Reopening the property market during lockdown
Reopening the property market during lockdown
From the Queen’s Speech to the next election: what now for the government’s agenda?
From the Queen’s Speech to the next election: what now for the Government’s agenda?

Archive for the ‘Health’ Category

From the Queen’s Speech to the next election: what now for the Government’s agenda?

The Queen’s Speech on 10th May will be one of the Government’s last opportunities to set out its policy agenda ahead of the next general election.

With the Conservatives trailing in the polls and expected to lose seats in this week’s local elections, will Boris Johnson take the opportunity to reset and galvanise his premiership, or will rising inflation and the cost of living mean that the Government continues to lose ground as the general election approaches?

WA’s new report on the Queen’s Speech takes a close look at the Government’s latest legislative agenda, assessing where its priorities are likely to lie in the coming months and what that will mean for businesses.

You can download the full report here:

Queen’s Speech 2022: A look ahead (PDF)

Share this content:

Are women finally being heard?

Women in the UK are becoming increasingly vocal about the challenges they face in their healthcare and the unjust variation in access to services. When the Government opened their consultation to inform a Women’s Health Strategy in Spring 2021, over 110,000 respondents took the opportunity to make it known that the system does not work for them. Following years of campaigning, it comes as no surprise to women and those in the women’s health community that an overwhelming 84% of people felt their voices are simply not being heard when they seek health care.

By demonstrating an interest in women’s voices and their experiences, recognising failures in the system, and committing to developing a Women’s Health strategy, the Government has taken a positive initial step, albeit an ambitious one. There is no disease-specific focus and no target patient population, unlike other policy areas. This challenge affects 51% of our population and includes natural, life course events that women have, for many years, been told to just live with. With publication of the strategy imminent, the Government now need to demonstrate that they are willing to not only listen to women’s voices but to implement action based on what they are saying.

Women continue to face challenges when it comes to choices about their own bodies. Ongoing variation in access to abortion care, a full range of contraceptive choice, and a holistic range of menopause treatment options, all impact on women’s freedom to choose the treatments that work best for them. The Government’s commitment to prioritising the menopause in the upcoming strategy and cutting prescription costs for Hormone Replacement Therapies (HRT) in response to the Menopause Revolution campaign is hopeful. However, the Government’s initial attempt to reverse progress made in at-home abortion during the pandemic despite women citing a clear preference for this to continue, suggests more need to be done to prioritise women’s voices, choices and rights in practice.

In addition to not being heard, a fragmented system and the pandemic backlog have resulted in services that are increasingly difficult to navigate, leading to the most vulnerable falling through the cracks. Upcoming system reforms focusing on the integration of care offer opportunities to take a patient centered approach and reduce inequalities in outcomes. The Government is also expected to advocate for the establishment of ‘women’s health hubs’, which aim to enable access to all required care in a one-stop shop, in line with calls from advocates including the Primary Care Women’s Health Forum and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Despite the promise of better integration locally, fragmentation is continuing at a national level. Abortion has been removed from the Women’s Health Strategy and is expected to feature in the upcoming Sexual Health Strategy. With a wider interest in health inequalities, the Government must recognise the connection between these elements of healthcare and align planning nationally to support local areas to integrate care.

Committing to a women’s health strategy is a promising step in the right direction for this Government and has offered women long overdue hope. Action in response to prominent campaigns, such as the Menopause Revolution, to change the way women can interact with the system allow us to believe that the challenges women have faced for far too long could be overcome within their lifetime.

The Government have a real opportunity to ensure women have their voices heard. To do this, they must recognise the challenges they face, capitalise on system reforms to integrate care, collaborate with the women’s health community, and most importantly, commit to funding appropriate and immediate action. In a health system and economy designed by and for men, the time for meaningful, impactful change, is now.

Share this content:

Battle stations: reflections on the Government’s War on Cancer announcement

When the Conservatives were re-elected in 2019, it was on a manifesto that mentioned cancer in only two specific commitments: the expansion of the Cancer Drugs Fund and the rollout of cancer diagnostic machines across 78 hospital trusts. And yet, at the beginning of February, the Government used World Cancer Day to declare war on cancer, announcing a sweeping consultation for a new 10 Year Cancer Plan for England, designed to “radically improve” outcomes for cancer patients.

There is no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on cancer diagnosis and care, so, despite the surprise nature of the announcement, it’s hard to oppose the Government’s decision to intervene. What isn’t clear yet is the extent to which this will be a wholesale reform backed by serious funding commitments, or a rehash of existing policies in the 2019 NHS Long Term Plan and the 2015 Cancer Strategy for England.

The announcement shows the Government’s intention of taking the reins on cancer policy, and making it political. Following months of political unrest and serious concerns about the elective care backlog, this allows the Government to set its long-term intentions. By making cancer a political priority, the Government and NHS can be held to account on the impact of reform, ensuring delivery against commitments. This is likely to be central to the purpose of the Cancer Plan and will help to give momentum to a programme of change.

It is essential that funding is adequate to achieve targets at an extremely challenging time. Patient groups, who have witnessed years of rhetoric yet insufficient progress, are cautiously optimistic, rightly concerned that years of underinvestment and understaffing will mean that however great the commitments are, the resource to achieve them will not match.

We have also witnessed this week The Treasury being more muscular on making stipulations attached to funding commitments. The tense stand-off with Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) over the Elective Recovery Plan may indicate what’s to come with the Cancer Plan, with the Treasury not keen to loosen the purse strings for wooly ambitions.

Whether the Plan, when published, is a total reset or momentum for existing policy in a new format, the potential for real change in the diagnosis, management and treatment of cancers is certainly closer.

Share this content:

NHS outsourcing to the independent sector: politicians vs the public

Share this content:

The Omicron which stole Christmas

With the UK reporting its highest number of daily COVID-19 cases since the pandemic started yesterday – a new record high of 78,000 – the Prime Minister’s warning that people should “exercise caution” where possible is unsurprising.

For businesses that have survived a rollercoaster year of forced closures, tightly controlled capacity and lower footfall, the lack of Government support to tackle this latest challenge is a significant blow in a period where they usually do their best business. This is particularly acute in the hospitality sector, where lower consumer confidence and a flurry of last-minute cancellations have had a significant impact on businesses.

In 2020, the sector saw unprecedented intervention from a Conservative Government traditionally opposed to bailouts. The furlough scheme and VAT reductions helped many businesses weather the storm of prolonged national lockdowns, and the alcohol duty cut announced in this Autumn Statement was seen as a mark of the Government’s continued support for the sector.

