I think the summary of that article is contrary to your point:
So where does that leave us? Well there is certainly waste in the system, but in terms of efficiency the NHS is often ranked well in international comparisons.
In fact, a report by the Commonwealth Fund found it was the most cost-effective in the world.
But what these comparisons also show is that the NHS lags behind the very best in terms of outcomes, such as cancer survival.
Why is this? Nigel Edwards, the widely respected chief executive of the Nuffield Trust think tank, says we may be getting the NHS on the "cheap" - compared with other leading European countries, we spend less as a proportion of GDP (a measure of the size of the economy).
His point? By spending more, we would have better buildings and quicker access to technology and treatments, which would improve care and make it more efficient.