An algorithm a day will keep the doctor at bay

[Northerner]

“In the UK, we are spending £97bn of public money on treating disease and only £8bn preventing it,” the health secretary Matt Hancock said last week. “You don’t have to be an economist to see those numbers don’t stack up.” But Matt Hancock actually is an economist, so how does he know? I suppose he might have canvassed the views of some non-economists, but I’m sceptical about how rigorous that survey can have been.

“Hi Chris, Linda…” (good to get a gender balance) “… have you got a second?” Hancock may have asked his aides. “Of course, minister.” “You did classics and history respectively, right?” “That’s right.” (Chris is doing all the talking – come on, Linda!) “Great, so we’re spending £97bn on treating disease and only £8bn preventing it. Can you see that those numbers don’t stack up?” “Oh yes, absolutely,” says Chris. “Yes indeed, minister,” adds Linda.

It is possible that on such flimsy evidence rests the secretary of state’s claim that “you don’t have to be an economist to see those numbers don’t stack up”. And obviously they do stack up. As in, you could stack them up – you could add them together. They probably are stacked up in various summaries of government spending: stacked up under the heading “Health”. You don’t have to be an economist to see that if you stacked them up, that would make £105bn.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/11/an-algorithm-a-day-will-keep-the-doctor-at-bay

 

[mikeyB]

He’s not very good at the big picture, Hancock. If he’s that fussed about preventative medicine, it costs money.

Or, it’s free. In Scotland, as in England, one of the big health problems is alcohol, across all social classes. So in Scotland, they introduced 50p per unit alcohol pricing, much to the dismay of booze companies, but to the delight of shops because they get the money - it’s not a tax. I’ve no doubt they are plotting to do the same with sweeties and unhealthy food.

Of course, they wouldn’t do such a thing in England because they would try to impose such a thing as a tax, to pull in some money, but the problem with that is you get the industry and the shopkeepers fighting it.

Hancock has a PPE degree. He’s rather stuck in the philosophy element rather than the economics.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Why's he talking about this now?

My (perhaps too cynical) thought was that he's warming us up to the idea that the NHS should take over the role of public health with (we can assume) not much extra money (given that they're being given this 20 billion, eventually).

But it might just be displacement activity: he knows he can't really do much about his department (because anything useful would involve more money), but feels he ought to say something. (Arguably a mistake to talk about PHE given that that budget has in the recent past been cut in order to give more money to the NHS. Maybe he didn't notice that.)