WA Health Archives - WA Communications

WA strengthens award-winning health practice with senior appointment

WA has welcomed Jake Pond as a Director in its growing Health team, bringing extensive expertise in health, market access and rare diseases policy.

Jake joins from Oxygen Strategy, where, as Associate Director, he held leadership responsibility for client service delivery and spearheaded the firm’s public affairs offer for health technology assessment (HTA).

Working closely with WA Health’s senior leadership, Jake will focus on supporting clients across the life sciences sector, drawing on his deep expertise and proven experience in market access strategy and life sciences policy.

His appointment comes as WA Health continues to grow at pace. The team was named Communiqué’s Public Affairs and Policy Consultancy of the Year 2025 and recently secured significant new wins from organisations including global pharma leaders Sanofi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Johnson & Johnson and digital mental health platform Kooth.

Jake’s arrival follows the appointment of Professor Carole Longson MBE – former NICE Executive Director and Chief Scientific Officer at the ABPI – to WA’s Advisory Board.

Commenting on his appointment, Jake Pond, Director, WA Communications, said:

“WA has a fantastic reputation in health and life sciences. I’m thrilled to be joining at such an exciting time of growth and look forward to helping our clients navigate change and shape the future of health.”

Dean Sowman, Head of Health, WA Communications, added:

“We’re delighted to welcome Jake to WA. His expertise and sector insight will be a real asset to our clients and further strengthen our fast-growing health practice.”

Share this content:

The Rare Cancers Bill – a blueprint for inclusive health reform?

The Rare Cancers Bill, a Private Member’s Bill introduced by Dr Scott Arthur MP, is currently progressing through the House of Lords. If successful, it could become a shining example of mobilising Parliament to drive patient-led policy change.

The urgent need for action to tackle rare cancers

Rare Cancers are classified as affecting fewer than 1 in 2,000 people. However, in reality these cancers are not ‘rare’ at all. Nearly half of all cancer diagnoses are a less common or rare cancer and they account for over half of cancer deaths in the UK.

Despite the impact on patients and the health system, rare cancers have been left unaddressed, with limited inclusion within government policy and a lack of progress on health outcomes. Over the last decade, while the incidence of rare and less common cancers has risen by 3.8%, survival rates and early diagnosis rates have stalled when compared to common cancers.

Research funding is critically important for rare cancers; however, only 54% of non-industry spend on cancer research is on rare and less common cancers. The Rare Cancers Bill – which aims to incentivise research and investment to address these shortfalls – is therefore vital for improving the lives of the 180,000 people who are diagnosed with rare or less common cancers every year in the UK.

Advocacy in action – lessons from the Rare Cancers Bill

If successfully passed through both houses, the Bill would require the Health Secretary to promote and facilitate research into rare cancers, improve patient recruitment into rare cancer clinical trials, require the Government to review the law on marketing authorisations for cancer-treating orphan drugs, and establish a National Specialty Lead for Rare Cancers.

As such, the Bill holds vast potential for transforming outcomes for people living with rare cancers.

There are clear lessons to be learnt here on how positive change can be achieved through effective advocacy. The Bill’s success so far rests on a combination of conditions that could be applied to future efforts to deliver positive policy change through parliamentary channels:

Dr Scott Arthur MP, sponsor of the bill, is a passionate advocate whose determination is rooted in personal loss to a rare brain cancer.
It aligns closely with key Government priorities, including notably the upcoming National Cancer Plan.
Crucially, it doesn’t call for significant new Government spending, which makes its measures easier to enact within the current fiscal environment.
It won the support of several large-scale cancer charities, strengthening the case for change through their own advocacy efforts.
Most significantly, those living with rare cancers and their families provided compelling evidence for change and, through cancer charities, they have been able to contribute to the solutions set out in the Bill. As such, their lived experience has shaped the framing of the Bill and ensures it will address real-world challenges, keeping the focus on meeting the needs of patients with rare cancers.

A blueprint for future health reform

The Rare Cancers Bill is an important example of how positive change can be driven through traditional, and often underused parliamentary channels. In this instance, success depended on capturing the patient experience, amplifying patient voices, winning the support of key advocacy groups, and aligning with Government priorities. This inclusive, response, and collaborative model of policymaking offers valuable lessons for how other policy challenges in areas of unmet need could be addressed.

Share this content:

Establishing a new care pathway for children with vision impairment

There are over 40,000 children and young people living with sight loss across the UK, and for each of them, it represents more than just difficulty with your vision. Children and young people with vision impairment have lower academic attainment and lower rates of employment later in life.

To address this critical area of unmet need, WA were proud to work with Guide Dogs, one of the UK’s leading sight loss charities, to establish a new care pathway for children and young people living with vision impairment.

Services in this area are wide ranging and multi-faceted, from low vision clinics and habilitation services to social care and specialist ophthalmology.

