Health Inequalities in Britain - Case Study Example

Health inequalities in Britain At first the term health inequities is quite confusing, generally, it refers to the status of health amongst individuals. Simply put, some people are born with superior constitutions than others. In this case, it refers to the distinction between social groups in the acquisition of health benefits and also to the overall state of health between socioeconomic classes (Graham, 2004). Health cannot be quantified in a way; however ‘inequality’ pertaining to health can be associated with financial aspects. Health inequalities can also mean situations in which there is a poor distribution of finances and the limits that are imposed on the health benefits received depending on the person’s financial and social status (Graham, 2004). Britain’s Office for National Statistics mentions that the country’s subject were more well-off in almost all aspects, but these trends in lifestyles are not constant and are not distributed equally (National Medical News Today, 2006). It is shown that through time Britain’s subjects are healthier than in any point in their history. But some statistics also show that the life expectancy, risks of pregnancy and other aspects of British lifestyles are slowly being improved over time but the dilemma of unequal distribution of health benefits is still a problem. Also as the middle and upper class subjects have improved their health lifestyles, the health conditions of the poor slowly decrease (Graham and Kelly, 2004). Although the British government has meant to eradicate the problem of health inequalities, it is often not up to the task (Medical News Today, 2005). In a report by the British Department of Health, people on the lower brackets of society have lower life expectancies in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. It is estimated that the difference between the life expectancies of wealthy individuals are 7 to 8 years longer than lower class subjects (BBC, 2005). Also the ONS reported that development between privileged and underprivileged areas are significantly different. For example, while the less privileged has had higher employment rates in the recent years, the unequal distribution of wealth and other benefits has increased (Medical News Today, 2006). Male professionals working on less laborious jobs have longer life expectancies than manual workers. In a survey made by the ONS, tit showed that the difference between the life expectancies of these two classes is 7 years apart in favour of professionals. It has been found that the gap between life expectancies grew to 2 years (Office for national Statistics, 2004). In another study conducted by the ONS showed that there is a 43% percent case of life expectancies were attributed to lower class male subjects than professional ones. For females, the difference is about 36% (Office for National Statistics, 2004). Also life expectancy in women also has increased differences but it appears to be less dramatic than that for men. An average of 5.7 years difference in life expectancies for women in the lower and upper classes was noticed, a six-month improvement since the 70’s era. The income status and educational attainment has also improved for women as of this moment (Medical News Today, 2006). Since the 1980’ to 1990’s the space between inequalities have widened and each government administration has shown concern again and again. one such action was executed in February 2001, were the government announced that it will reduce infant death and other complications on every socio-economic class and also to improve the quality of life for it’s subjects by 2010 (Medical News Today, 2005). Life expectancy at birth: by social class and sex, 1997-99, England & Wales (Source: ONS). The gap between the rich and the poor is constantly getting bigger in the UK, most notably during the 80’s and 90’s and these differences are reflected in the differences in health benefits received, mortality rates and other health aspects.1983 was seen as the worst time in Britain’s period of inequality and the government does not desire to go back at it by improving their health and other services (Joseph Row tree Foundation, 2000). Wealth is the single biggest factor in making the big difference between the unequal distributions of health services. The good news is income has increased in the 1980’s up to more current times. The differences between income brackets is evident in the fact that the lowest classes of society (10% of the population) receives only 3% of national income while those in the highest classes receive about 10% income per quarter. Included in this definition wealth are savings, current income, potential assets etc. This dissimilarity in the distribution of wealth has been going in since the 70’s and was seen at its worse during the 1995-96 periods. During the 1990’s up to 2000, income earned by the upper class increased from 47% to 54%, with those in the upper 1% increased from 18% in 1990 to 23% in 2000. This inequity in income distribution has dramatic effects on health benefits between the rich and poor. These trends are a shadow of things to come, and it is seen as a bad sign for the future. The British Social Attitudes Survey in 2002 revealed that 82% of the correspondents believe that this difference in the incomes between the rich and poor are very high. And although the Labour Department has also accomplished in raising the standards of blue-collar workers, inequalities still exist and more often than not will be carried on to the next generation (Medical News Today, 2005). 30 years has passed since the 70’s and there is still a wide space between the health of British subjects, which is generally affected by the income bracket difference between the rich and poor (Shaw et al, 1999; Smith et al, 2002). Sickness and other health matters have been increasing as the rate of inequality also increased since this period especially in the 1990’s. From 1990 to 1997, the trends in the improvement of income have increased. But after 1997, it was evident that the state of the economy is the primary cause of the increasing gap in income rather than the government’s efforts to redistribute income amongst the masses (Smith et al, 2002). Due to these inequalities in health and welfare distribution, mortality between men (especially young men) has increased... (Shaw et al, 1999; Smith et al, 2002). This fact implies that this increase in mortality will also be reflected in the generations to come. This will even complicate the plans that the British government has laid out to eliminate health inequalities. What is worst is that these inequalities affects men who have established families (Lakin, 2001; Smith et al, 2002), particularly those with young adults in their broods. As these young adults go through their lives the same status of health inequalities will be passed unto them and it seems that all government effort will be futile for generations to come (Smith et al, 2002). Health and other sorts of inequalities is one of the causes of early mortality in British men since the 1970’s up to the present. (Shaw et al, 1999; Smith et al, 2002). This trend in mortality is attributed to the difference in income which has seen some very drastic changes in the past few years (Shaw et al, 1999; Smith et al, 2002), the current British administration believes that it has a solution for this situation and has set its goals and objectives to eliminate these inequalities. Alan Milbur, the current Health Minister as of these articles writing states that their administration not only aims to improve the health status of its subjects especially those who are in dire need and underprivileged (Milburn, 