Now, as pubs and restaurants are hit by a surge of cancelled bookings, the “party of business” seems to be taking a different approach. The rhetoric coming from Government points to the continuation of existing support measures and the fact that no outlet has been forced to close. However, there seems to be little acknowledgement that businesses will be hard hit by the behavioural changes prompted by increased case numbers and Government warnings to “socialise sensibly”, which has led to a wave of cancellations ahead of Christmas.

The Government’s thinking is not surprising. Last year’s interventions cost the UK economy billions and the long path to recovery set out by the Chancellor was a clear indication that similar action would not be taken again. It is clear that the Government will not intervene unless it is absolutely necessary.

However, with headlines majoring on UK Hospitality’s warning of far-reaching closures and job losses if steps aren’t taken to support the sector, coupled with news images of empty pubs and restaurants, pressure to intervene will surely mount in the coming days.

Rishi Sunak is set to meet industry representatives to discuss the case for additional support as consumer confidence continues to dip and cancellations continue to rise. At this point, it’s unclear whether the Government will act to stem the risk of further closures, but without it the sector faces further challenges in 2022 as the prospect of further restrictions becomes a reality.

In any case, all eyes are on the Government’s next move and any further intervention would set a precedent for future support in other sectors.

Share this content:

Politicians signal regulatory change on the horizon for IVF clinics

After a long period of stability, IVF policy is set for a shake up as a result of new regulatory proposals made recently by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the industry regulator. HFEA is looking to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 in a number of areas which would affect access and treatment types.

Scrutiny of IVF clinics has been growing over the past year. In June 2021, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) collaborated with the HFEA to develop new guidance which allows couples to initiate legal proceedings against IVF clinics that have falsely guaranteed their success rates. Following on from this, Julia Chain, the newly appointed Chair of HFEA, has called for far reaching changes to be made to current IVF regulations, which would allow HFEA to fine clinics that mislead patients over the efficacy of their treatments, as well as widen access to treatment. Chain has also called for IVF regulatory reform to allow scientists to use embryos for research beyond the present 14-day limit.

Chain has argued that IVF policy has become outdated, with reproductive regulations no longer matching the reality of treatment provided in the UK. She has highlighted several areas of the 2008 Act as being in need of reform, including patient protection and the means of maintaining the quality of care provided for them. Chain has called for a broader range of methods for addressing poor performance, such as economic sanctions against non-compliant clinics. This would also include addressing the increasing commercialisation of the fertility sector, where 65% of treatments are self-funded and public funding is unevenly distributed, resulting in a postcode lottery.

Political awareness of the discrepancy in NHS funding for fertility procedures has been growing. Under pressure from MPs across all parties, in September 2021 the then Care Minister Helen Whately MP announced that the government had conducted an internal review of variations in coverage and was currently considering its next steps.

This additional scrutiny substantially changes the political environment affecting IVF. Government reviews, the attentions of the CMA, a new activist Chair of the HFEA, as well as increased press coverage and ongoing legal cases will all increase the need for careful political due diligence of any investments in the sector. Demand for IVF services will remain high, and indeed is three times higher than it was in 1999, but investors will need to take the political and regulatory changes on the horizon into account as they plan their strategies and make their decisions.

Share this content:

WA Investor Services supports Agathos’ investment in Hunter Healthcare

WA Investor Services is proud to announce it has supported Agathos’ acquisition of Hunter Healthcare, a specialist recruiter working across the healthcare and life sciences sectors. The investment will help support Hunter’s ambitious growth plans, providing vital staffing solutions to healthcare providers and medical researchers, including developing its offer in international markets.

WA provided political due diligence to support the transaction, with its team of healthcare policy experts providing insights integral to the deal process, working closely with Agathos and other due diligence providers to deliver clarity on how ongoing structural changes to the NHS, the elective recovery and acceleration of the digital transformation agenda will affect healthcare recruitment decisions and priorities.

Commenting on the deal, WA Partner and Head of Investor Services Lizzie Wills said: “We are extremely pleased to have worked with Agathos on this deal. NHS staffing is a very high-profile issue at the moment and ensuring the NHS meets patient demand while undertaking fundamental system reform is a priority for political and NHS leaders, not least as they tackle the post-Covid backlog. As a market leading provider of political due diligence in healthcare transactions we were in an extremely strong position to support Agathos’ successful deal and we look forward to seeing the business develop over the coming years.”

Hugh Costello, Investment Director at Agathos said: “WA Comms produced a comprehensive report with insightful conclusions that were well supported by desktop research and interviews with sector participants. The team was available for calls as and when required and were always a total pleasure to deal with. Ultimately, the output produced by WA was instrumental in our decision to complete our investment. I would recommend their services wholeheartedly.”

Share this content:

What can we learn from the proposed NHS Standard Contract for 2021/22?

What can we learn from the proposed NHS Standard Contract for 2021/22?

NHS England has published a consultation on its proposed changes to the NHS Standard Contract for the financial year ahead. The final document will be used by Clinical Commissioning Groups and NHS England to contract for all healthcare services bar primary care. The focus of any changes often provides important insight into system priorities for the coming year and the strength of conviction behind them.

With 2021/22 set to be another uniquely testing year for the NHS, one might expect measures to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 to dominate the contract. Instead, there is a sense of defiant ambition, with clear signals for providers to push on with other key NHS and government priorities.

With this year’s consultation now live, here are four key takeaways for the year ahead:


1. Don’t get left behind as the NHS pushes on with system transformation

The Contract for 2021/22 shows that NHS England is not letting up in its push for system transformation. It includes several steps to establish more collaborative relationships between commissioners and providers, the most symbolic of which is the removal of financial sanctions for providers that fail to achieve national standards.

This is a significant step towards reversing the transactional, almost adversarial relationship that has proliferated between commissioners and providers over recent years, instead encouraging more collaborative system-level action to identify and address the causes of poor provider performance.

The cogs of system transformation are well and truly turning again so engagement with NHS leaders will need to focus on how to support the achievement of their newly framed outcomes in the most direct way. Additionally, the prospect of major health legislation is looming large for the first time in almost a decade, providing an important opportunity to think bigger picture.


2. Get serious about delivering ‘Net Zero’

In October, NHS England published its report on Delivering a ‘Net Zero’ National Health Service, which set out the interventions required to achieve just that, ‘Net Zero’. Yet, the report itself had no legal standing on which to enforce its recommendations or incentivise action.

The inclusion of stronger targets on the reduction of harmful greenhouses gases and air pollution in the proposed Standard Contract for 2021/22, and a requirement for providers to identify board-level officers accountable for delivering ‘Net Zero’ commitments, is a clear indication that NHS England is serious about driving this agenda forwards.

The NHS will increasingly expect everyone who works alongside it to demonstrate that they are also serious about reducing their environmental impact. Medicines, medical devices, services and care pathways can all be made more sustainable. Clearly communicating what you are doing in this space could start to deliver a commercial advantage as pressure builds on providers and health systems to make rapid progress.


