Scotland's health inequalities are no secret. But it doesn't make them any less staggering. Women in the least deprived areas of our nation can expect to live to 84, with 78 of those years in good health. In the poorest areas, they will die on average at 75, after 16 years of diminished health. For men in the wealthiest areas the figures are 76 years of good health and a life expectancy of 80, compared with their poorest counterparts who can expect to live to 67, with 57 of those years healthy.
Scotland's health inequalities are no secret. But it doesn't make them any less staggering. Women in the least deprived areas of our nation can expect to live to 84, with 78 of those years in good health. In the poorest areas, they will die on average at 75, after 16 years of diminished health. For men in the wealthiest areas the figures are 76 years of good health and a life expectancy of 80, compared with their poorest counterparts who can expect to live to 67, with 57 of those years healthy.
Alcohol, of course, is another area of remarkable inequality. Early deaths from alcohol-related conditions affect eight per 100,000 in wealthy areas, and in the most deprived areas the figure is 100 per 100,000. In recent years the focus on closing such class and income-related health gaps has been intense. The latest body to bring its powers to bear on the challenge is an organisation with the unwieldy title of the Scottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy. Headed by Canadian Professor John Frank, it is to bring together some of the top minds in public health in the fight against Scotland's biggest problems - drink, violence and obesity.
Among its purposes is to stave off a "looming epidemic" of obesity-related complications. Children will be a particular target, in keeping with one of Frank's main areas of expertise. The first scientific director of the federal Institute of Population and Public Health in Canada, Frank argues that ending child poverty would be the single easiest way to make progress towards better health. Appealingly, in these financially straitened times, he argues that the cost of this would be surprisingly low and makes a plausible case for its achievability. But at present he is simply charged with researching which interventions are likely to be most successful. With a modest budget of just £3.5m over five years, the collaboration which Professor Frank heads up is to seek out opportunities for public health intervention research, then test innovative solutions designed specifically for Scotland.
It is tempting to ask what he can possibly find out that we don't already know. Glasgow already has the highly-regarded Centre for Population Health. Another body, Health Scotland, is already in the business of researching ways to improve the national wellbeing. The Medical Research Council has a social and public health unit based in Glasgow. We've had any number of studies and all manner of research into "what works".
Frank says the exciting thing about public health is that many problems are not permanent, but biologically reversible. That is indeed encouraging. But initiative-itis could be the greatest risk to the health of this particular collaboration. When this new body's work is done, what will happen with it? Simply funding a few more tentative pilots won't suffice. And when this latest group reports back, the Scottish Government must back its conclusions with realistic and substantial resources. Scotland's health inequalities put it on the international map for all the wrong reasons and the need for action grows ever more urgent.
