NHS patients face worse survival rates than other rich nations, report says

NHS patients face some of the worst survival rates in the developed world despite record funding for the health service, The Telegraph reported, citing a major report.

An analysis of 22 wealthy nations found that the health service ranked almost at the bottom of a league table for so-called “treatable mortality”, or premature deaths that should be avoided with timely and effective care. Only the US performed worse.

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), which published the report, said record spending increases had been “poorly targeted” and predominantly spent on staff and pay, rather than on other crucial resources such as diagnostic equipment.

UK health spending is now at a record high of £242bn, up from £179bn a decade ago.

On Sunday, Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, said he would not accept any cuts to the health budget but had a responsibility to ensure the money was “well-spent”, given the pressures on other parts of government.

He told the BBC: “We’ve got a budget the size of the government of Portugal, and this is one of the reasons why, when I’m making choices about the investment and modernisation of the NHS, I’m always doing so with this responsibility to make sure that not just the extra money, but all of the money going into the NHS is well-spent.

“Because there are pressures in other parts of government [and] we are having to make choices and trade-offs.”

While NHS funding has risen in recent years, the IPPR report highlighted long-standing underinvestment in infrastructure.

It found that the UK lagged behind comparable countries on the basic capacity needed to treat patients, including hospital beds and diagnostic equipment, which may explain the poorer access to care and worse survival rates.

Health spending ‘poorly targeted’

Britain also performed worse than average on survival in the 30 days after a heart attack, while only the US had worse outcomes for “treatable mortality”.

The IPPR said that health service spending had been “poorly targeted”, leaving it with significantly fewer scanners than comparable countries, as well as far fewer beds.

Britain has 19 MRI, CT and PET scanners per million people compared with around 50 in other tax-funded health services and an average of 68 in countries with social insurance systems.

Overall, the research found higher levels of patients reporting that their medical needs were not being met in tax-funded systems, with the UK ranking among the worst performers, behind only Finland and Canada.

Such health systems were more likely to have patients report dissatisfaction with waiting times for specialist care and difficulties accessing care, though quality of care outcomes were broadly similar across funding models.

The IPPR report challenged the growing political debate over whether the NHS should move to a European-style insurance system, coming to the conclusion that such a shift would be a “pointless distraction”.

It said that longstanding underinvestment in infrastructure had left the NHS with fewer physical assets, including lower numbers of hospital beds and diagnostic machines per head of population, than other wealthy countries.

This lack of capacity was cited as a key driver of long waiting times and poorer outcomes, because it contributes to delays in diagnosis and treatment for patients.

It found that capital spending in the UK – covering buildings, equipment and technology – remained around half the level seen in comparable countries.

Performance ‘varies widely’ among similar health systems

The report also suggested a broader pattern of short-termism in tax-funded systems such as the NHS, where governments prioritise day-to-day pressures over long-term investment.

Despite these weaknesses, the analysis found no consistent evidence that insurance-based systems outperformed tax-funded ones overall.

Performance varied widely within both models, with some tax-funded systems – particularly in Scandinavia – matching or exceeding the best insurance-based systems.

Tax-funded systems were also found to have advantages, including lower administrative costs and fewer financial barriers for patients.

However, the report suggested these strengths had not translated into strong performance in the UK, because of long-standing failures to invest in capacity or tackle social care.

There is a growing debate over the future of the NHS funding model, with some arguing that a shift to social insurance could improve results.

Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, has repeatedly called for Britain to consider a French-style social insurance system and has argued that the current funding model is “wrong”.

Sajid Javid, the former health secretary, has also argued for a shift towards a European-style system combining insurance and state support.

However, the think tank said that without a change in the way funds were targeted, the NHS would continue to lag behind its peers regardless of how it was funded.

Sebastian Rees, head of health at the IPPR, said: “The NHS’s challenges are real – but they are the result of a decade of underinvestment and choices on how money is spent, not the funding model itself.”