Millions spent on tackling '˜behavioural ills' is bad value for money, say campaign group

The TaxPayers’ Alliance has found that the programmes, which they say “seek to police our lifestyle habits” - have “proved to be bad value for money”, with some costing more than £9,000 per person.

It contacted 171 public health authorities across the country and found that more than 50 did not measure for cost effectiveness on projects tackling smoking, obesity, alcohol or those aimed at increasing physical activity. In total, £230m was spent on these public health intervention programmes in 2015/16.

Of those that responded in Yorkshire, Leeds, Doncaster and North East Lincolnshire did not measure the specific projects for cost effectiveness.

In total, £13,4m was spent in the region on intervention programmes, with Sheffield spending the most, at £2.4m.

It spent £700,000 helping 2,753 people to give up smoking. Just under half, 1,361 quit as a result - representing a cost of £514 per quitter.

It spent £572,600 on trying to increase physical activity, and £465,000 helping 1,235 obese people to lose weight. As a result, 663 lost weight - 54 per cent, bringing the cost per weight loss to £701.

The city also helped to reduce alcohol dependency in 483 people.

Sheffield’s director of public health, Greg Fell, said the figure represented a “small chunk” of the city’s public health spending, and that public health was rooted in almost every council decision, from “parks to roads”,

“What we do commission or buy from the public health grant is universally based on good scientific evidence - one, that it works and two, that it is cost effective,” he added.

Wakefield spent the second highest, £1.9m, with the biggest proportion of its spend was on tackling obesity, just over £1m, which helped 1,300 people. Just under a third, 393, lost weight.

It also helped the highest number of people regionally with alcohol cessation services - 1,022, of which 291 reduced or stopped drinking, and spent £843,352 helping 2,655 smokers, of which just over half quit.

Dr Andrew Furber, Wakefield Council’s director of public health, said: “Investment in preventative care in the district is only a small percentage, less than 4 per cent, of the total spent on treatment and care services in the district.

“By investing in preventative care, we are helping our residents to stay healthy. Evidence shows that investment in these areas does offer better value than the treatment and care of illnesses.

“We continually monitor and evaluate services to make sure that they are effective in what they are trying to achieve. We will change or stop services if they are not performing well.”

Leeds spent the third highest amount in Yorkshire, £1.4m, but was highlighted for not measuring for cost effectiveness.

Coun Rebecca Charlwood, Leeds’ executive member for health, wellbeing and adults said the TaxPayers’ Alliance had failed to understand the responsibilities of local authorities and shown a “total disregard” to the important role of public health in encouraging healthy lifestyles.

She said: “Despite the significant cuts in central government funding, notably for our public health work, we have been very clear that we want to see the health of the poorest improved fastest and are committed to investing in preventative and protective work that pays long term dividends in the lives of the people in the city.

“This means we seek to reduce tobacco use, reduce obesity, improve physical activity and find ways to reduce alcohol harm. Exactly the things which need investment and will save the taxpayer money in the long term – something which I thought the Tax Payers’ Alliance would be keen to support”.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance said the research was important to add to debate about the rationale for interventions to reduce “behavioural ills”.

Chief executive John O’Connell, said: “Taxpayers have had enough of being told what to eat, drink and how to spend their leisure time. Those who do want to make lifestyle changes are free to do so if they choose - there is no need for bureaucrats to blow our taxes on good behaviour schemes, especially if they are not measured for cost effectiveness.

“Education and information will mean that people can make up their own minds without the need for expensive and meddlesome projects.”