CHAIN 22
LENGTH 2 REPETITION 0.0 SCORE 0.0
course 1 trend 1
How to pay for the NHS Britain 's health service is underfunded .
More money is part of the remedy - - but only part .
MOST people in Britain think that the National Health Service is on its knees .
This view goes far to explain the Tories ' unpopularity: the NHS is the part of the welfare state that Britons care most about .
Its perceived deterioration is something they find hard to forgive .
The trouble is , when it comes to improving the health service , voters may will the end but they do not will the means .
People appear to share Labour 's scepticism about the government 's " internal market " in medical services: using competition to squeeze more out of given resources has not worked , they reckon .
But they are also unwilling to see their taxes go up .
Hence , Tony Blair has promised to stick to the Tories ' public - spending plans for at least two years .
These plans entail an even tighter squeeze on cash for the NHS than the service has endured up to now .
So what is to be done ?
The Tories persist in arguing that all is well: since 1979 spending on health has risen from 25 billion to 43 billion at today 's prices .
True - - but beside the point .
The demands on the NHS have risen , and will continue to rise , much faster than that .
What makes health care unique among public services is the way an underlying trend of rising expectations interacts with new technology .
As people get richer , they want better .
Then , in health care , new technology tends to raise costs not lower them , because new treatments are usually dearer than old ones .
On top of this , the more the NHS succeeds , the dearer it becomes: extend a life this year and you create a new patient to be treated in due course .
People are anyway living longer ( thanks not only to the NHS but also to better diet and housing ) ; they need more health care as a result .
All of which explains why , relative to demand , the resources devoted to health care in Britain have indeed been falling .
A strategic choice will have to be made .
One course is to let the NHS wither , delivering an ever narrower set of services to an ever poorer clientele , as increasing numbers take up private medical insurance .
This process , despite Tory denials , is already well under way .
The government announced this week plans to subsidise private insurance for long - term care of the elderly: another step in that direction .
Labour objected , but none too loudly .
If what Mr Blair says about taxes and spending is to be believed , his government may actually have to accelerate the trend towards privatised health care .
Ultimately , that may be the only way to bridge the gap between ends and means .
But such a course is worth resisting .
The goal of high - quality health care for all regardless of income is a noble one , worth defending .
And the full - blown private - insurance alternative , as adopted in the United States , is hardly inspiring .
It resolves the political dilemma , to be sure , reconciling ends and means .
But it leaves millions without adequate access to health care , and the majority who fare well under the system are obliged to pay an extraordinarily high cost for the privilege .
The alternative is to revive the NHS .
If there is to be any hope of this , the Tories ' management reforms will need to be consolidated and extended - - not reversed , as Labour says it intends .
Then the task will be to bring demand and supply into line .
More resources will be needed , but demand must be checked at the same time .
Two ideas commend themselves .
One is to make greater use of charges .
Patients could be asked to pay for such things as hospital rooms with greater privacy and better " hotel " facilities , and for a variety of non - essential procedures such as cosmetic surgery , treatment for varicose veins , fertility treatment and so forth .
New technology , in most ways the enemy of health - care cost - control , could help: smart - card technology will soon make it possible to apply means - testing to such charges , and to vary the cost passed on to patients according to the price and urgency of the treatment .
The other approach , which would work best alongside charges , is to introduce a hypothecated health - care tax .
In the current year , the cost of the NHS will be equivalent to roughly 60% of the yield from income tax - - far more than most people suppose .
Designate that sum as a health tax ( in effect , a parallel income tax , with future rates to be set independently ) and spend the proceeds solely on the NHS .
In the past we have argued against earmarking taxes in this way: it raises a host of budgetary difficulties .
But in health care there is a benefit that has come to seem overriding: it would force governments and voters to confront the question of ends and means .
To plead that more must be spent on health care without specifying where the money is to come from would henceforth convince no one .
A demand for more to be spent would be seen as a demand for higher taxes - - which is what , as a rule , it is .
Greater use of charges would reduce the demand for resources and increase their supply simultaneously .
What would be the effect of a hypothecated health tax ?
So confused are people about what they require of government in this area that it is difficult to say .
Perhaps they would call for a big rise in taxes , given the assurance that the money would be spent on the NHS. Conceivably , they would call for a cut in health spending , once they saw on their paycheck how much it was already costing .
In either case , they would begin to think hard about the demands that the NHS can reasonably be expected to meet .
That would be new - - and long overdue .