The money is inefficiently spent by the Government and by the Health trusts. There are two many admin staff, not enough staff on the cutting edge and poor infrastructure, communication systems etc.
This keeps being stated, yet independent international bodies rank our health system as the most efficient in the world. We invest half of what the US does in tax spend per contributor, yet we have better outcomes, and it covers everyone, not just the most indigent. We have topped the rankings for equitable access and efficiency for several years - that's why Theresa May is able to claim our NHS is "the best health care system in the world" despite not having anything like one of the best records in outcome, where spending matters drastically (unless you're American, where admin costs of running a cumbersome insurance system as a parasite business model mean you're most expensive, least efficient, and have worst outcomes.)
The problem is funding. We're told it's systemic, in my view, because that narrative means we can be told more money wouldn't fix it, it's the way it's set up - behold, it's unfit for purpose and the magic of privatisation will fix it.
The IMF have predicted it'll be privatised in a handful of years. The allowing it to crash, and when funding is mentioned the cries of it being an inefficient system which would merely waste any greater investment, is therefore somewhat suspicious, no?