1999; Smith et al, 2002). The goals and targets have been established for the improvement of public health, and a monitoring system such as that of from the ONS and the General Register Office (in Scotland) are now implemented. Presented is the data for mortality running through the closing of 1999. The data covers records of deaths in England and Wales and each set of data is provided in increments of two years (Smith et al, 2002). Differences between ethnic groups were also recorded by the data. Reposts reveal that Pakistani and Bangladeshi residents have the poorest ratings in health and income ratings in 2001. On the other hand, Chinese minorities have been reported to have the higher health benefit shares than other groups. This shows that even minority groups residing in the UK are also affected by poor health quality standards (Office for national Statistics, 2004). Age-standardised limiting long-term illness: by ethnic group and sex, April 2001, England & Wales (Source ONS). Mortality (includes infant mortality and life expectancy) is promised to be reduced by the government by at most 10% between the period of 1997 to 2010. There have been reports that the gap between the rich and poor subjects has increased but the good news is that housing and child care conditions have been given more attention more than ever according to government advisory groups. On of these groups, the Scientific Reference Group of Health Inequalities has reported that heart and other disease cases have been reduced (BBC, 2005). Initially, the government’s health improvement plans were rather scattered and unorganised but these policies are being consolidated. The development of extensive processes and structures of health improvement for the local and national levels. The development of these systems have been addressed in the which came from the new Public Service Agreements (PSAs), 2002 Spending Review, the Department of Healths Consultation for 2002)and the Treasurys Cross-cutting spending review on health inequalities for 2002. Government agencies has realized the importance of these old and new health policies, and hey have been taking measure ever since in the implementation of these policies (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2003). Both the British government and her subjects could help one another in the elimination of health inequalities. The government should implement policies that could save the maximum number of lives as well as improving wealth distribution, employment rates and the elimination of child abuse and poverty. The proper distribution of wealth should be of top priority as well as the elimination of child poverty. 1,400 child deaths should be prevented annually, a total of about 92% unnecessary child deaths to deal with this (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2000). A map of the lives saved in the UK especially in its urban areas (Fig.1). Each dot is a representation of the population of respondents causing a distortion in the appearance of the map. It illustrates how the effects of government policies laid upon by the government can be redistributed without the need for pinpoint targeting. Also shown are the various effects that the improvements like better employment can bring upon on the general populace (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2000). About 56% of unnecessary deaths can be prevented and about 10% of mortalities for people under the age of 65 if the combinations of the effects of these policies would be properly implemented. It should be noted that the distribution of wealth should not be done. Wealth distribution should not be done sparingly as this would only make a slight, almost insignificant change in the health of the subjects. Thus living in a more stable, well balanced society would have a very momentous encouragement of the good health of the populace. High employment also increases the morale of employees and this in effect; shape the eventual good health of subjects. However these aspects are not counted upon the approximation of the lives kept. There seems to be an indirect link between unemployment and bad health conditions. Also, more attention should be given unto child abuse and poverty as it would prevent unnecessary death between children aged 0-14 (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2000). Ultimately, the solution in the struggle against health inequalities is in the improvement in the quality of lives amongst the people. It seems that the link between a positive working environment, wealth distribution, care for the children and family etc would lead to the eventual improvement of the country’s health conditions. Both the government and people should go hand-in-hand in the fight against inequalities in all of its forms. Neither can do this daunting task alone, and with the cooperation and understanding between the two parties, a harmonious relationship could ensue nor could conflicts be lessened. In fat the term ‘health inequalities’ exists with in the minds of those who think that are at all times under mined by the world. This mode of thinking should be avoided and instead a positive mind set should be attained in order to achieve an agreement. After all, health is wealth. As a population’s health gets better so will the overall socio-economic structure of the country will follow through. An administration should keep this in mind to maintain peace and harmony among its subjects. Reference List BBC. (2005). Health inequality gap widening [online]. British Broadcasting Co. UK. Available from:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4139440.stm [Accessed 26 March 2006]. Graham, Hilary. (2004). SOCIOECONOMIC INEQUALITIES IN HEALTH IN THE UK: EVIDENCE ON PATTERNS AND DETERMINANTS. Institute for Health Research Lancaster University. UK. Graham, Hilary and Michael P Kelly. (2004). Health. Health Development Agency. London, UK. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (2000). Reducing health inequalities in Britain [online]. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Available from: http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/ socialpolicy/980.asp [Accessed 26 March 2006]. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (2003). Tackling health inequalities since the Acheson Inquiry. Available from: http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/363.asp [Accessed 26 March 2006]. Lakin C. (2001). The effects of taxes and benefits on household income, 1999–2000. Economic Trends ;569:35–74. Medical News Today. (2005). Health Inequalities Continue To Widen, Despite Government Rhetoric, UK. [online]. Available from:http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php? newsid=23590&nfid=rssfeeds [Accessed 26 March 2006]. Medical News Today. (2006). ONS report: Health inequality has grown, 2003-2006. Medical News Today. Available from: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews. php?newsid=17552 [Accessed 26 March 2006]. Milburn A. (1999). Killer that shames Britain. Observer ;Dec 12:13. Office for National Statistics. (2001). Longitudinal Study, Office for National Statistics Census 2001, Office for National Statistics, UK. Office for National Statistics. (2004). Manual workers die earlier than others. Office for National Statistics. Available from: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1007 [Accessed 26 March 2006]. Shaw M, Dorling D, Gordon D, et al. (1999). The widening gap: health inequalities and policy in Britain. Bristol: The Policy Press. Smith, G Davey, D Dorling, R Mitchell and M Shaw. (2002). Health inequalities in Britain: continuing increases up to the end of the 20th century. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 56:434-435 Read More