GUERNSEY spent less than the UK per resident on healthcare for the first time, according to Dr David Jeffs (pictured).
In his report, released today, Dr Jeffs states that in 2007 – ‘a year of constraint’ – Guernsey spent £1,966 per capita on total healthcare compared to £1,984 in the UK.
‘Both these figures were in the broad range for other European countries: £1,600 to £2,400 per capita per annum,’ he said.
Guernsey has a relatively high gross domestic product per capita and total government revenue is low, at around 20%, compared with 35% to 55% of GDP in 2005.
The island’s total government health spend as a percentage of public revenue is comparatively high, at 32.9%.
‘That means there is only limited scope to absorb rising healthcare costs,’ said Dr Jeffs.
‘However, health economists increasingly account for improved population health, not just as a financial cost, but also as an economic benefit.‘Certainly for Guernsey, a healthy, productive and creative population can only improve our overall competitiveness and sense of community well-being,’ he said.
Dr Jeffs reports that life expectancy at birth is the end result of a number of variables and not just healthcare expenditure per capita.
However, he said countries such as Iceland spend a lot on healthcare and enjoy a relatively high life expectancy, while others such as Luxembourg and the US also spend large amounts and do not enjoy the same.
‘Some, such as the UK, Germany, New Zealand and France, spend relatively less, but have a lower life expectancy at birth,’ said Dr Jeffs.
‘A fortunate few – Japan, Guernsey, Australia, Sweden – have relatively low healthcare costs, but are fortunate to enjoy greater life expectancy.’
When previously calculated in 2004, life expectancy at birth in Guernsey was 80.4 years, which was among the top 10 in the world.
Article posted on 3rd September, 2008 - 2.29pm
Loading ...
4 Article Comments
Guernsey may well have spent less than the UK on health provision but what Dr Jeffs seems to have forgotten is that the primary health care on this island is privatised. This means the onus is on the individual to pay except in circumstances where families/individuals find themselves on such low pay that they are entitled to benefits.
Therefore, all the island is paying for is secondary healthcare: i.e. in-hospital and specialist care, which is excellent with short waiting lists - but does somewhat skew the analysis of healthcare costs borne by the taxpayer.
The UK spends about half as much per capita as France does on their System.
Still we can ship most of them out if they get ill!
Hi Merlin
My understanding is that the per capita figures quoted in these kind of analyses include public AND private spending (there is private spending in the UK too, just mostly on health insurance). So the money we spend on GP visits is included in the Guernsey average that Dr Jeffs is quoting.
But maybe Dr Jeffs could enlighten us as to how much of the £1966 is from our taxes and how much is from health insurance policies, paying for GP visits etc? Both here and in the UK? That would give us the ‘government spending’ comparison that you are rightly after.
Tuesday
I believe that Tuesday makes some sound points.
I was intrigued by the reference of David Jeffs that “The island’s total government health spend as a percentage of public revenue is comparatively high, at 32.9%. ‘That means there is only limited scope to absorb rising healthcare costs,’ said Dr Jeffs.
Well its even more limited since the fiance industry was given almost £100 million each year. I wonder if Dr Jeffs perentage includes or excludes the £100 million of revenue sacrificed in Zero Ten?