Max Warner
@maxwarner.bsky.social
Economist at the IFS working on health and social care, public spending and public sector productivity https://ifs.org.uk/people/max-warner
We have done much more detailed modelling of how plausible the target is, and what steps the government might need to take to achieve it, available here: ifs.org.uk/publications...
Can the government achieve its 18-week elective waiting time target? | Institute for Fiscal Studies
Simulation modelling of NHS elective waiting times in England shows that the government’s 18-week target is unlikely to be met in this parliament.
ifs.org.uk
October 24, 2025 at 1:35 PM
We have done much more detailed modelling of how plausible the target is, and what steps the government might need to take to achieve it, available here: ifs.org.uk/publications...
This is with my excellent colleagues Kate Ogden (expert on student finance) and @laurenceobrien.bsky.social
(expert on pensions). Read the full piece, with lots more detail and discussion, here: ifs.org.uk/articles/mer...
(expert on pensions). Read the full piece, with lots more detail and discussion, here: ifs.org.uk/articles/mer...
The merits of student loan forgiveness and pension changes for resident doctors | Institute for Fiscal Studies
The government is reportedly considering changing student loans and pensions for resident doctors. We consider the merits of potential changes.
ifs.org.uk
July 19, 2025 at 8:12 AM
This is with my excellent colleagues Kate Ogden (expert on student finance) and @laurenceobrien.bsky.social
(expert on pensions). Read the full piece, with lots more detail and discussion, here: ifs.org.uk/articles/mer...
(expert on pensions). Read the full piece, with lots more detail and discussion, here: ifs.org.uk/articles/mer...
In summary, given the size of health spending and the slow growth in planned overall spending, the government faces a really challenging and important trade-off at the Spending Review between increasing health spending and increasing spending on everything else. 12/12
June 2, 2025 at 9:57 AM
In summary, given the size of health spending and the slow growth in planned overall spending, the government faces a really challenging and important trade-off at the Spending Review between increasing health spending and increasing spending on everything else. 12/12
3.4% per year is of course not the upper limit of what DHSC might want, or what might be needed to achieve the govt’s NHS objectives – but faster growth (or any further defence increases) mean there is even less for other areas within the current plans for total spending. 11/12
June 2, 2025 at 9:57 AM
3.4% per year is of course not the upper limit of what DHSC might want, or what might be needed to achieve the govt’s NHS objectives – but faster growth (or any further defence increases) mean there is even less for other areas within the current plans for total spending. 11/12
Such growth rates would probably be sufficient to improve NHS performance – particularly with improvements in productivity. But they would imply substantial squeezes on other public services, where the govt also wants to improve performance. 10/12
June 2, 2025 at 9:57 AM
Such growth rates would probably be sufficient to improve NHS performance – particularly with improvements in productivity. But they would imply substantial squeezes on other public services, where the govt also wants to improve performance. 10/12
After defence commitments and the Barnett formula, giving DHSC 2.5% per year in real-terms would leave no real-terms increases for other areas. 3.4% per year for DHSC (closer to the long-run average) would imply 1% cuts per year in real-terms for everything else. 9/12
June 2, 2025 at 9:57 AM
After defence commitments and the Barnett formula, giving DHSC 2.5% per year in real-terms would leave no real-terms increases for other areas. 3.4% per year for DHSC (closer to the long-run average) would imply 1% cuts per year in real-terms for everything else. 9/12