PolicyLens

Green - Health

Spend GBP 3bn on dentistry

Increase NHS dentistry funding by around GBP 3bn per year.

Last updated: May 2026.

Read the policy-specific methodology note

Policy baseline

Green health commitments include GBP 3bn more per year for dentistry. Contract design determines whether dentists supply more NHS care.

  • Targets patients needing NHS dental care.
  • Private earnings create participation risk.
  • Fees may need to rise materially.

Core trade-offs

The direct beneficiaries are patients without affordable dentistry. The costs fall mainly on taxpayers and dental-provider budgets. The main economic question is supply may remain limited without contract reform.

  • Patients without affordable dentistry gain most directly.
  • Costs fall mainly on taxpayers and dental-provider budgets.
  • Key risk: supply may remain limited without contract reform.

Fiscal impact by 2028-29

+GBP 2.0bn to +GBP 6.0bn. Central estimate: +GBP 3.0bn.

  • Positive numbers mean net fiscal cost; negative numbers mean Exchequer savings.
  • Main channel is the scored tax, spending or delivery change.
  • Offsets depend on tax receipts, behaviour and pass-through.
  • Range reflects uncertain implementation and economic response.
  • This is not an official costing.

Economic impact by 2028-29

  • Jobs: NHS and care demand for staff rises; shortages may bid workers away from other sectors.
  • Wages: Direct gains for health and care staff if pay or hours rise.
  • Prices: Public provision limits prices; agency costs can rise under shortages.
  • GDP / productivity: Potentially positive if health improves labour supply; delivery bottlenecks may limit gains.

Assessment

This is a real trade-off, not a free gain. Patients without affordable dentistry benefit, while taxpayers and dental-provider budgets bear most costs. Overall output depends on behaviour, capacity and pass-through.

Confidence: Medium-low. Higher on the policy target and fiscal channel; lower on behaviour, pass-through and economy-wide effects.

Main risks

  • Workforce shortage: More money may bid up scarce labour rather than expand capacity.
  • Productivity risk: Extra appointments or care hours need workflow changes to improve outcomes.
  • Cost drift: Health and care commitments tend to grow with demographics and wages.

Safeguards

  • Tie funding to workforce plans.
  • Track outputs and outcomes, not just spending.
  • Limit agency-cost leakage.

Academic evidence

Propper, Burgess and Gossage, Economic Journal, 2008

NHS competition and quality

Healthcare quality responds to incentives, but design can create unintended trade-offs.

Relevant to elective-care delivery incentives.

Competition and Quality in the NHS (2008)

Cooper, Gibbons, Jones and McGuire, Economic Journal, 2011

Hospital competition evidence

Hospital competition under fixed prices was associated with lower mortality in some settings.

Shows that NHS productivity depends on institutional design.

Does Hospital Competition Save Lives? (2011)

UK government evidence

Green Party of England and Wales, 2024

Green manifesto

The manifesto defines the tax, spending, climate, housing and public-service proposals modelled here.

Used to define the scenario, not as an official costing.

Manifesto for a Fairer, Greener Country (2024)

HM Treasury, 2025

Spending Review baseline

Spending Review settlements define the public-spending counterfactual for health budgets.

Used to distinguish new funding from baseline growth.

Spending Review 2025 (2025)

Sources

Other Green policies

PolicyLens estimates are illustrative and should not be treated as official costings.