Evidence in health policy? Don’t make me laugh…

This week the government told us that they weren’t going to introduce minimum alcohol pricing or plain, unbranded packets for cigarettes because there wasn’t enough ‘concrete evidence’ in the case of alcohol (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23346532) or, in the case of cigarettes, that it wanted to wait and see how things went in Australia (who are already doing this), first (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23288993). Now, if we put aside claims in the media that all of this is really about Conservative links to particular lobbyists it is using as strategists, or that is simply caving in to industry (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jul/17/minimum-unit-price-alcohol-shelved?INTCMP=SRCH), then there is the beginning of sensible claim here – that we should be basing our health policy on evidence. Surely that would be a good thing, wouldn’t it?

Well, yes it would be a good thing if we based our health policy on evidence, but there are two problems here. First, if we wait for evidence, especially on public health issues, then we won’t ever do anything new. What we need to do is experiment to find out what interventions have the best chance of working, being aware of how different contexts affect results. If we are actually serious about trying to improve public health, how about we try things, carefully evaluate them, and then introduce them more widely if they work? There will be problems around borders and boundaries (if alcohol is cheaper in one area than another we might expect this), but the extent of this can be over-stated (Scotland is more than capable of doing things differently to England it would seem), and most people, most of the time, won’t be sufficiently motivated to make enough different to jeopardise an experiment. So let’s have a go – if we are serious about improving public health, let’s try out some new thinking and see what happens.

The second problem with the claim that the government are engaged in evidence-based policymaking in health is, of course, that they’ve spent billions of pounds reorganising the NHS at a time of austerity, but based on the very flimsiest of evidence that their plans have any chance of actually making things working. Even the research the government cited in their White Paper as supporting their research (the competition-based work from the LSE) seems to have been misunderstood by them. What we have an expensive, distracting reorganization at a time when the NHS needs to save money, and also at a time when what seems to be becoming clear from the devolution of health policy across the home nations is that what health systems need to improve is stability and continuity – not continual disruption and change. The WHO report on Scotland is particularly interesting in relation to this point (http://www.euro.who.int/en/who-we-are/partners/observatory/health-systems-in-transition-hit-series/countries-and-subregions/scotland-hit-2012).

So, if we are serious about making health policy evidence-based, that doesn’t mean we should sit on our hands and wait to see what happens when other countries experiment with public health measures (where things may be very different culturally and contextually anyway), and it certainly doesn’t mean we should be reorganizing the NHS. As those things are what the government are doing, it is easy to be cynical and suggest instead, that things are being driven instead by the alcohol and tobacco industry, and by simple ideology.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Evidence in health policy? Don’t make me laugh…”

  1. xraypat Says:

    Absolutely correct Ian. Couldn’t agree more. This crowd of government shysters are interested only in their own & their pals’ profit and don’t give a damn for the people for whom they are in office. NHS changes have nothing whatsoever to do with improving service but all to do with how much they can make….the Thatcher woman made greed good and these selfish blighters have built on her ideas. She of course was a disgrace to womenkind…Nasty vindictive and still manipulating from the grave.
    I find it impossible to understand the mentality of people unable to care for those less privileged…it’s inhuman. LibDems ought to be hiding in shame….indeed some are ….as they have facilitated the abominable changes. This government was not voted for but was made from machinations between greedy Tories and LibDems who couldn’t believe their good fortune. They sold us down the river for a few posh cars and extra cash. There should have been a minority government when each policy had to be fought for and won or lost democratically.
    Can’t write any more…too sad, angry and frustrated !

  2. Stephen John Senn (@stephensenn) Says:

    The problem is that there are two meanings of the word ‘experiment’. One is the everyday sense of trying something new and the other is the scientific sense of causing a deliberate change to a system with the purpose of making a causal discovery. The first sort of experiment is not the second unless you plan carefully. I am all in favour of ‘how about we try things, carefully evaluate them, and then introduce them more widely if they work? ‘ but without explanation as to how we decide this, this is just belling the cat. So I would need to see some detail of how you propose your careful evaluation not to file this under the ‘if we all loved each other life would be better’ category. How will you judge whether things are a success? More detail please!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: