Show the Working

Improve NHS efficiency and cut waste

Reform UK · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Reform UK’s policy “Improve NHS efficiency and cut waste” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Public finances & the next generation — Genuinely contested

n/a · low confidence

This package of NHS efficiency measures could save some public money on procurement and missed appointments, but the net fiscal effect is genuinely unclear: weekend theatre expansion requires costly extra staffing, and the IFS says Reform UK's NHS cost-saving measures would likely save less than estimated. Without independent costings of the whole package, the bill to or saving for the public finances cannot be pinned down.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the staffing and implementation costs of weekend theatre expansion and rota reform exceed the savings from procurement, missed-appointment charges, and PFI reviews — no independent costing of the package as a whole is available.

Our reading: Several components of this policy point toward fiscal savings: the NAO has documented real procurement inefficiencies (trusts paying up to 90% more than NHS Supply Chain prices), PFI contracts impose costly obligations that a review could reduce, and missed hospital appointments represent around £1.2 billion in annual waste. These are genuine fiscal levers. However, the counterweights are also significant. Weekend theatre expansion requires higher-paid weekend staffing across entire clinical teams — not just surgeons — and BMJ evidence is clear that remuneration and whole-team involvement are prerequisites. Without a costed staffing model, this component could be a net fiscal cost rather than a saving. The missed-appointment charging proposal faces administrative overhead costs and, on international evidence, may shift costs to more expensive emergency pathways rather than eliminate them. The IFS — the most relevant independent fiscal monitor in the evidence set — explicitly judged that Reform UK's NHS savings measures would deliver less than claimed. No independent end-to-end costing of the package exists in the evidence provided. The procurement and PFI components have credible savings potential, but whether they outweigh the costs of the operational changes cannot be established from the evidence available. This is a genuine crux: the answer turns on a parameter (net staffing cost of weekend expansion) that is unquantified in any provided source.

Healthcare — Mixed picture

moderate · moderate confidence

This policy bundles several efficiency measures — some with genuine potential to cut waiting times — alongside others that could harm access for vulnerable people or carry safety risks. The net effect on patients depends heavily on implementation detail and whether funding follows the reforms.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether weekend theatre expansion can be staffed safely and affordably, and whether missed-appointment charges deter necessary care from low-income patients more than they recover costs.

Our reading: This policy bundles six distinct interventions with genuinely varied evidence bases. On the positive side: procurement reform has clear, measurable headroom — the NAO confirms the NHS is leaving significant savings on the table, with price variation on single items like hip stems showing gaps of hundreds of pounds. Better rotas have good evidence for improving staff morale and retention, which feeds into capacity. PFI review addresses contracts that demonstrably divert clinical resource to financial obligations. Weekend theatre expansion has at least one positive real-world case. On the negative side: weekend surgery carries a documented and substantial mortality risk signal (82% higher weekend risk), and experts are clear that safe expansion requires whole-team staffing and pay incentives not mentioned in the policy. Missed-appointment charging is the most contested element — the international evidence (Ireland) suggests it reduces access among lower-income groups more than it deters casual no-shows, and experts link no-shows to structural barriers, not personal choice; this risks worsening access inequalities without meaningfully reducing demand. Abolishing the NHS Race and Health Observatory removes a body whose work targets documented disparities in maternity, mental health and COVID outcomes — its closure would likely worsen health equity without saving substantial sums. The IFS cautions that the broader spending envelope behind these plans is insufficient to achieve stated goals. On balance, the procurement, rota and PFI elements are plausible efficiency gains; the weekend theatre and no-show charging elements carry real access and safety risks; and the Observatory abolition worsens equity. The net effect is mixed — meaningful potential upside on efficiency, real downside risk on access and equity.

Equal treatment & democratic rights — Hurts

minor · moderate confidence

Abolishing the NHS Race and Health Observatory removes a dedicated body tackling ethnic health inequalities, and charging for missed appointments risks creating new barriers that fall hardest on disadvantaged groups. Neither effect is enormous, but both point in the same direction for equal treatment.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether alternative NHS structures would absorb the Observatory's anti-discrimination and policy-recommendation work, and whether missed-appointment charges would include meaningful exemptions for vulnerable groups.

Our reading: Two elements of this policy touch O9 directly. First, and most significantly, abolishing the NHS Race and Health Observatory removes a body whose explicit mandate is to identify and address ethnic health inequities and combat discriminatory practices within health and care. The Observatory has contributed to government policy on maternity, mental health, sickle cell disease, and the COVID-19 inquiry — all areas where ethnic minority groups face documented disparate outcomes. Removing this institutional mechanism does not eliminate ethnic health inequities; it removes dedicated scrutiny and policy pressure to address them. Experts characterise this as a step backward on institutional racism. Second, charging for missed appointments introduces a financial penalty that the evidence suggests will fall disproportionately on lower-income and more vulnerable patients. The Irish experience — where low-and middle-income patients were five times more likely to forgo care after user fees were introduced — is the strongest available comparator and points clearly toward regressive differential treatment. The missed-appointment charges do not in themselves constitute a formal anti-discrimination violation, but they predictably worsen equal access by income group, which is an O9 concern. The other elements of the policy (theatre hours, rotas, procurement, PFI review) are efficiency levers with no plausible O9 effect and are excluded from this verdict. The combined direction is a modest worsening: real but not catastrophic, because the Observatory was advisory rather than regulatory, and because the charging proposal's final design (exemptions, thresholds) is unstated. Confidence is moderate because the Observatory's counterfactual impact is hard to quantify and the charging policy lacks implementation detail.