Our work set out to explore the challenges faced by children with vision impairment, and opportunities to improve the care and support that they receive.

We interviewed some of the most well-respected experts in the sector to grapple with where things are working well and how they could be better. This wasn’t about finding out how each element could improve – it was about demonstrating how the whole system could work in unison.

We helped to develop a pathway that children and their families can use to navigate health, care and education systems and understand what support is available. The pathway is aligned with professional standards – ensuring that services are equitable across the board.

Our work led us to discussions with some incredibly passionate individuals: teachers working overtime to establish working groups, doctors fighting campaigns to secure better support for children in special schools, and parents utterly committed to improving the system for future children.

But it’s not sustainable to rely on individual commitment. Children and young people should all be entitled to the best care regardless of where they live.

The Eye Care Support Pathway for Children and Young People is the result of several years of in-depth research.

This pathway sets out what care could and should look like and demonstrates how children, young people and their families should be made to feel at every step. If successfully implemented, it will help to ensure that people get the right support at the right time.

Receiving a vision impairment diagnosis can be an unsettling time, with overwhelming amounts of information and technical terms throughout the journey. This pathway can help health, education and social care services to ensure children and their families are well informed to manage it confidently.

The Eye Care Support Pathway for Children and Young People has already received cross-sector backing and full endorsement from the National Clinical Director for Eye Care Services. Our hope is that this can allow children with sight loss and their families to benefit from the best support and care possible.

Alex Clarke, Senior Policy, Public Affairs and Campaigns Manager at Guide Dogs said:

“Guide Dogs were thrilled to work with WA Communications on the Eye Care Support Pathway for Children and Young people. WA’s support in helping us gather insights from healthcare professionals and commissioners, parents and young people, and in the drafting of the pathway has been key in enabling the sector to launch the Pathway.”

For more information on how WA Health can support your organisation to build cross-sector consensus and engage policymakers at a local and national level, get in touch with Lloyd Tingley at LloydTingley@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

Reflections on NHS Confed Expo 2025

Last week saw a busy few days at NHS Confed Expo 2025, with the overall mood across the board being one of cautious optimism. There’s no denying the scale of the challenges facing the health service, but what was obvious was a shared sense of collective will. Leaders and experts from different parts of the system all seem to agree that the NHS needs a new direction, and working together is the only way to get there.

Yet, under the surface of that optimism lies a degree of uncertainty. The much-anticipated 10-Year Health Plan (10YHP) still hasn’t been published, and it casts a long shadow. While everyone agrees that change is necessary, there’s still a sense that no one quite knows how we’re going to make it happen. As Jim Mackey noted in his keynote speech, public support for the NHS is waning and this may be the last chance to earn it back.

The promise of devolution

A few key themes unmistakably stood out throughout the conference – the first being devolution.

It’s becoming overwhelmingly clear that the NHS of the future will be far less centralised. Ten years from now, the role of central governance is likely to be significantly diminished. Instead, we’re seeing the increasing importance of NHS regions in overseeing provider performance.

Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) are also stepping into a more strategic role. They’re not only about strategic commissioning, but they are also evolving into guardians of population health, tasked with building neighbourhood-level health services tailored to local needs. This is more than a structural change, it signals a new way of thinking about accountability and responsiveness in the system.

Another standout conversation was around Foundation Trusts. The influence of Jim Mackey on Wes Streeting’s approach was clear. Trusts will be given the freedom to operate within a defined set of rules, but financial rewards will be closely tied to their ability to collaborate across the system and deliver on the so-called ‘left shift.’

Achieving the left shift

Another key theme was, unsurprisingly, prevention, which dominated discussions throughout the conference. Prevention will no longer be the responsibility of community providers and primary care. As many speakers put it, ‘prevention is everybody’s business.’

The left shift will not just be about moving services from hospitals into the community. Health leaders are increasingly aware that there will need to be a rethinking of how care is delivered, not just the setting where its delivered, but the model itself. There’s now an opportunity for health care leaders, and industry partners, to consider what care can look like if it’s designed around the needs of patients rather than settings. Again, the ‘how’ is still a little unclear, but the willingness to deliver seemed optimistic.

Partnering to deliver impact

A final theme to mention is partnerships. It’s clear that appetite for partnership working is growing, and crucially, it’s not just coming from industry. With capacity stretched and resources thin, there’s a pragmatic understanding that if industry can offer support, it has a legitimate role to play. The key will be ensuring that these partnerships are built on clear, shared objectives and a commitment to transparency.

Even historically sensitive topics, like Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs), are being re-examined. While there’s still wariness around private sector involvement, that caution is being offset by the need for investment and innovation. It’s likely we’ll see a reimagined approach to PFI, driven less by traditional Blairite ideology and more by necessity.

What comes next?

