Live healthy or lose out?

January 9, 2013 10:46 am

Last week Westminster council and LGiU hit the headlines for a report about the role of local government in public health. Amongst a number of proposed innovations, the report looks at how councils could use incentives and rewards to encourage residents to lead healthier lifestyles. The report suggests that supplementing existing benefits to incentivise healthy behaviour could be a way of reducing the chronic illnesses that are so expensive to treat.

There has been mixed reaction to this idea from across the political spectrum, and the report gained a lot of publicity. Questions were raised about the focus on obese people; what about smokers and drinkers, for example? What about non-benefit claimants? Would some councils go further by penalising people who refuse exercise? Much of the publicity was inaccurate, LGiU were not suggesting reducing people’s benefits if they did not exercise.

I, like many, would not advocate penalties if a person encouraged to exercise refused to do so. Incentivising individuals with extra benefits to encourage exercise as LGiU suggested, is a different proposition. Wherever you sit in the debate, it has opened up discussions about the role of the state in individual choices about health and behaviour. Critically though, it reinforces the significant challenge ahead that needs to be addressed. The demand for public services is rising and in health, those at the acute or chronic end of the spectrum are costly to treat. Coupled with this however, public finances now and in the future will struggle to cope with these growing demands.

This leaves Labour with stark and urgent choices about how to close this gap. This weekend we saw Andy Burnham urge the government to consider introducing legal limits on salt, sugar and fat contents in food. There is a compelling argument for this sort of approach; but localised responses must also be part of the solution, given the significant role of councils in public health. This could involve, for instance, reductions in the cost of providing services through making efficiencies; reducing the demand for services; or rationing services through means testing.

These choices may be unpalatable for many on the Left and may bring uncomfortable tensions for councils; but they will increasingly become a reality. Fairness is at the heart of the Labour movement and we want to support the most vulnerable through a set of core, universal services. However, we will only be able to provide them if savings can be made elsewhere. But it is in how Labour councils make these savings that is the crucial question.

Making efficiencies is already a necessity for all councils, and the solution needs to go beyond this. Many would argue that a sensible way to manage this could be to reduce demand for the most expensive services. In some areas Labour will have to think about how to move people away from service dependency to self-support. Investing in prevention to save later could be part of this – although this is a challenge when councils are being charged with making budget cuts upfront. The other risk is that the state gets trapped in a vicious circle of cost where trying to reduce demand on expensive services itself costs too much money and increases demand in the system elsewhere.

If Labour is to deliver on the fairness agenda and ensure that universal services are available we need to find a way to reduce demand in the most costly service areas. Helping people choose healthier lifestyles and investing in prevention will be part of the solution; but moving towards self-support is where the real savings could come in. Crucially however, Labour needs to do this in a way that protects the most vulnerable.

Laura Wilkes is a Policy Manager at Local Government Information Unit. She writes here in a personal capacity

  • Quiet_Sceptic

    Councils have got to prove themselves as guardians of public health, Jamie Oliver and his school meals campaign showed that many councils had little innate concern for good diet. The idea of establishing healthy eating habits in childhood wasn’t even on their radar.

    Just last year we saw a council banning a school girl for daring to scrutinise the unhealthy food it served up to pupils. Perhaps they should get their own house in order before we let them start scrutinising the rest of us.

  • MrSauce

    I was trying to be more positive in my posts but this resolution is already collapsing, and we’re only in January.

    The idea of legal limits on fat, sugar and salt content in food is clearly nonsense.
    How do we deal with foodstuffs such as ‘salt’, ‘sugar’ and olive oil (i.e. ‘fat’)?
    Do we ban dairy produce such as butter, cream and cheese?
    Will honey be criminalised?
    Dried fruit only available in the dark corners of nightclubs?
    Chocolate only available for research?
    Sniffer dogs hunting-out salty snacks brought in from overseas?

    Also, the adverb is ‘healthily’. It is sometimes hard to believe that we are 142 years on from the first Education Act.

Latest

  • News Anyone for an Easter (Cl)Egg?

    Anyone for an Easter (Cl)Egg?

    The Mirror today have a story about a Labour attack on Nick Clegg – a chocolate “Easter Clegg”. It’s ‘completely hollow, melts under pressure and leaves bad taste in mouth”. The box also contains a “free mug”. Here’s a photo: Seemingly the Easter Clegg is “100% Authentically Conservative” and should be stored in David Cameron’s pocket. Meanwhile, both The Sun and The Telegraph claim this morning that Miliband would be happy to appoint Nick Clegg as Deputy PM in the event […]

    Read more →
  • News Ed Miliband’s Easter Message

    Ed Miliband’s Easter Message

    Here’s Ed Miliband’s Easter Message – touching on his recent trip to the Holy Land, and the work Christians do in their communities across Britain: “As Christians across Great Britain and the rest of the world gather to celebrate the most important event in the Christian faith, I would like to wish you all a happy Easter. “It was a privilege for me to visit the Holy Land in the lead up to Easter this year. I will be thinking […]

    Read more →
  • Comment UKIP’s attitude to accountability should worry us all

    UKIP’s attitude to accountability should worry us all

    UKIP’s reaction to the allegations over the use of the party’s EU funding has been telling. It tells us that they are not yet ready to take the step up from a being an assortment of oddballs and cranks to a serious political party. After The Times ran their front page on Tuesday, UKIP’s immediate reaction was to denounce the paper as a mouthpiece for the establishment, rather than bother to refute what they felt was incorrect about the article. […]

    Read more →
  • Featured In praise of Simon Danczuk

    In praise of Simon Danczuk

    Simon Danczuk has led the front pages this week with his explosive account of how an MP could hide a lifetime of abusing children. The Westminster reaction to his Cyril Smith allegations? Embarrassed coughs. Good on Simon for having the courage to speak his mind. Since his 2010 election, itself a feat of endurance, he’s demonstrated a forensic mind and a canny eye for a story. He represents a diminishing Westminster breed, a ‘character’ who speaks with an authentic voice […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Swinging The Axe – Why hiring Axelrod means Miliband is going big

    Swinging The Axe – Why hiring Axelrod means Miliband is going big

    David Axelrod has been hired by Labour to work on the party’s general election campaign. First – let me get the excitement out. David Axelrod is the biggest star in the world when it comes to political campaigning. Nevermind “guru”, this guy is a campaigning deity in his own right. From Barack Obama’s Chicago kitchen table to the Oval Office was a journey that few thought possible, but Axelrod managed the shift from state senator, to Senator, to President in […]

    Read more →