3. Offer a helping hand on health inequalities

Commitments to reducing health inequalities have been somewhat of a stalwart in NHS policy over recent years. The delivery of coordinated programmes at a local level that actually move the needle have not been so common. This was brought into stark relief by the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on people of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic backgrounds.

To create greater accountability at a local level, it is proposed that the Contract include a requirement for each provider to identify a board-level executive responsible for overseeing their actions to address and reduce health inequalities. With broader government and public focus on health inequalities brought on by COVID-19, the pressure on these individuals to demonstrate progress will be palpable.

Those working alongside the NHS should place increasing focus on how they support providers and health systems to address health inequalities. At a time when resources are stretched, we may find that some are actually more open to industry support in delivering staff training programmes, new capacity or improvements to patient pathways, but they’ll have to be able to justify the time investment. Demonstrating how you can contribute to reducing health inequalities could help to secure support for your joint working projects.


4. Communicate the benefits of remote consultations and management

Following the rapid up take of video and telephone outpatient appointments during COVID-19, the NHS is now trying to cement their use into everyday clinical practice by requiring all providers to offer patients (where appropriate) a choice between remote and face-to-face consultations. The hope is that this choice will be maintained in primary care too, where uptake of remote consultations has also rocketed.

However, to truly support clinicians and patients to select remote consultations in the long-term, the NHS will need to place additional value on health technologies that support effective remote monitoring and management.

Before some slip back into old habits, the wider health sector can play a role in crystallising broad clinical support for this new way of working. Arming your field force and spokespeople with clear, real-world evidence of how your technology is reducing the need for labour intensive, face-to-face clinical interventions could provide clinicians with the confidence to continue their transformation.


Share this content:

A viral epidemic is becoming a mental health epidemic, but does the Long Term Plan need a rethink to cope?

Just 18 months on from the launch of the NHS Long Term Plan, is it already outdated when it comes to mental health?

As the focus of health policymakers moves from coping with COVID-19 to catching-up care across all conditions, attention is increasingly turning to the mental health catastrophe we face.

The challenge is not only stark for people living with mental ill health. It also threatens the carefully-laid strategy put in place before the pandemic struck.

Improving mental health care was at the heart of the Plan, with a promise to “deliver the fastest expansion in mental health services in the NHS’s history”. The ambition to finally establish parity with physical health was supported by significant funding across acute and community support.

But COVID has moved the goalposts and cut the game time. For this reason, the NHS can’t simply pick up where it left off with the mental health aims in the Plan. Somehow now it must go much further, and faster.

The impact of COVID-19 on mental health

It is clear that the pandemic is both a cause and compounder of mental illness.

Broadly speaking there are now two groups of patients with considerable and potentially long-term needs:

Firstly, those who already had and were undergoing treatment for an existing mental illness. COVID-19 lockdown restrictions have made access to primary services, support and therapies more challenging. It is likely that this has led to relapses and more acute mental health needs.

A recent survey by Rethink Mental Illness found 80% of people living with mental illness say the crisis has made their mental health worse. Almost half surveyed have struggled to access services.

Secondly, there is a wave of new patients who have developed mental illness as a result of COVID-19 and the lockdown. Triggers are wide-ranging, including stress regarding job insecurity, grief, isolation and anxiety over the future. There are also particular concerns over the long term impact on young people.

Each group will have different needs, with a complex mix of therapies, treatments and support. But the modelling of mental health services within the Long Term Plan was not designed to cope with a spike in acute cases or for a whole wave of new ones.

Further, as the implementation of the Plan was still in its infancy when COVID struck, much of the work will have been disrupted or delayed at the least.

What does the response look like?

This emerging backlog and new wave of patients requiring care will exert a pressure on services that hasn’t been experienced before. The NHS therefore needs to rapidly reassess how to respond to the challenge.

For example, the Long Term Plan aimed to expand mental health support services for an extra 345,000 children and young people aged 0-25, including through schools and colleges. Following months of school closures and the risks faced by vulnerable children, that number will now need to be much higher and rolled out with greater urgency. This is an additional and complex challenge for headteachers facing already unprecedented difficulties as schools look to reopen.

The ambition to expand community and hospital services, including talking therapies and mental health liaison teams is also a core part of the Long Term Plan’s aims. This has been seen as a long-overdue measure to provide the appropriate level of care for hundreds of thousands more people with common or severe mental illnesses. But policymakers and the health service will have to consider what a best ‘new normal’ and staffing levels looks like to ensure services can provide the levels needed.

There are glimpses of positives. NHS England has brought forward implementation of a 24/7 crisis helpline and announced extra funding for the mental health charities at the frontline of dealing with the COVID fallout during Mental Health Awareness Week.

Yet the money attached to mental health in the LTP is now superseded by the new situation. Undoubtedly more will be needed.

A new generation of political leadership

While not all will agree with Luciana Berger or Norman Lamb’s politics, Parliament lost two of its biggest mental health champions in December. New parliamentary mental health champions are stepping forward and they have an important job to play.

Promisingly, beyond COVID, mental health is the key health issue for parliamentarians. WA’s January survey of the new parliament’s health priorities saw mental health care emerge as MPs’ top priority for additional NHS funding, with two thirds choosing it as an option. But despite growing awareness of the looming mental health crisis, there has been little political focus on what needs to happen next.

It is essential that the progress made over the past few years in mental health doesn’t fall to the wayside because of COVID. A rapid review of the Long Term Plan – with a COVID lens – backed up by sufficient funding and implementation, is needed to stop the viral health epidemic becoming a mental health epidemic.

Share this content:

After COVID-19, what next for cancer services?

Thousands of cancer patients are missing. Many patients are having appointments delayed or cancelled, others simply aren’t seeking help. There is growing unease over the implications.

And so the direction from the centre is clear – getting cancer services back up to pre-pandemic levels is a top priority for the health service.

How this will be achieved remains to be seen, with many remaining unknowns around how, when and which services and standards will be brought back.

As the health system starts to piece together a path towards the new normal, we provide a recap of the key decisions made during the pandemic and some of the remaining questions that will be playing on the minds of those tasked with delivering the cancer recovery.

A pause on the 28-day faster diagnosis standard (FDS)

Due to be rolled out fully from April 1st, NHS England and Improvement cancer leads confirmed that implementation of the FDS would be put on hold indefinitely. While providers have been asked to continue sending data, they will not be expected to meet the 75% threshold and no data will be published until at least July.

Cancer providers will be anxious for further guidance over expectations when the NHS formally enters the “recovery” phase. With the need to maintain surge capacity alongside an anticipated backlog of pent-up demand for cancer services, there will be tough decisions to be made over how much leeway can be allowed for services that will undoubtedly continue to be stretched thin over the foreseeable future.