What’s clear from Expo is that there is appetite for change and the system is ready for reform.

But until the 10-Year Health Plan lands, we remain in a holding pattern. The document needs to do more than just set an operating framework. It needs to offer a compelling, cohesive vision for what the NHS can become, rooted in collaboration, shaped by local needs, and open to partnership.

And then the real challenge will begin in implementing the plan – our hope is that the openness to partnership remains, and we can work collaboratively across the system and life sciences industry to deliver real change and positively impact outcomes.

Share this content:

NICE’s Gold Standard Status benefits the UK’s growth agenda – Government must ensure this is maintained

During my nearly 20 years at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and in the period since, NICE has spearheaded pioneering initiatives in health technology assessment that have established it as a world-renowned and globally respected organisation. A lot has changed in this period – personalised medicines, genetic cures for rare diseases, medicines that work across many diseases – and on the whole, NICE has managed to keep up with the relentless pace of medical innovation in its methods and processes.

But the development of ever-more exciting medicines over the last few years, requires an equally agile and innovative HTA environment. Maintaining NICE’s podium status amongst HTA bodies is reliant on the wider public sector life science ecosystem and, importantly, Government as its sponsor, coming together with NICE to map out how best to maintain pace with the outside world.

Front and centre for Government and NICE is reversing long standing viewpoints which have, as Wes Streeting recently put it himself, been based on a perception of “medicines spend as a bit of a deadweight cost”. Cost-containment is all well and good, if benefits to patient outcomes are also being factored into policy developments with equal weight. I have become increasingly worried that this might not always be the case.

NICE is quite rightly seen as beacon for fairness and objectivity in a highly charged drug pricing environment. To continue to be held in such high regard, it must be viewed as fiercely independent, obviously from the life sciences industry but also from direct political influence from government and perhaps most importantly from the NHS, our national ‘payer’ for health technology innovation. Being truly independent is not straightforward and NICE has to balance many powerful external voices. Take the severity modifier now used by NICE in medicines evaluation. Would NICE have set the weighting for this modifier at the level it is if it did not have the policy constraint, set by others, of it needing to be cost neutral with respect to the ‘end of life’ modifier that it replaced?

Similarly, not being able to fully implement indication based pricing as business as usual for medicines with differing relative effectiveness across their indications ignores the fact that each indication for these medicines could be established as cost-effective using NICE’s world leading methods.

By the system viewing medicines as a cost to be contained, rather than an investment in better health, I worry that NICE’s robust and independent arbitration of value for money will increasingly be viewed as failing as the voice of cost control grows ever louder.

Having a world-leading HTA body like NICE isn’t just a nice-to-have for a bit of collective self-congratulation. It can help demarcate us as an attractive place for the billions in potential investment from the life sciences sector. With the US on the brink of a monumental shift in pharmaceutical pricing, shining a light on the UK as a forward-thinking place for health technology adoption at pace and scale could prove to be just the kind of helping hand that HM Treasury is looking for. Amidst the global turbulence for the life sciences sector, the UK could become a beacon of attractiveness.

The talent of my former colleagues at NICE in finding solutions to some of the most difficult issues in medicines policy helps to ensure patients access new medicines at a price that is sustainable for the NHS – but NICE can only continue to be a world-leading organisation if the ecosystem, including Government gives it the space and flex to be so.

If you’re interested in speaking with Carole or hearing more about how WA Communications can support you, get in touch with a member of the team.

Share this content:

ICBs: What does the ‘less is more’ mantra mean in reality?

Even before the announcement that NHS England is to be abolished, the direction of travel for integrated care boards (ICBs) was clear – less is more.

The cost management and reduction scheme which forces a 30% real terms reduction in staffing by 2025/26 had taken centre stage, making the delivery of Joint Forward Plans and the delegation of specialised commissioning far more difficult.

As such, conversations on reducing the total number of ICBs via mergers have been rife behind closed doors, seen as a strategic decision to make the most out of resources and expertise available.

However, following the announcement that ICBs must cut their already diminished workforce by a further 50% (although note this will not be universally applied due to ICBs being at different baselines following the previous 30% cut), the consolidation process is now a necessity rather than a nice to have and will be accelerated and at a greater scale than previously thought.

This is much to the joy of NHS England’s Interim CEO, Sir Jim Mackey, who although falling short of mandating mergers, is keen that ICBs cover larger average populations. With this will come a shift in responsibilities to providers, and the potential for less delegation of specialised services than previously outlined.

1. So, what does consolidation actually look like?

ICBs covering small populations merging

The ICBs that will struggle to survive, and have to merge, are those that cover smaller populations. Many of these ICBs were too small to begin with and are an outcome of the nebulous nature by which ICBs were formed.

These ICBs are those that cover under one million people (10 ICBs), but potentially those serving under 1.2 million (a further 9 ICBs). Many of these smaller ICBs are in the West Midlands, East of England and the South West, so this is where we are likely to see the most consolidation.

