In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the rulers of the industrial world started to worry about the health of the people. National governments discovered that military recruits were too unfit to serve. City governments worried that slums were spreading disease. Corporations realized that poor health was reducing productivity.
Policymakers tore up the old laissez-faire (leave health to the individual) playbook and generated a dizzying variety of innovative policies. Governments, starting with former chancellor Bismarck’s Germany, introduced compulsory health insurance. Schools embraced “open air classrooms.” Companies created work-based football teams to encourage their employees to get fit: Arsenal was spawned by the Woolwich Royal Arsenal Factory in 1886 and West Ham United by the Thames Ironworks and Shipbuilding Co, in 1895. Entrepreneurs such as John Harvey Kellogg invented health-promoting foods. Former US president Teddy Roosevelt turned the White House basement into a gym, complete with boxing ring, and created five new national parks.
It is time for today’s policymakers to treat health with the same combination of urgency and fresh thinking. In the UK and the US, a 200-year trend for people to live longer and healthier lives is in danger of dead-ending. Everywhere obesity is swelling to epidemic proportions: A 2019 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) study found that the cost of high obesity rates to health services globally is US$990 billion a year, with obesity costing an average of 3.3 percent of GDP in the OECD as a whole and 5.3 percent in Mexico.
People need to tear up the key assumptions that have governed health thinking over the past few decades: That healthcare is about fixing broken people rather than promoting well-being; that the government’s responsibility for healthcare is exhausted so long as it provides services marked “health”; that nanny statism is a bad thing; and that food companies should be left to make money regardless of the costs they impose on society.
We also need to launch an age of experiments in which we explore the power of a wide range of institutions to promote better health.
Some promising experiments have already begun. National health services in Japan and South Korea have discovered the power of what management gurus call “stretch targets”: setting ambitious targets for improving health and encouraging a wide range of institutions to help reach them.
Health services are also learning the power of “place-based policies” to address regions with particularly bad health outcomes. In the early 1970s, North Karelia province in Finland introduced a suite of policies — from lifestyle coaching to improved drug treatment for hypertension — to address its high rate of cardiovascular mortality. The policy was so successful, with coronary disease falling by 84 percent from 1972 to 2014, that it was rolled out nationally.
Governments have demonstrated the power of both taxes and labeling to improve behavior. In 2016, then-British chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne announced that he would impose a sugar tax levy on soft drinks. The results were encouraging: Soft drink producers reduced the sugar content of their drinks by an average of 35.4 percent, a change that might explain the stabilization of obesity rates in the latest British National Health Service (NHS) annual health survey. In the same year Chile, where three-quarters of the adult population were obese, introduced a new front-of-package warning label (a black octagon) on foods that contained added sugar, sodium or added fats. The scheme was so successful that it spread across Latin America. Hungary and Mexico have gone even further, introducing comprehensive taxes on unhealthy food, with sales of the products subjected to the tax in Hungary falling by a quarter.
Companies are also discovering the power of “nudges” to encourage healthier behavior among their employees. The most innovative company here is arguably the South Africa-based insurer Discovery Ltd. Discovery has invented a healthcare program, Vitality, which uses an air-miles type system to reward its customers for healthy behavior: You can move up from one level to another and accumulate rewards that can be used on gym membership, healthy food or exotic holidays.
Discovery has exported its model abroad by forming a partnership with Prudential Plc in the UK and Humana Inc in the US. Outside the health and food industries, a growing number of other companies are also using “nudges” of various sorts: subsidizing gym membership, sponsoring sports activities, providing healthier snacks, though Western companies are unlikely to go as far as Japanese companies and measure the waistlines of employees to make sure they are not getting too fat.
We need to go further: consolidate these changes, embrace new ones and link the pursuit of health to the pursuit of competitiveness. A new report on health and prosperity from the British IPPR think tank has some interesting ideas. Why not use the proceeds of food taxes to subsidize healthy foods? The central problem with diet is that unhealthy foods tend to be significantly more expensive than unhealthy ones. So, tax hamburgers to subsidize spinach. Why not use the purchasing power of big government departments to encourage healthy eating? Farming subsidies tend to go to agri-business rather than eco-farmers. Food in government institutions, from schools to hospitals to prisons, is often unhealthy as well as unappetizing. Soldiers often regain the weight that they lose exercising by eating preprocessed meals. Why not use NHS apps to subsidize healthy foods or gym memberships?
Tesco chief executive officer Ken Murphy has floated the idea of using loyalty cards to analyze what people buy and advise them to choose other options if they are consuming too much salt or fat.
The NHS could piggyback on this technology.
A more ambitious approach to healthcare would encounter powerful resistance. Food companies are masters of pretending to be responsible citizens while fighting for their short-term interests: Kentucky Fried Chicken has launched a legal challenge against 43 councils in England over planning policies to restrict food takeaways near schools. The cry of “nanny statism” is a powerful one — particularly when the state starts to inspect your shopping basket. However, far more companies have an interest in improving the health of their workers than they do in stuffing them with salt and fat. More people support aggressive health-intervention, such as taxing junk food, than worry about nanny statism. Food and drink companies show no compunction about using AI-enabled nudging to sell their wares. Why should governments disarm themselves?
The late Victorians and Edwardians succeeded in laying the foundations of a century of improved health, because they understood that health is not only an individual good, but also a collective one, and not only a nice thing to have, but also a tool of national competitiveness. Today’s people need to learn the same lessons.
Adrian Wooldridge is the global business columnist for Bloomberg Opinion. A former writer at The Economist, he is author of The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Friday used their legislative majority to push their version of a special defense budget bill to fund the purchase of US military equipment, with the combined spending capped at NT$780 billion (US$24.78 billion). The bill, which fell short of the Executive Yuan’s NT$1.25 trillion request, was passed by a 59-0 margin with 48 abstentions in the 113-seat legislature. KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), who reportedly met with TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) for a private meeting before holding a joint post-vote news conference, was said to have mobilized her
RSS