So they spend slightly more than double what they did in 1955, when the cost of providing healthcare has gone up nearly 4x due to the Beaumol effect. That doesn't seem good? You'd expect the service to gradually get worse in that case, wouldn't you?
Double in GDP terms means a massive increase in real terms because GDP is so much higher now. Our GDP in real terms has increased 5x in that period, so double funding relative to GDP is a 10x real terms increase.
The point from an affordability perspective is, has NHS funding relative to GDP actually fallen since the end of the last labour government? The answer is no, it’s about the same.
Now it’s reasonable to argue we should be spending more of our GDP on health care, but we’re in the middle of a major global inflation crisis. The recent rise in NI which partly funds health care was slated by the left. How is the country going to afford a significant increase in health spending right now?
So why should the Baumol effect apply so heavily to healthcare? It's true 1 on 1 patient care has limited options to increase productivity, but is that sufficient to explain it?
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/05/wh...