While no ideal size has been mandated for ICBs, a target population size of 1.5million – 2.5 million is likely to align with ICS design guidance and create ICBs that are at a scale conducive of implementing their new responsibilities while providing financial sustainability.

In this likely scenario the Midlands would go from having 11 ICBs to 4, East of England from 6 to 4 and the South West from 7 to 4.

Will larger ICBs split?

While the focus is on small ICBs which will be unable to continue due to cuts, larger ICBs, more likely to be able to shoulder a reduction in staffing, will not automatically fit the future model envisioned by the DHSC and NHS England transition team.

But don’t expect these to split into more manageable population sizes. If anything, mergers of large ICBs are just as likely as those covering small ICBs. For example, discussions are ongoing in London on whether to consolidate 5 ICBs to 3, or potentially even 1 ICB covering the whole 10million+ population in the city.

The potential of aligning to pathology networks

One train of thought is that the necessary consolidation of ICBs provides an opportunity to align their footprints against the 27 pathology networks outlined in NHS Improvement’s ‘Pathology Networking: State of the Nation’. While the report is now six years old and created by the defunct NHS Improvement, it still holds that these networks are optimal geographic groupings of providers into hub-and-spoke configurations.

By adhering to these configurations, ICBs would ensure they cover a patient who under current ICB boundaries live outside of their catchment area, but use a tertiary centre within their area, reducing the number of ICBs that share major hospitals, aligning better to patient flows.

The pathology networks could provide a template for ICBs to merge along these geographic boundaries, while also bearing in mind considerations on mayoral combined authority boundaries, as outlined by Sir Jim this week.

2. What will consolidation mean for budgets and spend?

Winners and losers on budget allocations

ICB budgets are not distributed evenly, with some ICBs receiving higher or lower funding across key areas including their core allocation, high cost drugs and to cover specialised commissioning. This means that when allocations are broken down per capita there can be variance of over 20% between the amount of money an ICB receives per a patient in their catchment area.

Often ICBs with large universities in their catchment area, or a higher proportion of people with high indices of deprivation, will benefit from a higher per capita budget allocation. Inevitably some of these ICBs will merge with others that are receiving a lower amount of funding per capita – meaning the freedom to which some ICBs can operate will be stymied.

While this may benefit some, and hinder others, ultimately one of the key drivers of ICBs covering larger populations is a greater mix of demographics within each catchment area and therefore a reduction in budget variation.

Misalignment on spending priorities

Similarly, how money is spent, and where, can differ wildly between ICBs. This does not always correlate to geography, so an ICB which spends a large amount of money on a priority could easily merge with one that spends little money in the same area.

For example an ICB spending nearly £200 on GP prescribing per person, merging with an ICB spending £120 per person may not appear problematic, but when you extrapolate that £80 per person difference across the potential 2 million people in the catchment area of the new ICB the difference in allocation of resources is stark – in the hundreds of millions.

How new ICBs wrangle with budget allocations, and how they use them, with a reduced workforce, will be challenging to navigate, and must be taken into account during the consolidation process.

3. When will this all happen?

Discussions on consolidation have significantly accelerated over the last couple of weeks, with some ICBs unable to viably continue given the funding it takes to run a statutory body (£2-3m a year) falling below the amount needed for some smaller ICBs.

As with the abolishment of NHS England, the DHSC and NHS England’s new leadership don’t have the time to wait for legislation to come first. However, as ICBs are statutory bodies, without new, or amended legislation, they cannot formally merge. This means that we can expect de-facto mergers where all 42 ICBs are still legally separate, but not in practice.

This means while a new health bill is prepared, there is nothing in the way of ICBs and we can expect the first news on mergers to come over the coming months.

These mergers can’t come soon enough for Wes Streeting, Sir Jim Mackey, and Dr Penny Dash who need to show the widescale changes they are demanding from the system don’t disrupt the implementation of the forthcoming 10 year plan which is now only two months from publication.

Share this content:

Are we deprioritising women’s health in the UK at a time when more focus should be on it?

International Women’s Day this past Saturday is an important reminder of the advancements made, but also the challenges that still exist when it comes to women’s rights and health.

In the UK, telemedicine for early medical abortion, and the move to make some types of contraceptive pills available in pharmacies, are two recent examples of much needed progress. But there is so much more that needs to be done, because this is an issue that impacts all of society. Here are some of our thoughts on the current situation when it comes to women’s health.

An economic burden and stark inequalities

Recent research from NHS Confederation found that absenteeism due to severe period pain and heavy periods alongside endometriosis, fibroids and ovarian cysts costs nearly £11 billion a year. There are also social considerations, including ethnic and socioeconomic factors – for example, women living in the most deprived areas of England are expected to live for five fewer years than those in the least.

