Policy Exchange

The health of our population is one of our nation’s most important assets. Optimal health not only forms a central component of our happiness, but it is also vital for a strong economy. Despite this, reports suggest that population health is declining, with the average adult expected to spend 20% of their life in ill-health. Given the ever-increasing burden of non- communicable disease, such as cardiovascular disease and obesity-related conditions, alongside our growing and ageing population, the need for adequate strategies to prevent ill- health has never been greater. However, as our healthcare model is relatively centralised, the development, coordination and delivery of comprehensive prevention strategies is incredibly difficult. This is not only because a central system cannot make strategies that are flexible enough to cater for every demographic, but also because the average person spends very little time engaged directly with formal healthcare services. To circumvent these issues, focus has turned to the communities in which people live, work and play as an asset to prevent ill-health and promote wellbeing.By combining rapid literature reviews with surveys of Cambridgeshire-based community groups, this report aims to investigate the role that community-led initiatives play in improving the health and wellbeing of the communities they serve, and to further identify policies that can be updated or implemented in order to support communities in this pursuit.

Many worry that we have entered a ‘new normal’ of low productivity, or that our economy has become dangerously unbalanced. However, there are many reasons to be optimistic about the future. As a creative and high-skilled economy, we are well placed to benefit from future technology. Attempts to plan for this future or pick winners are likely to prove counter-productive, restricting the competition that is the real driver of increased productivity. Unfortunately, government regulation has created inefficient oligopolies in too many sectors across our economy, including banking, utilities and the media. The most effective competition comes from new entrants, and it is still too hard to start and grow a new business in Britain.

Sephacryl S-300 has been compared with Sephadex G-200 in the fractionation of sera for the detection of rubella-specific IgM. No difference in sensitivity was found with sera that had low titres of rubella-specific IgM. Sephadex G-200 was apparently more sensitive with some sera which had high titres of rubella-specific IgM due to the contribution of rubella-specific IgA. Sephacryl S-300 offers considerable advantages in ease and speed of preparation, and as it is a more rigid gel higher flow rates can be obtained. Sera may be fractionated in 2.5 hours on Sephacryl S-300 compared with 7-10 hours on Sephadex G-200.