Maintaining impetus on early cancer diagnosis in primary care

The re-worked primary care network (PCN) contract for 2020/21 pushed back the start date for the Early Cancer Diagnosis service specification from 1 April to 1 October, while urging PCNs to “make every possible effort” to begin work earlier if possible.

This plaintive request from the centre was no doubt made against concern over the impact of the suspension of all cancer screening programmes. Together with screening, the service specification is integral for achieving the Long-Term Plan ambition to diagnose most cancers at an early stage.

It includes considerable administrative asks of PCNs, including a rigorous review of their referral practice and targeted action to improve the uptake of cancer screening services. Whether this can feasibly be done amidst the current situation remains to be seen. With no further signals on the resumption of the cancer screening programmes, much depends on PCNs’ ability to drive progress on this front.

Accelerating the roll-out of Rapid Diagnostic Centres (RDCs)

Many RDCs across the country have continued to operate during the pandemic, and NHS England has recognised their potential to support the COVID-19 response with guaranteed funding flows as required. The pandemic has accelerated the introductions of innovative approaches to manage referrals to RDCs and avoid hospital attendances, which may well continue well beyond the current crisis. At the same time however the submission of RDC management information has been paused, as has the planned national RDC evaluation exercise.

As services begin the task of bringing referral and diagnostic activity back to pre-pandemic levels, the expectations of RDCs will be high – the challenge will be to ensure that their learnings and good practice can be shared effectively across the system.

Continuing uncertainty over shielding

Little has been said officially over whether individuals who have been advised to shield during the pandemic, many of whom are cancer patients, will be asked to continue isolating in the coming weeks and months. Reports of recent communication by text message with those on the shielding list has indicated that some individuals are being removed from the list, although nothing has been announced on the rationale behind this decision or which groups will be affected.

Cancer Alliances have reported significant falls in 2WW referrals for suspected cancer, with anecdotal reports of some patients refusing to attend for fear of infection. Any continued ambiguity in the official advice will only exacerbate the concerns of vulnerable patients and will need careful management in order to ensure that cancer patients are receiving appropriate treatment and support.

Responding to the pandemic required rapid changes to cancer services and the necessary suspension of initiatives that were just gathering momentum before the crisis hit. What’s clear is that the task of piecing cancer services back up to pre-pandemic levels is just as complex, and there is a lot of remaining uncertainty as to where and how priorities should lie.


Share this content:

A shot in the arm for the vaccine industry? Implications of the NHS Long Term Plan for vaccine providers

Medicines manufacturers could be forgiven for feeling overlooked by the NHS Long Term Plan, with its clear focus on prevention over pills. Their colleagues in the vaccine industry may in contrast have good reason to be optimistic. Immunisation is a cornerstone of prevention, and NHS England’s ambition is clear: there will be both investment and action to increase vaccination uptake and reduce variation.

The extension of the HPV programme to adolescent boys is a strong positive signal for industry that, where the evidence is clear, investment will follow. The taxpayer funded Vaccines Manufacturing Innovation Centre announced at the end of last year is another welcome beacon to industry, indicating the importance of vaccine manufacturing capacity to UK life sciences policy.

Delve deeper however and there is the potential for impending change in vaccine policy, with mixed implications for the sector.

Vaccines are not immune – pardon the pun – to the pricing pressure being applied the pharmaceutical industry from ever-tightening drugs budgets.  While the UK has a world-leading vaccines programme, the JCVI (the industry’s equivalent to NICE) doesn’t shy from making challenging recommendations in its efforts to maximise efficiencies and value for money. Decisions with significant implications for how vaccines are funded are due to be made soon – amongst them whether the QALY threshold for reimbursement of new vaccines should be lowered, raising the bar even higher for new products to market. Vaccines already on the market are also subject to this pressure – as highlighted by the JCVI’s proposal to drop the dosing schedule for routine infant pneumococcal vaccination.

Adding to this general sense of impending change is the “fundamental review” of immunisation standards, funding, and procurement in general practice that will take place in 2019, as announced in the Long Term Plan.

While the aim is ostensibly to improve uptake and reduce variation, it seems likely that this will also consider potential efficiencies and the wider role of the NHS in providing certain vaccinations. Public Health England has already been tasked with reviewing the appropriateness of providing NHS-funded travel vaccines, and a broader review of all NHS-funded vaccinations would feel like a natural extension.

For the travel vaccine industry, scrapping NHS reimbursement would have significant implications. There is of course a risk that travellers deprived of free vaccinations will choose simply not to be immunised, rather than pay for private services. On the other hand, both manufacturers and the private travel clinic industry could stand to benefit significantly from a more level playing field, without competition from the NHS providers able to offer free vaccines as a selling point to attract travellers who then purchase additional, chargeable vaccines.

Elsewhere, any changes to the funding and procurement of GP vaccines could entail significant administrative flux for industry, with potential movement for some vaccines centrally procured by NHS England to direct ordering by practices – and vice versa.

It’s not inconceivable that NHS England may also review its centralised procurement procedures for routine immunisations, with an eye on incentivising best value for tenders.

As is evident, the potential impacts of the review on vaccine manufacturers and the broader supply industry could be substantial, for better or for worse. Questions around the scope of the review remain – prudent action at this stage would be to champion wherever possible the crucial role of vaccines in achieving the Long Term Plan’s ambitions to transform prevention and public health.


Share this content:

Is crown use licensing a loaded threat for pharma?

The battle between NHS England and American pharmaceutical company Vertex over the cost of the revolutionary cystic fibrosis drug, Orkambi, rages on.

In the latest development, campaign groups are upping the ante, backed in Parliament by Conservative MP Bill Wiggin, by calling for the government to invoke Crown use licensing. This would take the patent for Orkambi from Vertex, allowing it to be manufactured at a lower cost as a generic medicine. Earlier this week, Shadow Health Secretary Jonathan Ashworth took up the mantle, backing the call for the patent to be removed in a direct-to-camera message to Vertex on the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire Show.

How likely is it that this will happen? In short, not very.

The suggestion to strip a company of its exclusive patent is highly controversial. Crown use licensing has only been used in very rare occasions, such as in cases of emergencies where a patent was not available at all in the UK. It has not been used as a tool to take a drug from a company simply to supply a medicine for a cheaper rate.

While it may feel like a quick fix, it is probable that the process would be very drawn out. The government would have to compensate Vertex, legal battles would likely ensue, and it could take several years before a generic manufacturer would be able to produce the medicine.

Vertex, who have several pipeline drugs for cystic fibrosis, argue that the price of Orkambi is a return on investment for years of ongoing research and development in this sector. Stripping them of the ability to sell profitably in the United Kingdom would, they argue, be highly detrimental to cystic fibrosis patients in the long run who would not benefit from this or future innovative new medicines.

