IELTS Writing Task 2 – Band 8.0 Sample

Governments face difficult choices about how to spend limited health budgets. I largely agree that public health campaigns aimed at preventing illness represent better value for money than treatment, although the needs of those who are already ill must not be neglected.

The main argument for prevention is that it is far more cost-effective. Treating chronic conditions such as diabetes and heart disease requires expensive medication, long hospital stays and years of follow-up care. By contrast, a campaign that persuades people to stop smoking or exercise regularly costs relatively little yet benefits millions. For example, anti-smoking campaigns in many countries have contributed to a steady fall in smoking rates, easing the pressure on hospitals.

Furthermore, prevention improves quality of life in ways that treatment cannot. A person who avoids a serious illness can continue working, supporting a family and contributing to the economy, whereas even successful treatment often leaves patients with long-term health problems. For instance, someone who suffers a stroke may survive thanks to modern medicine but remain partially disabled for the rest of their life.

Nevertheless, it would be morally unacceptable to reduce care for those who are already sick. Not all diseases can be prevented, since many are caused by genetic factors or ageing, and patients have a right to proper treatment. Moreover, the benefits of campaigns take years to materialise, so hospitals still need adequate funding in the meantime.

In conclusion, I believe that prevention should receive a greater share of health spending because it saves both money and lives in the long term. However, this should be achieved without compromising care for existing patients.