Search results

It is over 20 years since the publication of the Wanless Report, “Securing our Future Health: Taking a Long-Term View”. The Wanless Report argued that the National Health Service (NHS) would survive in its current form only if the population became “fully engaged” with it.

In this discussion paper, the authors explored what “fully engaged” meant to Wanless, what it might mean now (allowing for the impact of the anti-vaxxer movement) and what policymakers could do to enhance public engagement.

Although the Wanless Report neatly fitted into other long-term thinking about the NHS, it was unique in that it built economic models to predict the costs and impact of different patterns of NHS performance. Wanless predicted that people’s poor levels of health would put considerable pressure on the NHS. This pressure could swamp efforts to meet healthcare targets and improve health outcomes, despite its sizeable investment of money. Wanless set out three possible scenarios for public engagement with the NHS: solid progress, slow uptake and fully engaged.

The authors pose questions for policymakers and practitioners. Would a reboot of the Wanless approach be worth the effort for policymakers? If yes, how would it differ from the original? The NHS faces the whole of society; could it be the vehicle for engaging the anti-vaxxer public with the truthfulness of medical science, and will it be this, that is, Wanless' enduring legacy?

The exploration of the Wanless Report is complicated (at least for the time being) by the rise of the anti-vaxxer movement’s resistance to health promotion and mistrust of part of the NHS.