We've responded to reports that the NHS will pay a higher price for branded new medicines as a condition of a UK-US trade deal.
Read the statement from @sallygainsbury.bsky.social 👇
see p50 (printed p50, not pdf p50...) here efpia.eu/media/676753...
Patent protections mean pharma cos can set prices high. The VPAG agreement at the centre of the row offers the NHS a modest counterbalance against those high prices when sales volumes exceed expectations and already contains exemptions to allow companies to recoup their R&D costs
There is mounting evidence that rather than being “too low” the NICE threshold (the max the NHS will pay for a yr of health gained through a drug) is currently too high as it outstrips how much health could be gained if the £ was spent instead on extending existing services >
Key points: Big pharma’s threat to pull investment from the UK if the NHS doesn’t pay more is based on politics, not economics. Industry’s own research shows that decisions on R&D location are driven by where you can do good science, not local market prices for the end product >
Trump and pharma are lobbying gov hard to water-down the NHS’s ability to contain spending on new branded drugs. Today’s long read from me and the LSE’s Huseyin Naci sets out why the gov should hold firm to protect the health of the NHS and UK public nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/th... >>
interesting. I wonder if the catch up at 16 seen in the overall dashed ECHP line is a genuine improvement in outcomes, or rather a widening of who is included in that cohort to include those whose edu outcomes were higher/likely to be slightly higher already?
this is really interesting Luke, thank you. It seems to suggest that educational outcomes (measured by the standardised score) have improved since ~2015 for the older kids on ECHPs, but declined for the younger. Or am I misinterpreting that?
For more on the background to the dispute with the pharma industry, see www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/tr... ENDS
But the gov hasn’t made things easy for itself with its rhetoric around the NHS as an engine of economic growth (rather than the quaint notion it is there to improve our health)>>
If the gov pays more for new medicines, we are highly likely to get LESS health benefit out of the NHS, not more. It’s right the gov holds firm and considers population-wide health needs rather than bow to industry threats and scare stories >>
It’s correct the £30k threshold has been in place since the late 1990s, but ample economic research shows it is likely too high rather than too low >>
This isn’t penny pinching: the threshold exists in order to ensure expensive new drugs don’t displace pre-existing treatments, because the nhs can only spend its budget once >>
Sometimes new drugs fail that test simply because they are very expensive. Other times they fail because their price might be modest, but the health improvements they offer above already existing treatments are extremely marginal >>
The nhs (via NICE) generally requires that for a new drug to be adopted, the extra health benefits it brings should not add more than £30k above existing treatments for that disease >>
The 10 year nhs plan already sets out a terrifying raft of concessions to pharma and med tech to try and convince them to invest in the uk to feed the political addiction to economic growth >>
PSA that the purpose of the #NHS is NOT to provide investment opportunities or lucrative income streams for the pharmaceutical industry #r4today >>
Editorial from me and LSE’s Huseyin Naci on the government's bid to use the NHS as a means to attract more med tech and pharma investment into the UK. TLDR: great for profits, less great for getting the most value for patients out of the NHS www.bmj.com/content/390/...
Growth or bust. The one where the purpose of the NHS is to rescue capitalism: www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/an...
Thanks Dave
NEW: A long read from @sallygainsbury.bsky.social examines a conundrum for policy makers: How can the NHS meet public demand while also positioning the NHS as an engine for economic growth? www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/an...
The quaint idea the #NHS exists to improve health has been supplemented with the idea it can also drive economic #growth. My thoughts on the gamble the gov is making by inviting in more tech- and pharma- and whether we’ll end up with less as a consequence: www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/an...
Not the question you asked, but: I worry that when humans get AI to do stuff like sort through info and order/summarise it, we lose the ability to do that ourselves. Mental agility dies. We save time, same as we do when drive instead of walk, but physical strength declines. Is this a legit concern?
ICYMI: Senior Policy Analyst @sallygainsbury.bsky.social discussed the 10 Year Health Plan on this week's episode of Inside Health.
Listen back 👇
www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/...
gregfellpublichealth.wordpress.com/2025/07/05/p...
Polygenic risk scoring and precision prevention
Cynics view
