Extra cash for mental health would help UK more than new roads, study says

An undertaking of an extra expenditure on Mental health services would be more effective in uplifting the economic growth as well as the general wellbeing of the nation than spending it on construction of roads as deemed by an academic study. 
 
LSE posited that there is need to rethink within Whitehall on the spending decisions that are made; greater propensity needs to be placed on how the money does change people lives, especially in terms of wellbeing. 
 
Subsequently, the researchers calculated the cost to benefits ratio of the policies in a bid to persuade Reeves to ditch expensive roads’ projects like the Lower Thames Crossing, in exchange for more resources to be invested in health, education, and skills that would help to grow the economy. 
 
The chancellor is expected to produce the budget and CSR next month which will outline this government’s five year’s expenditure plan. 

Reeves is likely to move to deep cuts to some Whitehall spending in order to conform to the previous Conservative government’s belt-tightening measures. With this, some of the significant road projects have been axed in the past, such as the newbury tunnel on A303 near Stonehenge. 
 
The LSE researchers evaluated that how much each spending decision had achieved in the light of its returns in terms of money utilised and resultant cash saving & wellbeing benefits in terms of money value. 
 
Others estimated that increasing spending of mental health and addiction services would directly assist the people struggling, but also contribute to the saving of the general costs of heath and welfare service and even revenue to the treasury as the individual regained their jobs. 
 
They also learnt that adding an out-patient psychological therapy service for addition and employment support for moderate mental illness would take two- three years maturation. 
 
 Other policies were determined to raise the overall government spending; however they were said to provide extremely high returns to pounds spent for instance the policy which promised to ensure that every individual is provided with an opportunity to access apprenticeship generally realized benefits which were worth 14 times more than the cost of the policy. 
 
Similarly, they claimed that more number of policemen offers benefits that tip the scale from lower crime rates worth over ten fold as regards impact people’s quality of life. 
 
Whereas an assessment of road schemes found that the typical scheme generates returns that are three times the cost, the proposed Lower Thames Crossing that links north Kent and south Essex was said to offer returns that are equivalent to 1. 5 times the cost. 
 
Richard Layard, one of the report’s authors, said the savings that people with fewer health issues, getting back to work sooner, and claiming fewer benefits were worth pursuing because they translate into lower costs for the government. 
 
Lord Layard, the emeritus professor of economics at the LSE and a former government adviser, said its report – Value for Money – was inspired by Keir Starmer’s promise, made when he was leader of the opposition, that ‘‘With every pound spent for you, we would expect the Treasury to consider not only the impact on gross domestic product , but the effect on welfare’. 
 
The report will be released on Tuesday at the Institute for Government thinktank’s offices in central London with assistance from former civil service head, Gus O’Donnell, and Amanda Rowlatt, ex-chief analyst at the Department for Transport. 
 
Layard said that the method employed by LSE team was similar with aw approach called the Nice approach, which is the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence assessment that examines how much value in terms of money the new drugs and therapies bring to the NHS. 
 
He added: “Policies: We now have the science to estimate benefit-cost ratios for most policies, and these should be the basis of the next spending review. 

O’Donnell said: “This is an exceptionally important report. It should make significant changes in the way the government spends the taxpayers’ money to enhance the lives of people. ”