big state leads to poverty! For every govt employee, that's 1 less person who could be working in the private sector generating wealth/taxes. Everything you see around you is paid for by the private sector... How's Venezuela under Maduro? So yes you don't understand economics. Laugh all you like, I only care if you are willing to address truth/facts.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say