Is the Government still committed to women’s health?

In 2022, the Women’s Health Strategy was heralded as a major moment for this area of policy. It included the expansion of women’s health hubs across the country (framed as a holistic solution for women’s health needs) and the appointment of a Women’s Health Ambassador.

Two and a half years later, the (now Labour) Government has removed the target for all Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) to have at least one hub. While it is true that most areas have met this target, on the ground – it is a mixed picture. The Women and Equalities Committee recently reported challenges with how hub funding is being used locally and called for ‘long-term, ring-fenced funding and resources to embed the hub model and further support its development’.

And while the Government pledged to prioritise women’s health in their election manifesto, no one knows what that means in practice after nearly a year in power. Time will tell if this commitment translates into action.

The rise of social media influencers in the battle for ‘natural’ contraception

Speaking to WA Senior Advisor David Thorne, he described oral contraception as “arguably the most important medicine ever developed for humanity”. This is no understatement – providing women with the choice to decide if, and when, to have children has a huge economic and societal impact, including helping to reduce poverty.

However, many ICBs are seeing a decline in this type of medicine used and an increase in terminations of pregnancies. While evidence is still emerging, there are concerns that misinformation is leading women to increasingly view ‘natural’ contraception apps as superior to the pill – despite the fact they are only 76% effective with typical use, compared to the most effective types such as the implant (which is 99% effective). Social media has a big role to play here – one TikTok video which falsely claims hormonal birth control can cause infertility and brain tumours has been viewed more than 600,000 times.

The clinical world is still grappling with the way young people now access information. Worryingly, this means this downward trend isn’t close to stopping. And while women should be supported to make a choice about whatever form of contraception suits them best, this should be an informed choice – based on evidence.

At a time of increasingly tight budgets and competing priorities across the NHS, we must not lose sight of the value of investing in contraception but we must also be better at communicating its benefits in a way that audiences will engage with.

More awareness of menopause isn’t equating to better health outcomes

One area we have seen significantly increased public debate is menopause – not least because of high profile people like Davina McCall becoming a prolific public speaker on it. While this awareness is positive, women are still sharing many disheartening stories of poor access to the care they need, and most importantly, deserve.

WA Communications has been working with Astellas to understand what women are really experiencing when it comes to menopause care and treatment. Commissioning YouGov to conduct a survey, we delved into the expectations and experiences of 1,680 women – throughout all stages of their reproductive journey. The findings paint a bleak picture for menopause care.

Of the 1,022 peri-/menopausal and post-menopausal women surveyed, 77% felt they were not offered a choice about their menopause treatment, and only 15% felt the treatment options available to them were very suitable for their needs.

This is having an impact on productivity; unemployment due to menopause symptoms costs approximately £1.5 billion per year – with approximately 60,000 women in the UK not working due to menopause symptoms.

We need to focus on translating this positive sentiment into system improvements which still ensure women have access to choice when it comes to their menopause care.

Advocating for change

Thankfully, the idea that action on women’s health matters is not controversial. But our advocacy and campaign efforts must strongly communicate that these are major public health issues. Increasing access to contraceptive care or cervical screening uptake must not be positioned as ‘nice to have’.

These are also issues that directly support the Government’s policy ambitions, including when it comes to getting people back into work, and a laser-focused growth mission. With women making up 51% of the population, this represents a massive opportunity.

When calling for Government action on women’s health, we need to frame our arguments accordingly.

We also need to see this as a policy area which requires effective partnership work. There are hugely exciting medical innovations coming into this space – effective engagement with the clinical and patient group community will help ensure these reach women as quickly and easily as possible.

Increased awareness and activity on social media on issues related to women’s health is one thing, but we are some way off fully delivering for women. We know the gains that can be made, now is the time to make action happen.

If you’re interested in hearing more about WA Communication’s work in women’s health in the UK or globally, get in touch with a member of the team.

Share this content:

How Amanda Pritchard’s departure signals a new dawn for the NHS

Today, Amanda Pritchard resigned as Chief Executive of NHS England after three and a half years in charge.

Her resignation comes at an extremely challenging time for the health service with the recent Operational Planning Guidance, published at the end of January, asking NHS organisations to reduce their outgoing costs and achieve 4% productivity gains over the year.

While Pritchard’s resignation letter suggests she left of her own volition, she had been under increasing scrutiny, shown during her most recent appearance in front of the Health and Social Care Select Committee where members accused her of lacking drive and ambition.