For the wider sector (who are watching the standoff closely), such a bold more would be highly provocative. It would be a damning signal to industry, who already see the UK as a relatively small market on a global scale and could risk the UK’s position as an attractive launch market. Companies may increasingly turn to markets, such as Germany, for their technology appraisal processes and launch. In short, Crown use licensing could lead many to reassess their relationship and ongoing commitment to the UK.

As a single payer, the NHS has negotiated preferential rates for decades, and it is feasible that industry would start to see the UK as a less influential and more volatile market, particularly given the existing pressures created by Brexit.

Invoking crown use licensing would, to put it briefly, appear to directly contradict the sentiment of the Accelerated Access Review and the Life Sciences Sector Deal, both of which promised faster access to innovative treatments.

Who will blink first? It is not clear. But as Vertex gears up to appear in front of the Health and Social Care Select Committee, there is little doubt that tensions need to cool if progress is going to be made.

Share this content:

With pharma pricing in the spotlight, US scrutiny could lead to UK ramifications

Pharma companies and their approach to pricing are back in the political spotlight. While there are major differences between US parties on most issues, the debate on drug pricing has united them as last week top executives from seven major pharmaceutical companies were called to testify in front of Congress. A combative session lasted several hours, with industry leaders laying out their position on why innovative treatments bring the price tag they do.

President Trump has set out a blueprint on medical pricing, a key aim of which is to base US drug prices on a basket of treatment prices in other developed countries. The response from pharma executives to Trump’s proposals was largely dismissive, but it has upped the pressure on pharma companies around their approach to pricing as well as increasing public scrutiny of their approach.

The ramifications for pharma companies may also now be felt here in the UK and the timing is important.

While the UK health system is markedly different to that in the US, there is mounting political awareness at home over drug pricing. And the longer the public debate goes on, the greater the willingness of politicians to take up a challenger role on the issue will be.

Today, the UK’s Health and Social Care Select Committee is gearing up for a showdown with US pharma company Vertex – as concerns escalate over the impasse between NHS England and the company on agreeing a deal for its cystic fibrosis drug Orkambi.

NHS England state they have ‘offered the best deal in its history’ to Vertex, but you can bet that it is significantly lower than the US offer, and Vertex will be seeing this in the broad global context.

Put the US’s scrutiny over globally unequal drug prices together with the UK’s bullish approach to cutting the medicines bill, add in a dose of post-Brexit trade negotiation and a heightened political atmosphere. Medicines pricing could stay in the spotlight for some time to come. And pharmaceutical companies will be on red alert, as all moves in this political chess match points towards a squeeze in prices for manufacturers.

Share this content:

NICE’s HTA methodology to undergo long anticipated review

At a recent meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Access to Medicines and Medical Devices, NICE’s Chief Executive, Sir Andrew Dillon discussed the long anticipated NICE methods review. Here are five key takeaways:

  1. Explicit recognition of NICE’s role in the wider system

NICE has always stated that it is accountable to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) but independent from government. Whilst Sir Andrew looked to reaffirm this, he was clear that NICE has to work within the wider system – there is clearly no point in creating a system that works for NICE and industry if the DHSC and NHS England can’t or won’t deliver it. The NHS’ restructuring over the past decade, including the creation of bodies such as NHS England, has reduced the autonomy and ease at which NICE can make decisions. NICE will have to collaborate more closely with these bodies to receive buy-in from across the healthcare system.

As a result, the first set of discussions will be within the health system rather than external, with the initial scope of the methodology review determined by the DHSC, NHS England and NICE.

  1. There will be a need to balance industry views

Meindert Boysen, Director of the Centre for Health Technology Evaluation (CHTA) at NICE, confirmed that the Working Committee tasked with setting the scope of this methodology review will initially only invite representatives from the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI).

This decision raised some questions from industry partners who felt the ABPI may not be able to represent all views. Some industry representatives may not appreciate being unable to influence to scope of the methodology in its early stages. Boysen was quick to stress that following the initial working group, there will be technical groups looking at specific topics, involving representations from a whole range of the pharma industry.

It is likely that NICE will also continue to face pressure from other industry representatives, such as the Ethical Medicines Industry Group (EMIG), as it pushes for a say on the scope of the methodology earlier on in the process.

  1. Is this what long grass looks like?

NICE has not yet set an anticipated date for the completion of this methodology review, and it is likely to be a complex and consultative task. For NHS England and government, there is a distinct upside to having an extended review which keeps everyone occupied in a holding pattern – putting off difficult decisions until further down the line. While the review was certainly positively received, many regard it as long overdue given the rapid advancements in medical technology over the last decade.

  1. Clear focus on highly specialised technologies

Unsurprisingly, there were many questions around the system for appraising treatments for rare diseases.  Sir Andrew recognised that this is clearly an area in need of consideration and stressed that one of the key things the review will look at is the criteria used to put products in the highly specialised treatment programme.

A holistic look at the challenge of how to balance limited resource with costly treatments for very small patient populations will be welcome, but Sir Andrew made it clear that there were no easy answers.

  1. APPG launches its own call for written evidence

Anne Marie Morris MP, Chair of the APPG, has launched a call for written evidence on NICE’s review of its methods for appraising treatments for use on the NHS. The consultation document offers industry representatives an alternative route to have their say on the methods review. However, the APPG are only accepting submissions until 29 April 2019. It will therefore it will be important for industry partners to determine the key messages and requests they want to highlight to the APPG, before it submits its findings to the CHTA.

So what next?

Appraisal and access routes have developed somewhat organically over time. For example, there are now around 10 access routes in the medicines process so a streamlining and sharpening of processes is vital.

While the review will seek to address challenges currently faced, this is also an exciting opportunity for NICE to have a longer-term vision and prepare for the future. As innovation in treatments accelerates at pace, will we now see a genuine consideration of new access models such as value-based or variable pricing across multiple indications? Or will the risk of undermining ‘a QALY is a QALY is a QALY?’ win the day?


Share this content:

The future is female: how women’s health got technical

The #MeToo and Time’s Up movements have created (and been a direct response to) some of the biggest headlines of 2018. They have created a renewed focus on many of the lingering inequalities women continue to face in the workplace, as members of society (both in the UK and elsewhere) and in the eyes of the law –  a study by the Fawcett Society in January 2018 found that the UK system continues to fail women, and called for fundamental reform to increase access to justice and offer additional protections against harassment.

Despite ongoing challenges, ever greater numbers of women from all walks of life are continuing to step into formal and informal political arenas, with a record number of women elected in the US Midterms, sparking comparisons with ‘the year of the woman’ in 1992.

Against this political and societal backdrop, $400 million has been funnelled into femtech startups.

