How should the government take action?

 

The major risk factors driving ill health and avoidable death are influenced by multiple, complex and interrelated determinants. No policy approach in isolation will be enough to address their causes and narrow inequalities. Current government policies – focused largely on providing services and campaigns designed to change individual behaviour – are insufficient for government to deliver on its key targets. With trends going in the wrong direction for many of the leading risk factors, inequalities widening, and key national targets set to be missed, it is clear that the approach taken to date has been inadequate. Polling also shows a significant proportion of the public are supportive of government action to tackle major risk factors and favour a shift in the government’s approach to public health. A more coherent, longer term vision and system-wide approach are urgently needed.

Population-level interventions that are less reliant on individual agency should form the backbone of strategies to address smoking, alcohol use, poor diet and physical inactivity. The focus should be on modifying the environments in which people live to reduce exposure to these risks and make healthy behaviours the easy option. These interventions should be accompanied by targeted support for individuals that is tailored to the needs of disadvantaged communities.

Acting on commercial determinants of health

The strong role played by the private sector in shaping environments and influencing individual behaviour must be recognised and addressed in a consistent way through government policy. Clearer limits should be set on commercial activity that harms health. Recent recommendations for how to protect net zero climate policies from corporate influence – including the use of regulations, frameworks, and criminal law to prevent corporations from misleading the public – could be adopted for companies that produce health-harming products. As with tobacco, food and drink corporations could be prevented from interfering in public health policymaking through development of clear processes and frameworks.

Government could also do more to encourage the positive role that corporations can play in supporting people to adopt healthy behaviours. A clear set of expectations should be set to ensure health impacts are considered as part of environmental, social and governance (ESG) investment frameworks. Here too, a similar investment framework to that used for climate reporting could be adopted for health, based on the pillars of worker health; consumer health (via products and services produced); and community health (via impacts on the local environment). In line with this framework, clear guidelines could be developed to help strengthen companies’ health-related disclosures and drive more consistent, quality reporting on health impacts.

Future policy priorities

In identifying future policy priorities, government can learn from previous success in reducing tobacco use and consider how to adapt these strategies to combat poor diets, physical inactivity and alcohol use. Significant reductions in smoking have been achieved through a coordinated set of tax and regulatory measures, information supporting individuals to quit, and a muscular approach towards the tobacco industry that has restricted its previously strong influence over policymaking.

Some of the biggest immediate gains could be made by implementing price-based policies, taxes and regulations designed to decrease affordability of unhealthy food and drink, and increase access to healthier options. A number of policies have already been proposed in previous government documents that could be revisited. There is strong evidence on the effectiveness of a minimum unit price for alcohol in reducing harmful drinking and narrowing inequalities, for example. In Scotland, adoption of minimum unit pricing led to a reduction in off-trade alcohol sales of 4–5% in its initial 12 months, compared with England and Wales., These decreases were maintained through the first half of 2020, with comparable reductions in Wales following its introduction there. Building on the success of the soft drinks industry levy, the sugar and salt reformulation tax, proposed in the National Food Strategy, is another example of a policy that could be adopted as part of a wider set of measures to redesign the food environment.

Measures such as raising the age of sale for tobacco from 18 to 21 – which has potential to reduce smoking prevalence in this age group by at least 30% – could also be explored, as well as a ‘polluter pays’ levy on the tobacco industry to raise funds for tobacco control., The government can watch and learn from the comprehensive, multi-pronged approach being adopted in countries including New Zealand, which is increasing funding for stop-smoking services; acting to reduce the number of shops selling tobacco, and banning the sale or supply of tobacco to people born after a certain date.

Direct actions to address specific risk factors should be taken forward as part of a wider whole-government strategy to address the root causes of ill health, with all departments required to consider the health implications of their decisions and identify opportunities to improve health. Underpinning this should be a focus on investing in all four capitals: financial, human, social and natural., As with the approach being taken to reach net zero, a longer term view is needed to improve health, with targets, funding, evaluation metrics and regular independent reporting used to monitor and drive progress.

The costs of government inaction on the leading risk factors driving ill health are clear – for public services, the economy, and for individuals and their communities. As the country recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic and seeks to build greater resilience against future shocks, now is the time to act.

Previous Next