This change delivers a fresh start for the NHS and suggests a shifting power dynamic towards the Department of Health and Social Care. This is evident from the Government’s preferred candidate as NHS England’s new Chair, widely expected to be former McKinsey & Co partner Penny Dash, and the new interim CEO Sir Jim Mackey. This duo has significant experience in the NHS and will be unafraid of calling out inadequacies in the system, as evidenced by Penny Dash’s recent scathing report into the effectiveness of the Care Quality Commission.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting has said these new appointments will require “a new relationship” between DHSC and NHS England to enhance the “one team culture”. While NHS leadership may be hoping for a joint enterprise, the evidence suggests that DHSC is very much calling the shots and will be in total control over the 10 Year Health Plan, due to be published in the coming months.

So, who’s in charge of the 10 Year Plan?

Despite Amanda Pritchard featuring front and centre in the launch of the consultation, it is certainly not NHS England.

Those advising on the strategic direction of the plan are more PwC than ICB, with a wealth of former consultants advising Streeting in DHSC, such as Alan Milburn, the Blair-era Health Secretary who spent more than a decade working in the private sector. He has been dubbed the second Secretary of State and has been instrumental in shaping the future of health policy since his return to Government. Streeting has also relied on left-leaning think tanks, scooping up Tom Kibasi, former director of the Institute for Public Policy Research to draft the plan.

While the Health Secretary clearly appreciates the role of NHS England in delivering his ambitious plans, long-term reform of the NHS is his single biggest priority in Government, and his desire for success has necessitated whittling down its influence.

Almost eight months after the General Election, Streeting’s influence continues to grow. Ahead of this year’s Spring financial forecast and comprehensive spending review, funding for DHSC is expected to remain strong compared to other departments. This vote of confidence is reflective of Streeting’s standing with Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves but is also dependent on an expectation to deliver on his lofty aims for NHS reform.

Until now, Streeting’s plans have been clear cut: end workforce strikes, expose the state of the health service through the Darzi review, announce the 10-Year Plan, and deliver two million extra NHS appointments. The departure of Amanda Pritchard demonstrates a shift from quick wins to a long-term focus.

The Health Secretary has the influence and political capital to implement his long-term plan. His hope for the future is that he can claim accountability for its successes rather than suffer the same fate as many of his failing predecessors.

Share this content:

WA welcomes David Thorne as Senior Advisor

David Thorne, originally a nurse, has held NHS leadership positions within hospital, community, primary care and commissioning organisations.
He will support WA’s health policy-led communications team as part of our advisory board – which brings together high-profile figures from Westminster, the media, and the health service.
The appointment reflects the increasing challenges faced by industry in identifying precise ideas that can change health for better within the national health system, in response to the new government’s focus on transforming primary care.

David, Director of Transformation at Well Up North Primary Care Network, will provide invaluable insight and connections into the NHS of today and the future.

WA’s leading Health team (recently awarded Communications Consultancy of the Year at the Communique Awards) has appointed David Thorne – former Chair and CEO of several primary care alliances, a past CCG Manager of the Year and programme director of multiple transformation projects – most notably the original NHS 111 prototype – as part of its advisory board.

WA’s advisory board brings together senior figures from the communications industry, Westminster, the media, and the health sector, including former Labour Treasury and Department of Health and Social Care Special Advisor Jennifer Gerber; former CEO of Grayling UK Alison Clarke; Mike Bell, who has more than 20 years of NHS board level experience and is currently the Chair of NHS South West London Integrated Care Board and Lewisham & Greenwich NHS Trust; and former senior civil servant, Sir Philip Rutnam who brings a deep understanding of government operations and policy-making processes.

David’s appointment comes at a time when clients and the wider industry are facing increasing challenges in bridging national and local NHS policy. His insight and understanding into the upper workings of the health system provide invaluable knowledge into how and with whom to connect, which will be especially key as the new government reviews and works to evolve primary care.

David brings 30 years’ experience of market access, with his work as Director of Transformation at Well Up North Primary Care Network (covering north Northumberland and its 65,000 patients) currently focusing on Integrated Neighbourhood Teams and the use of digital tech to bring care closer to home. He is also a Trustee of Hospice Care North Northumberland.

Dean Sowman, Head of Health at WA Communications, said:

“We are thrilled to welcome David Thorne to our advisory board. His extensive experience and deep knowledge of the national health service, primary care and market access will further enhance our strategic counsel. He will bring invaluable insights to our life sciences clients on how to bridge the gap between national health policy and local NHS implementation.”

David Thorne, Senior Advisor said:

“WA believe that improvements in health and care are always possible – something that I was drawn to – and the advisory board reflects the breadth of strategic advice that the team is able to provide, and the policy and reputational outcomes it achieves. I’m delighted to be able to add my experience to this, as we work collaboratively to ensure access to health innovations and improve patient outcomes across the country.”

Share this content:

WA wins Communications Consultancy of the Year at the 2024 Communiqué Awards

We are delighted to share that WA’s Health Team has been named 2024 Communications Consultancy of the Year at the Communiqué Awards. Our new integrated policy-led communications approach is changing, and improving, the way outcomes are achieved for our clients, patients, and society.