The term “femtech” was coined in late 2016, when Ida Tin, the founder of menstrual tracking app Clue, came up with the word to describe a sector that had started to quietly gather momentum. The femtech industry, made up of largely female led start-ups focusing on women’s health and wellbeing, has developed as a result of the desire among women to seek out alternatives to hormone-derived contraceptives and has expanded to include tech specifically catering to all aspect of women’s health, including post-natal care and female specific medical conditions. Consumers are increasingly demanding a major point of difference between medical options available to them, for example in contraceptives, where all conventional options are hormone derived, rather than offering non-hormone-based options. Start-ups are increasingly filling the gap that conventional pharma companies have yet to fill, creating apps and devices for women that range from daily monitoring of reproductive cycles to new treatments for chronic long term medical conditions based on technology, rather than pharmaceuticals.

The negative impact a lack of diversity (not only gender-based) in boardrooms has on business success is well-documented. A report by Grant Thornton found that a lack of diversity means companies fail to challenge their own assumptions and bring new ideas to the table. This is having a particular effect on the ability of the femtech industry to expand. There remains a disparity between the amount male-oriented health companies can raise, and the amount female-oriented companies can expect to raise. Ro and Hims, both specialists in male specific conditions, raised over $170 million between them this year, nearly half the amount raised by an entire industry of femtech leaders. This has been partially attributed to the makeup of the boardrooms femtech leadership pitch to, with femtech leaders stating that the disproportionately high concentration of men in the investment community make their products ‘unrelatable’, leading to ‘uncomfortable’ pitches that hamper sector growth.

Market analysts Frost & Sullivan have forecast femtech will be worth $50 billion by 2025 – a rapid expansion for an industry currently made up of 200 start-ups scattered around the globe. They found that women are 75 per cent more likely to use digital tools for health than men and that working age women spend 29 per cent more per capita on health than men of the same age. Given these figures, the opportunities are clear, however, currently just 10 per cent of global investment goes to female-led start-ups.

From a political perspective, much of the drive for women to take charge of their own health has been helped along by the re-politicisation of reproductive health and women’s rights. The election of President Trump in America is frequently cited as a galvanising moment for women globally, who have become concerned by his tendency to insult women he disagrees with and brag about sexual assault prior to his election. Additionally, while in office, Trump has become known for his promotion of anti-choice judges and politicians.

Battles to normalise women’s issues have taken place in Parliament too. In 2015, Stella Creasy MP made headlines for forcing Conservative MP Sir Bill Cash to say the word “tampon” in a parliamentary debate. The image of a young, female MP persuading a middle aged male Conservative to talk directly about the ‘taboo’ subject of women’s health and menstruation was something of a milestone in a parliamentary system not known for moving with the times. Creasy made headlines again in October 2018 when, following a referendum in the Republic of Ireland in favour of ending the ban on abortion, she and fellow MP Conor McGinn successfully passed a series of symbolic amendments to the Northern Ireland Bill in Parliament forcing the Northern Ireland secretary, Karen Bradley, “to issue guidance” to explain how officials can continue to enforce the ban. Given the issue is a devolved one, the real-world ramifications are likely to be limited, but as a symbolic gesture it was a powerful one –  it became an embarrassing subject for the UK government, given their confidence and supply agreement with the DUP, who are stridently anti-abortion. The DUP is unlikely to change its opposition to ending the ban on abortion, but they are increasingly isolated on the issue, with their view seen as increasingly unacceptable across all mainstream parties.

As more femtech products show that new ways of approaching female health are not only possible, but popular, investors will become aware of their growth potential and transformative effect on the health market. Elvie, a femtech start up that manufactures pelvic trainers, has just entered into a contract with the NHS that has the potential to save the NHS over £400 per female patient annually.

It hasn’t all been plain sailing for femtech companies, particularly those dealing with female contraception. In August 2018 an advert for Natural Cycles, one of the most high profile contraceptive apps, was banned by the Advertising Standards Authority after it found that their claim to be “highly accurate” at preventing unwanted pregnancies was misleading. Such headlines have caused some reputational damage for the fledgling industry, raising doubts about the viability of non-hormonal contraceptives, which remain a significant focus for femtech businesses. However, wider enthusiasm for alternatives to conventional contraception and medical treatments remains high, proving the continuing consumer enthusiasm for femtech.

Against this backdrop, femtech has the potential to make it far easier for women to take control of their own health. The consumer market is ready and willing to pay for innovative new options, as opposed to just dealing with the pain and side effects that are often dismissed as being ‘part and parcel’ of being a woman. As investors who benefitted from the consumer interest in men’s health over the last decade can attest, the personalisation of female healthcare holds benefits for both consumers and investors.

Share this content:

Four takeaways from Matt Hancock’s vision for prevention

Matt Hancock has made a typically energetic start to his time as Health Secretary. Unlike many cabinet colleagues, Hancock has been on the front foot with a steady stream of new policy announcements since he took on the role.

And one theme has emerged as a unifying thread through much of his public commentary on health: Prevention – the idea that if you stop the causes of ill health early, you won’t have to pay the larger costs of treatment further down the line. Simple in theory; harder in practice.

This week, DHSC launched Prevention is Better than Cure, a vision document outlining the government’s direction of travel on prevention, to be followed up with a Green Paper in the first half of 2019. Matt Hancock followed this up with a keynote speech to the Social Prescribing Summit, a term which has come to embody Hancock’s health philosophy.

Over the past decade, the warmth of words on this topic would have sufficiently heated several Whitehall buildings, but Hancock is turning that rhetoric into action. Here are four takeaways from Matt Hancock’s prevention drive:

  1. The ‘prevention vision’ will define Hancock’s time as Secretary of State

In focusing in on prevention (and technology) Hancock has been able to apply some of his strongest-held political principles to the health brief. Integrated communities, the role of culture, music and sport in health, and personal responsibility all feature highly in his political back-story.  They’ve now come to the forefront in his prevention vision and are likely to feature in the coming Social Care Green Paper too.

As an economist by trade, he is naturally drawn to the nudge theories of behavioural change, and the big savings that, theoretically, are delivered through early prevention.

Since the Health and Social Care Act there is no need for the Secretary of State to be involved in the minutiae of NHS decision-making, and Hancock has been content to say to Simon Stevens et al “Here is your extra £20bn, keep the NHS running,” as Hancock focuses on other projects.

This is good news for those organisations – providers of leisure, sports, arts, voluntary and community groups – who will be the ultimate delivery vehicle of the prevention agenda.

Although, as many have pointed out, the very real issues of winter crisis, staffing shortages and impact of Brexit mean Hancock’s time spent on ‘pet projects’ may be short-lived.

