Health and socialinequalityIn East SussexThe average life hides significant ...and the quality of lifeexpectancy... variation based on your fellow citizens lead where you live..
This slideshow looks at East Sussex and is based on‘Fair Society Healthy Lives’, a landmark report byProfessor MarmotThe slideshow is divided into two parts: Key indicators of health inequalities laid down by the Marmot report Indicators relating to the social determinants of health inequalities Children Young people achieving a People in receipt Means tested not in of means tested good level of employment, edu benefits by area development benefits of deprivation cation or training aged 5 The Marmot report covers much more, including Show a detailed range of policy initiatives me
In East Sussex the average life expectancy at birth is 79 years for men and 84 for women 83.5 South East 79.7 82.57 England 78.58 83.5East Sussex 79.4 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 Years Female Male Data for years 2008 to 2010
But those living in the most deprived areas of East Sussexhave a lower life expectancy compared to those in the more affluent areas 88 86 84 82 Data for years 2006 80 to 2010 YEARS 78 76 Male 74 Female 72 70 68 66 Decile Decile 9 Decile 8 Decile 7 Decile 6 Decile 5 Decile 4 Decile 3 Decile 2 Decile 1 10 Most deprived Decile range Least deprived areas areas 8.2 The inequality in male life expectancy(years) in East Area based deprivation is often Sussex between the most and least deprived areas measured tenths or „Deciles‟ using the Indices of Deprivation. Inequalities in income and wealth translate into The inequality in female life expectancy(years) in East residential segregation. 6.2 Sussex between the most and least deprived areas
And the inequality in „disability-free life expectancy‟ (DFLE) is even greater The inequality in male life The inequality in Disability -free8.2 11.4 expectancy (years) life expectancy (years) for men between the most and least between the most and least deprived areas deprived areas The inequality in female life The inequality in Disability -free6.2 expectancy (years) between 9.4 life expectancy (years) for women the most and least deprived between the most and least areas deprived areasThose living in areas of high Disability-free life expectancy (DFLE) is the averagedeprivation not only die earlier number of years a person can expect to live without an illness or health problem that limits their daily activities.but also spend more of their An inequality of 11.9 years means that a DFLE for theyears coping with a disability best off in Brighton and Hove is nearly 12 years higher than for the worst off.
The geography of inequality See heatmap to check which decile your neighbourhood falls into. You can also click on an area of the map for more information See the interactive map below this presentation Inequalities in wealth and wealth translate into residential segregation. Differences in house prices, rents and tenure along with the labour market act as a sifting process. The result is that the most vulnerable and those with the least choices are often concentrated together in certain geographical areas.
Health inequalities result from social inequalities 88 86 84 82 80 YEARS 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 Decile 10 Decile 9 Decile 8 Decile 7 Decile 6 Decile 5 Decile 4 Decile 3 Decile 2 Decile 1 Male Female Social inequality indicators used to predict health outcomes The London Health ChildrenObservatory (LHO) Young people People in receipt achieving a not in Means testedand the UCL Institute good level of of means tested employment, edu benefits by areaof Health Equity have development benefits cation or training of deprivationproduced the following aged 5key indicators relatingto the socialdeterminants of healthoutcomes
In East Sussex only 52% of children achieved a good level of development at age 5 (Year 2011) The highest priority in the Marmot Review is 58.2 South East the aim to give every child the best start in 61.1 life, as this is crucial to reducing health inequalities across the life course. 55.7 England As the foundations of human development are laid in 58.8 early childhood, the review proposed an indicator of readiness for school to capture early years 55.6 development.East Sussex 51.9 The percentage of children achieving a good level of development is presented for this indicator, based on 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 the local authority where each child was living, rather Percentges % than the location of the school. As LAs are only required to report results for the schools and Early years % yr 2010 Early years % yr 2011 nurseries they maintain, results may be affected for this indicator, for some areas, if a large proportion of their child population is in private schools. Children Young people indicators used achieving a People in receipt Means tested not in of means testedto predict health good level of employment, edu benefits by area development benefitsoutcomes cation or training of deprivation aged 5
In East Sussex 6.9 % of young people are not in employment, education or training (NEETs) Nov 2009 to Jan2010 Nov 2010 - Jan2011 Non-participation of young people in education, employment or training between the South East 6.3 ages of 16 and 19 is a major predictor of later 6.1 unemployment, low income, depression, involvement in crime and 7 England poorwas recognised in the Marmot Review which This mental health 6.7 proposed an indicator to measure young people not in 7.8 education, employment or training in order to capture skillEast Sussex development during the school years and the control that 6.9 school leavers have over their lives. This indicator is 0 2 4 6 8 10 therefore a wider measure than just youth unemployment as it also includes young people who are not being Percentages % prepared for work Children Young people achieving a People in receipt Means tested indicators used not in of means tested good level of benefits by areato predict health employment, edu benefits development cation or training of deprivationoutcomes aged 5
In East Sussex, 12.8% of people were in receipt of means tested benefits (Year 2008) Yr 2005 Yr 2008 The importance of reducing income 10.6 South East inequality, and the negative consequences of 10.1 relative poverty, was emphasised in the Marmot Review, which noted that: “An adequate and fair 15.5 England healthy standard of living is critical to reducing 14.6 health inequalities. Insufficient income is associated with worse outcomes across virtually 13.2East Sussex all domains, including long-term health and life 12.8 expectancy.” 0 5 10 15 20 Percentages % Children Young people achieving a People in receipt Means tested indicators used not in of means tested good level of benefits by areato predict health employment, edu benefits development cation or training of deprivationoutcomes aged 5
The figure for means tested benefits (12.8 %) broken down by area of deprivation35 For example those areas falling into30 the bottom decile (decile 10) have a far higher concentration of their25 population on benefits (around 32%) compared to decile 1 (around20 5%) Benefits yr 2008)15 Benefits yr 200510 5 0 Decile Decile Decile Decile Decile Decile Decile Decile Decile Decile 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Children Young people achieving a People in receipt Means tested indicators used not in of means tested good level of benefits by areato predict health employment, edu benefits development cation or training of deprivationoutcomes aged 5
The average life expectancy... hides significant variation ...and the quality of life your based on where you live.. fellow citizens leadTo summarise:The social indicators below are a predictor of the health outcomes above The London HealthObservatory (LHO) andthe UCL Institute of Children Young people achieving a People in receipt Means testedHealth Equity have not in good level of of means tested benefits by areaproduced the following employment, edu development benefits of deprivationkey indicators relating to cation or trainingthe social determinants aged 5of health outcomes
Doing nothing is not an optionThe Marmot report outlines a range of policy initiatives fromearly years education to a minimum income for healthy living.Those who claim that such policies are unaffordable inthe present economic climate, must weigh that claimagainst the cost of doing nothing: • £31-33 billion in productivity losses • £20-32 billion in lost taxes and higher welfare payments • costs in excess of £5.5 billion in additional NHS healthcare costs every year Marmot report
Slideshow by Gavin BarkerKEY SOURCESLondon Health ObservatoryUCL Institute of Health Equity