Congratulations to all the other winners and finalists, we’re very humbled to win amongst all the great work that’s going on across the sector.

Dean Sowman, Senior Partner and Head of Health said:

“Winning Communiqué Communications Consultancy of the Year is testament to all the hard work that the team puts in and is so passionate about. The industry we work in is full of excellence, so to be recognised and awarded for what we do and, most importantly, how we do it is an honour.”

We continue to go from strength to strength, while keeping our core values at the centre of everything we do.

Share this content:

In Conversation with NHS England’s Medicines Value and Access Team

WA Communications hosted an insightful roundtable discussion with NHS England’s Medicines Value and Access (MVA) leadership team, led by Fiona Bride alongside Jack Turner, and were joined by Mike Bell, Chair of South West London Integrated Care Board (ICB) and Senior Adviser to WA Communications.

This roundtable offered representatives from the pharmaceutical industry an opportunity to delve into MVA strategic priorities and explore collaborative opportunities at ICS level to deliver patient access to innovative medicines.

Setting the Stage: Priorities for the Future

The session kicked off with a clear outline of MVA focus areas:

Driving Efficiencies: Streamlining processes to optimise medicines use and secure taxpayer value.
Horizon Scanning: Preparing the system for future innovations.
Addressing Inequities: Ensuring fair access to medicines across diverse populations.

Key Takeaways: A Vision for Progress

From this dynamic discussion, the WA team captured four critical takeaways, highlighting the pathway to a more responsive and innovative healthcare system.

The Commercial Framework for New Medicines – firm or flexible?

The imminent Commercial Framework review aims to clarify its flexibilities, focusing on commercial arrangements including indication-based pricing (IBP) and combination therapies. The consultation presents a pivotal opportunity for the industry to shape long-term policy.

Industry input is vital to determine how explicitly these commercial flexibilities should be defined. While detailed criteria might prove limiting, broader guidelines could lead to ambiguity. It’s confirmed that eligibility considerations will remain case-specific, but NHS England’s move away from viewing indication-based pricing as “exceptional” is a welcome shift. There is also recognition that the changes can’t be strictly held to cost neutral parameters.

A second consultation on the Framework in 2025 will aim to take a more holistic view of the system. This includes how, through working with partners, regulatory, health technology appraisal (HTA) and uptake pathways could be streamlined to facilitate faster access. A consultation on increasing the threshold of the Budget Impact Test (BIT) to £40m from £20m will also be launched imminently.

Earlier Engagement – how and when

NHS England underscored the importance of early engagement from the pharmaceutical industry. Proactive involvement in strategic pipeline discussions, facilitated through channels like NHS commercial surgeries or the Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (to be refreshed in ILAP 2.0), is crucial. This early alignment ensures the health system is well-prepared for new medicines, ultimately accelerating patient access. The key question NHS England seeks to address: What does a new medicine launch mean for workforce, patient pathways, outcomes, and system interactions? Early dialogue on data requirements for indication-based pricing agreements is particularly beneficial, speeding up implementation when systems are in place.

Strategic Long-term Thinking on the Horizon

The looming General Election and the NHS’s ongoing productivity efforts have temporarily shifted focus to necessary short-term financial objectives. However, there is optimism that post-election, the NHS will have the bandwidth to embrace bold, multi-annual strategies essential for integrating groundbreaking pharmaceutical and technological advancements. Should political tides turn in favour of a Labour government, their systemic reforms will necessitate close collaboration between the NHS and the pharmaceutical and med-tech sectors to realise ambitious strategic goals.

Focus on Community-Based Care

The roundtable discussion recognised the need to enhance the uptake of products and initiatives suited for community settings, given the prioritisation of preventative and anticipatory care. NHSE is keen to understand the unique requirements for effective implementation in these settings and is open to industry insights. While immediate efforts are directed towards community care, addressing long-term issues in primary care prescribing remains on the agenda. The industry is encouraged to share experiences and solutions ahead of formal consultations, noting that this broader challenge is earmarked for the second consultation in 2025.

WA Communications: Bridging the Gap

WA Communications, with its expertise in strategic communications and public affairs, is dedicated to supporting clients at the intersection of policy, government affairs, and healthcare communications. Our health practice is adept at navigating complex landscapes to help clients achieve their strategic objectives.

For a deeper discussion on partnering with the NHS and navigating this evolving landscape, reach out to us at HelloHealth@wacomms.co.uk. Together, we can drive forward innovative solutions for a healthier future.

Share this content:

What are the learnings so far at Integrated Care System (ICS) level to reduce health inequalities?

In conversation with NHS Gloucestershire Integrated Care Board (ICB)

The need for local community action to address health inequalities has never been greater. Over the last few months, we’ve seen a disbanding of the Office of Health Inequalities and Disparities (OHID), the government department set up to drive a meaningful step change in health inequalities.