  1. The Spending Review will be make-or-break for this agenda – but Hancock isn’t calling the shots

The NHS has just received a funding boost, but public health (where prevention currently sits) has not. The opposition, and many commentators, focused their response to Hancock’s (as yet unfunded) prevention vision around the £700m cut to public health budgets.

If Hancock is to truly deliver a prevention agenda, it must be funded. That means diverting more NHS funding to support prevention through the integrated care systems, or securing a major uplift in public health funding at the spending review.

Unfortunately for Hancock, neither of these outcomes are within his gift. CCG leads and local authority chiefs will decide how money is spent at a local level, and the funding gaps for things like social care are so extreme that prioritising social prescribing will be a bold choice. Meanwhile the Treasury is in the driving seat for the Spending Review, and currently sees more value in investments in infrastructure and digital technology than public health.

Some of the language around personal responsibility and the call on employers to ‘do their part’ from the prevention vision document suggests Hancock recognises this agenda will not be flush with new cash. The same old cries of ‘warm words not action’ will resurface if Hancock cannot manage to drum up new funding for this policy.

  1. Predictive prevention is on its way

The use of genomic testing to determine future likelihood of medical need may be reminiscent of a Black Mirror episode, but it is here, and it works.

The government says predictive prevention – understanding who needs what intervention and when – will be a crucial part of the UK’s 21st century health system. Innovation in public health tends to be limited compared with other areas of the economy, but predictive prevention could kick-start a new industry and put an end to a ‘one size fits all’ approach to healthcare.

The DHSC and Public Health England will convene an expert group to explore how digital services and personalised genomic testing kits can tell what kind of treatment a person is likely to respond to.

Of course, the use of personal health data has been a controversial topic, not without its challenges. There are references in the government’s prevention vision to ‘safeguards in place’ but these will need to be sufficiently robust before any public roll-out.

  1. The life sciences sector is out in the cold

The life sciences sector (once regularly described as a ‘jewel in the crown’ of British Industry) is largely on the outside looking in to this debate.

Matt Hancock has made no secret of wanting to cut the medicines budget, and has been far more vocal than his predecessors in publicly dressing-down pharma companies on pricing. With PPRS and Brexit to deal with, the Health Secretary that doesn’t appear to be in-step with the life sciences sector’s needs.

What is more, Hancock’s prevention vision has little time for pharmacological interventions. Speaking at the Social Prescribing Summit this week, he called out industry for trying to ‘convince us drugs are better than free social cures’ and said he wanted better outcomes for patients ‘without popping pills.’

The rhetoric in this debate is currently one-sided. Bizarre as it may seem, life sciences has to remake the case about the fundamental role of medicine in health, and the value of medical interventions in a fully-fledged prevention pathway.

So far, Hancock has proven that he’ll stick to his guns in focusing on his three main priorities -workforce, technology and prevention. For the time being, engagement and communication on those issues will be the way into Hancock’s good-books.

Share this content:

Investing in fertility with IVF

The in vitro fertilisation (IVF) sector has been catching investors’ attention for some time, with growth accelerating due to demographic trends, a market which looks ready for consolidation and stretched NHS budgets increasing the amount of lucrative private work available. But with promising commercial indicators for the market are there any political, policy, or regulatory risks investors in the sector should watch out for?

Accelerating sector growth

Change may be coming in the way the NHS commissions IVF providers. NHS England is working to develop a benchmark price to inform what CCGs should pay for IVF. This is aimed at reducing the significant variation in pricing across the country but may also lead to a reduction in the average price paid. Commissioning guidance aimed at improving adherence to the NICE guidance was also promised by NHS England in the face of concerns over variation in commissioning across CCGs. However, rather than an NHS England-led review, this is now being primarily driven by NHS Commissioners, the national member organisation for CCGs, suggesting that it has been de-prioritised for national focus.

The emotional investment of patients, and the few other options available to those with fertility issues, mean IVF patients are considered particularly vulnerable and the issue is likely to stay active in discussions around pricing and NHS availability.

Scrutiny of “added extras”

There has been criticism from public figures, such as Labour’s Lord Winston, a fertility expert, who have verbally attacked some private clinics for allegedly exaggerating the chances of patients achieving a successful pregnancy as a result of IVF cycles. Added extras, which some clinics offer, such as endometrial scratches, embryo glue, and immune therapy, have come under particular scrutiny, with Lord Winston saying there is little evidence for their efficacy.

In other areas such as dentistry, government has sought to encourage competition by requiring clinics to publish detailed price lists and supporting the creation of comparison websites, so patients can more easily research service levels and affordability. Media commentators have suggested similar measures could be taken forward for IVF as part of government’s consumer rights agenda.

Though there is scope for some regulatory disruption, many of the other trends are positive. The sector, which contains many small operators, looks ripe for consolidation and scaling and there has been some investment from private equity already. Nexxus Iberia and Capzanine acquired a 35 per cent stake in the largest European fertility network, Eva Fertility, this year; Mobeus Equity Partners provided growth capital to Bourn Hall, the first IVF clinic in the world, in 2014; and Create Fertility, a low-cost provider, received backing from Livingbridge Capital in 2013. The UK’s largest private fertility clinic group, CARE Fertility has been wholly owned by Bowmark Capital since 2012.

The UK market varies in scale and ownership. In 2017 there were 132 licensed clinics and laboratories in the UK of differing types. Some performed 4,200 cycles of IVF treatment whilst the smallest provided fewer than 100. Most (34 per cent) are privately owned, many of which are part of groups owning clinics across the country. 29 per cent of clinics are run by an NHS/private partnership where self-funded patients can access services through NHS institutions. NHS-only services make up just 22 per cent of all clinics.

“Patchy service” within NHS

One driver of demand is the increasing restriction in IVF availability on the NHS. NICE guidelines for England, which must be considered by Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) but not necessarily adhered to, specify that women aged under 40 should be offered three cycles of IVF treatment and those aged 40 to 42 should have access to one cycle.

However, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the sector regulator, has noted that the trend is for CCGs to “reduce the number of treatment cycles they fund”, resulting in “patchy service”. This has been corroborated by Fertility Fairness, the campaign for access to fertility treatment, which has published an audit showing the treatment CCGs offer across the UK. Just 12 per cent of CCGs now follow NICE guidance, down from 24 per cent in 2013. Seven CCGs offer no IVF at all, while many are introducing new criteria to restrict treatment such as: changing the definition of an “IVF cycle”; lowering the upper age limit for treatment to 35; restricting treatment based on Body Mass Index; and stopping` treatment based on past relationships.

Falling fertility

Another factor is reduced fertility and delayed parenthood. According to the HFEA, 32 per cent of heterosexual couples in the UK experience unexplained infertility, with the primary treatment being IVF. This high rate of infertility can partly be explained by the increase in the average age women have their first child – up from 27.2 years in 2005 to 28.6 in 2015. In 2014, 52 per cent of all live births in the UK were to mothers aged 30 and over (with 67 per cent of fathers over 30).

