STOP REFORM UK

The NHS

Reform UK’s 2024 election manifesto claimed “An extra £17bn for NHS”

The details of the NHS manifesto claims include:


1. Increased NHS Funding

  • Reform UK promised an additional £17bn per year for the NHS, a lot more than other parties. Conservatives proposed around £1bn extra, Labour around £2bn, and Lib Dems £5.8bn extra by 2028/29.
  • Response: The additional £17bn could be a bit increase in funding. However, the details are missing of how this money would be allocated, whether it would go into hiring more staff, improving equipment, or tackling waiting lists.


2. Reform UK’s Bold Claim on NHS Waiting Lists

  • Eradicating NHS waiting lists in two years is a significant and ambitious promise.
  • The NHS is currently facing one of its most severe backlogs in history, with millions waiting for treatments and procedures.
  • Analysis: Eradicating the waiting lists in such a short time would likely require a major overhaul of NHS operations, possibly requiring additional resources, staff likely immigrants, infrastructure changes, and coordination with the private sector. The success of this would depend heavily on the speed and effectiveness of implementing new policies. No details are given.


3. Private Sector Integration

  • Reform UK suggested increasing private sector involvement, with a 20% tax relief for private healthcare providers and insurers. Reform claims this would alleviate pressure on NHS services by drawing on the resources and capacity of the private sector.
  • Analysis: Critics like the Nuffield Trust argue that this could divert money from the public sector, ultimately harming NHS budgets. There’s also the concern that this could lead to a shift of NHS staff to the private sector, exacerbating staffing shortages and undermining public healthcare. Furthermore, such a shift could further privatize healthcare, potentially increasing inequality in access to care.


4. Adopting a New Funding Model

  • Reform UK advocated for a new NHS funding model, citing countries like France, which uses an insurance-based system. They highlight that  many European neighbours, those countries tend to spend more on healthcare.
  • Analysis: The comparison with France (and other countries like Germany and Norway) is important as it brings the conversation to the broader debate of how health systems should be financed. However, moving toward an insurance-based system in the UK would be a controversial move, as the UK’s National Health Service is deeply rooted in principles of universal access and state funding. It would be challenging to shift from the current system to something more akin to private insurance without facing significant opposition and cost increases.


5. Comparing Health Spending Across Countries

  • The OECD data shows that health spending per capita is significantly higher in countries like Germany, Norway, and France compared to the UK.
    • Germany: $8,011 (£6,309)
    • Norway: $7,771 (£6,120)
    • France: $6,630 (£5,229)
    • UK: $5,493 (£4,326)
  • Analysis: This shows that the UK’s spending on healthcare is relatively low compared to these countries, which may be a contributing factor to the NHS’s struggles. Increasing funding to bring the UK’s spending in line with European counterparts could help improve outcomes.

(Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqll1edxgw4o)

Farage has repeatedly said that he wants to replace the NHS with a US insurance based healthcare system that prioritises the profits of private healthcare companies over patients needs. In 2025 Farage has said he is “open to anything” when it comes to replacing Britain’s NHS with “an insurance-based model”. Also in 2025, Farage has said he suggested he wanted to see some form of means-testing rather than the universal model which has been in place for nearly 80 years.