The average life expectancy...

hides significant variation based on where you live..

...and the quality of life your fellow citizens lead

Health and social inequality

In East Sussex

This slideshow looks at East Sussex and is based on ‘Fair Society Healthy Lives’, a landmark report by Professor Marmot

Key indicators of health inequalities laid down by the Marmot report

Indicators relating to the social determinants of health inequalities

Children achieving a

good level of development

aged 5

Young people not in

employment, education or

training

People in receipt of means tested

benefits

Means tested benefits by area of deprivation

The Marmot report covers much more, including a detailed range of policy initiatives

Show me

The slideshow is divided into two parts:

In East Sussex the average life expectancy at birth is 79 years for men and 84 for women

Data for years 2008 to 2010

East Sussex

England

South East

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

79.4

78.58

79.7

83.5

82.57

83.5

Female Male

Years

But those living in the most deprived areas of East Sussexhave a lower life expectancy compared to those in the more affluent areas

Most deprived areas

Least deprived areas

Decile range

The inequality in male life expectancy(years) in East Sussex between the most and least deprived areas

6.2 The inequality in female life expectancy(years) in East Sussex between the most and least deprived areas

8.2

Data for years 2006 to 2010

Area based deprivation is often measured tenths or ‘Deciles’ using the Indices of Deprivation. Inequalities in income and wealth translate into residential segregation.

Decile 10

Decile 9 Decile 8 Decile 7 Decile 6 Decile 5 Decile 4 Decile 3 Decile 2 Decile 165

70

75

80

85

90

Male

FemaleYE

AR

S

And the inequality in ‘disability-free life expectancy’ (DFLE) is even greater

The inequality in male life expectancy (years) between the most and least deprived areas

6.2 The inequality in female life expectancy (years) between the most and least deprived areas

The inequality in Disability -free life expectancy (years) for men between the most and least deprived areas

9.4

11.4

Disability-free life expectancy (DFLE) is the average number of years a person can expect to live without an illness or health problem that limits their daily activities. An inequality of 11.9 years means that a DFLE for the best off in Brighton and Hove is nearly 12 years higher than for the worst off.

Those living in areas of high deprivation not only die earlier but also spend more of their years coping with a disability

The inequality in Disability -free life expectancy (years) for women between the most and least deprived areas

8.2

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

Social inequality indicators used to predict health outcomes

The London Health Observatory (LHO) and the UCL Institute of Health Equity have produced the following key indicators relating to the social determinants of health outcomes

Children achieving a

good level of development

aged 5

Young people not in

employment, education or

training

People in receipt of means tested

benefits

Means tested benefits by area of deprivation

Decile 10 Decile 9 Decile 8 Decile 7 Decile 6 Decile 5 Decile 4 Decile 3 Decile 2 Decile 165

70

75

80

85

90

Male Female

YE

AR

S

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 the aim to give every child the best start in life, as this is crucial to reducing health inequalities across the life course.

indicators used to predict health outcomes

As the foundations of human development are laid in early childhood, the review proposed an indicator of readiness for school to capture early years development.

The percentage of children achieving a good level of development is presented for this indicator, based on the local authority where each child was living, rather than the location of the school. As LAs are only required to report results for the schools and 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 achieving a

good level of development

aged 5

Young people not in

employment, education or

training

People in receipt of means tested

benefits

Means tested benefits by area of deprivation

East Sussex

England

South East

46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62

51.9

58.8

61.1

55.6

55.7

58.2

Early years % yr 2010 Early years % yr 2011

Percentges %

In East Sussex 6.9 % of young people are not in employment, education or training (NEETs)

Non-participation of young people in education, employment or training between the ages of 16 and 19 is a major predictor of later unemployment, low income, depression, involvement in crime and poor mental health

This was recognised in the Marmot Review which proposed an indicator to measure young people not in education, employment or training in order to capture skill development during the school years and the control that school leavers have over their lives. This indicator is therefore a wider measure than just youth unemployment as it also includes young people who are not being prepared for work

indicators used to predict health outcomes

East Sussex

England

South East

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

6.9

6.7

6.1

7.8

7

6.3

Nov 2009 to Jan2010 Nov 2010 - Jan2011

Percentages %

Children achieving a

good level of development

aged 5

Young people not in

employment, education or

training

People in receipt of means tested

benefits

Means tested benefits by area of deprivation

In East Sussex, 12.8% of people were in receipt of means tested benefits (Year 2008)

The importance of reducing income inequality, and the negative consequences of relative poverty, was emphasised in the Marmot Review, which noted that: “An adequate and fair healthy standard of living is critical to reducing health inequalities. Insufficient income is associated with worse outcomes across virtually all domains, including long-term health and life expectancy.”

indicators used to predict health outcomes

Children achieving a

good level of development

aged 5

Young people not in

employment, education or

training

People in receipt of means tested

benefits

Means tested benefits by area of deprivation

East Sussex

England

South East

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

12.8

14.6

10.1

13.2

15.5

10.6

Yr 2005 Yr 2008

Percentages %

The figure for means tested benefits (12.8 %) broken down by area of deprivation

For example those areas falling into the bottom decile (decile 10) have a far higher concentration of their population on benefits (around 32%) compared to decile 1 (around 5%)

indicators used to predict health outcomes

Children achieving a

good level of development

aged 5

Young people not in

employment, education or

training

People in receipt of means tested

benefits

Means tested benefits by area of deprivation

Decile 10

Decile 9

Decile 8

Decile 7

Decile 6

Decile 5

Decile 4

Decile 3

Decile 2

Decile 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Benefits yr 2008)

Benefits yr 2005

The social indicators below are a predictor of the health outcomes above

The London Health Observatory (LHO) and the UCL Institute of Health Equity have produced the following key indicators relating to the social determinants of health outcomes

The average life expectancy... hides significant variation based on where you live..

...and the quality of life your fellow citizens lead

To summarise:

Children achieving a

good level of development

aged 5

Young people not in

employment, education or

training

People in receipt of means tested

benefits

Means tested benefits by area of deprivation

Doing nothing is not an option

• £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

The Marmot report outlines a range of policy initiatives from early years education to a minimum income for healthy living.

Those who claim that such policies are unaffordable  in the present economic climate, must weigh that claim against the cost of doing nothing:  

Marmot

report

Slideshow by Gavin Barker

KEY SOURCESLondon Health Observatory

UCL Institute of Health Equity