Declining male fertility is also a key factor causing an increase in IVF usage. Sperm counts of men in western countries have more than halved in the past 40 years and are falling by an average of 1.4 per cent per year. Male infertility, for which there is no treatment, is the main reason for people pursuing IVF and therefore its growth will continue to drive demand.

To ensure investors can take advantage of these trends towards growth, they must navigate their way around the increased attention on IVF access and pricing and mitigate potential regulatory hurdles. They must pay close attention to stakeholders commenting on the sector and carefully consider how their companies will operate and sell to patients.

Share this content:

What does Hancock’s ‘tech revolution’ mean for health-tech and AI?

Given his well-publicised love of all things tech and digital, it comes as no surprise that Matt Hancock’s main priority as Health Secretary will be to overhaul technology in the NHS. Steeped in his family’s software company before entering politics, and driver of a much-praised digital government and economic strategies he seems, on paper, the ideal candidate for ushering in the ‘tech revolution’.

But Hancock will be equally aware of the challenge ahead, and that the dreaded fax machine has outlived many a Health Secretary. So, will his ambitious plans lead to a tech revolution in the NHS, or will the fax machine outlive him?

Last week Hancock unveiled “The future of healthcare: our vision for digital, data and technology in health and care” introducing minimum technical standards to ensure interoperability and upgradability in the NHS. Any system that fails to meet these new standards will be ‘phased out’, and any providers who do not adhere to the new principles will see their contracts terminated. No deadline for this phasing out has yet been given.

The DHSC also reaffirmed its commitment to delivering upon the AI and Data Grand Challenge set out in the Industrial Strategy to ‘use data, AI and innovation to transform the prevention, early diagnosis and treatment of diseases’. Just last month, health minister Lord O’Shaughnessy announced a ten point ‘code of conduct’ for AI intelligence and other data-driven technologies that encourages companies to protect patient data and seeks to ensure that only the best technologies are used by the NHS.

Under the changes, the use of ‘off-the-shelf’ technologies is encouraged, and CCGs and trusts will be free to buy whatever technology they need – so long as it is compliant with the principles. The DHSC said that “this should encourage competition on user experience and better tools for everyone”.

So far, so positive for healthtech and AI companies – especially for those who can meet the new standards. For new and emerging companies, that is unlikely to be a problem – it is older, more dated and less interoperable companies that are likely to suffer under the changes.

This is, of course, not the first time that a Health Minister has sought to upgrade NHS IT and tech. The doomed NHS National Programme for IT cost the tax payer nearly £10 billion before it was scrapped in 2013, one of a string of failed tech reforms.

Hancock is well aware of these failures and of the pressure to make his reforms succeed where the others did not. A key difference between the new changes and the previous attempts is the cost – so far, funding has been limited. Investment in the plans is unlikely to come out of the £20 billion announced earlier this year, and it is improbable that there will be any tech funding announced in next week’s Autumn Budget. In August, Hancock unveiled just £450 million of funding for new technology across the NHS. Alan Woodward, visiting Professor of Cyber Security at Surrey University pointed out that the funding would likely not go far in reality, saying: “Think about it per head, and what it could actually do”. The NHS spent £157 million on simply upgrading its systems to Windows 10.

This time around, reforms are less of a top-down, funded programme and more about making the market more accessible for new providers. Companies will need to show their worth and make a case for how their technology can make a substantial difference to the individual trusts. With the NHS endlessly battling its debts, a company that can highlight how its software can help to save money in the long-term will be an attractive prospect.

NHS trusts can also provide immense non-monetary value to tech companies. The NHS trove of patient data is often cited as one of its most valuable assets, and healthtech and AI companies are keen to access it to further develop technological solutions and diagnostic programmes. Partnerships like that of Google’s DeepMind and Moorfields Eye Hospital have enabled the development of software proven to be as accurate as world-leading eye experts in detecting over 50 different eye diseases.  The DHSC highlights DeepMind in its policy paper and describes it as technology that has “the potential to transform the way professionals carry out eye tests.”.

Moorfields is not paying DeepMind anything, but DeepMind is benefitting enormously from the partnership – through harvesting the patient data, it is designing and building diagnostic AI programmes that have the future potential to be adopted around the world.

With the DHSC increasingly cognisant of the importance of safe-guarding patient data, it is important for companies like DeepMind to provide reassurance they are adhering to the new guidelines. Whilst the lack of funding might initially seem discouraging for the healthtech and AI industry, there remain significant benefits and opportunities to working with the NHS and an ever more accessible environment to doing so. If companies create a compelling case for their value, efficiency and safety and if commissioners are receptive to change, the long-held dream of a technologically advanced NHS may just be realised.

Share this content:

WA’s Digital Health Map: Understanding the digital landscape in health

For years, the pace of change in digital health has outstripped government and NHS policy. But the landscape is changing rapidly. With digital being the bedrock of Matt Hancock’s health vision, a long-term plan for health in place and a growing digital architecture to support innovation, for industry there’s never been a better time than now to shape the digital revolution.

Against this background, WA Health held a senior-level industry roundtable meeting with Richard Sloggett, Special Advisor to Health Secretary Matt Hancock, and Anna King, Commercial Director at Health Innovation Network. Discussions focused on why the time is ripe for industry involvement, and how to navigate the complexities.

The meeting was largely positive, with a clear enthusiasm from attendees about the potential role industry can play in leading this growing, fast paced and important agenda. It was argued that there are now more opportunities and stronger political backing than in the past, so there’s a real chance to make the UK the best place globally to ‘do digital’.

But with multiple policies and organisations (some dating back to the Coalition Government) involved in the agenda, there is much confusion about how and who to engage with. And the landscape grows ever more complex; with Digital Innovation Hubs, Local Health and Care Record Exemplars (LHCRES), Academic Health Science Networks, The Health Tech Advisory Board and the Data Guardian to name just a few.

And of course, July 2019 will see the launch of NHSX – the new unit tasked with driving forward and aligning the digital transformation of health and social care.

The organic nature in which these systems have developed means there is sometimes overlap, and change will take time.

To help you navigate this system, WA Health has developed a new Digital Health Map, designed to give some order to the complexity. You can access the Digital Health Map via the link below.

We’d love to talk to anyone seeking to engage with the system on digital health and innovation, so please do get in touch at

WA’s Digital Health Map

Share this content:

Register for insights

Speak to us
020 7222 9500

6th Floor, Artillery House
11-19 Artillery Row
Sign Up
Complete the form below to sign up to our newsletter:




    By submitting this form you agree to WA Communications’ Privacy Policy.