PolicyLens

Green - Health

Increase public health grants

Add around GBP 1.5bn a year to public-health funding.

Last updated: May 2026.

Read the policy-specific methodology note

Policy baseline

Green commitments include increasing public-health funding by around GBP 1.5bn annually. Prevention benefits are plausible but slow.

  • Targets local public-health services.
  • Benefits appear over years.
  • Fiscal savings are rarely immediate.

Core trade-offs

The direct beneficiaries are local health services and high-risk groups. The costs fall mainly on taxpayers funding prevention. The main economic question is returns depend on programme quality.

  • Local health services and high-risk groups gain most directly.
  • Costs fall mainly on taxpayers funding prevention.
  • Key risk: returns depend on programme quality.

Fiscal impact by 2028-29

+GBP 1.0bn to +GBP 3.0bn. Central estimate: +GBP 1.5bn.

  • 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. Local health services and high-risk groups benefit, while taxpayers funding prevention 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

Psacharopoulos and Patrinos, Education Economics, 2018

Returns to education

Education has positive private and social returns, though quality and targeting matter.

Supports education spending with delivery caveats.

Returns to Investment in Education (2018)

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.