However, with disappointment comes opportunity.

In a year of political change, many are looking to ICSs who have a statutory duty to reduce health inequalities, as the engines of meaningful progress. Now almost two years on since their formal legislation, each ICS is taking a different approach in response to addressing health inequalities, with great success.

We sat down with Becca Smith, Associate Director Clinical Programmes, Frances Beavis, Senior Project Manager and Natalia Bartolome Diez, Insights Manager EDI to talk about their tailored approach to working with people and communities, and why they are confident it is already working.

What are you doing differently to understand the nuances of the diverse community you work with?

Everything starts with building trust. Whilst national health campaigns over the years have had great results in shifting behaviour, it is the underserved populations that are often forgotten. There are multiple reasons for this, too many to get into today, but one of the most important factors is a lack of trust in the health system. We decided to create a new role, an ‘Insights Manager’ to act as the point of reference for many different religious, ethnic and social-economic communities into the NHS to work out how to overcome this. Our Insights Manager’s main role is to listen and to truly hear the needs of seldom heard communities. Doing this allows us to truly understand what we need to do differently, what are the simple fixes and what are the longer-term changes that will get the results these groups deserve. All good plans start without assumption, and we are seeing the benefits of this first hand.

And more broadly, how does addressing health inequalities fit within your wider organisation?

Often within an ICB, there is a dedicated health inequalities team. However, responsibility for health inequalities is also shared by team members across the organisation, including team members in specific disease areas −transformation roles as well as clinical leads may share responsibility.

If you are interested in collaborating with an ICB on a health inequality initiative, we would recommend mapping stakeholders via desk research. You should also be prepared to speak with several people within the ICB to identify the right person with responsibility for your area of interest.

Is it time to stop categorising ‘ethnic minorities’ into a catch all definition?

We have seen that there is real benefit in developing engagement strategies that are tailored to specific ethnic groups. There are different social and cultural norms between different groups and with this, different barriers and drivers. There can be a tendency to develop health engagement strategies for all ethnic minority communities but increasingly as a sector, we are understanding that engagement needs to be more specific. What might work for one community may not work for another.

Do you have any projects that show this new approach is succeeding?

There are a few examples that we are incredibly proud of.

Our collaboration with the Gloucester Health and Care Community Cancer team to host an early diagnosis in prostate cancer event for Black men demonstrated how local community events are starting to inform local policymaking.

Firstly, we made sure that the prostate cancer event was hosted in a local, familiar space that Black men attended regularly – in this case the local community centre. We also invited a range of people including doctors, clinical nurse specialists, support workers and a Black man with lived experience to provide information on the symptoms of prostate cancer, treatment options and support options.

During the event, attendees suggested some helpful screening recommendations, including offering a drop-in clinic at the community centre for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. This will be discussed with Gloucester ICB’s Cancer Patient Reference Group, a group of people affected by cancer that inform the strategy and activity of the ICB.

We also worked with the Gloucester South Asian local community centre over the course of a year to explore barriers to NHS England’s digital diabetes platform, which sets out to help people manage their diabetes. We managed to identify specific language barriers and develop solutions to inform a national pilot programme.

It’s great to see these new approaches achieving high engagement from communities and now feeding in to how we shape our services in long-term chronic conditions.

If you are interested in further examples of local best practice or how to work collaboratively with an ICB, contact Rose Brade at rosebrade@wacomms.co.uk or Clara McDermott Simarro at claramcdermottsimarro@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

WA Communications wins prestigious Public Affairs and Policy Consultancy at the 2023 Communiqué Awards

The health practice of WA Communications is delighted to have been recognised for its industry leading team after another outstanding year. This year’s win marks a significant milestone for the agency’s health team. Having won the Small Consultancy Award in 2022, it has now claimed the highly coveted title of Public Affairs and Policy Consultancy of the Year.

The prestigious Communiqué Awards was celebrating its 25th year of recognsing excellence and innovation in the healthcare communications industry.

Commenting on this achievement, Head of Health at WA Communications, Caroline Gordon, said:

“Winning the Public Affairs and Policy Consultancy of the Year is a testament to our team’s commitment to delivering exceptional service and strategic counsel to our clients. It underscores our industry-leading position and serves as a testament to the trust placed in us by our clients. We couldn’t be more delighted.”

WA Health Partner Dean Sowman said:

“We are really pleased that the judges recognised our strengths, highlighting our focus on impact and dedication to developing our team. It’s what we’re most proud of and what stands us out in such a strong market.”

2022 was another standout year for the agency. Highlights include expanding our roster of clients to include GambleAware, Janssen and AbbVie; growing the team to 17 healthcare communications specialists, and broadening our offer increasingly into communications and digital.

Share this content:

NHS Leader Joins WA Communications Advisory Board

We are pleased to announce the appointment of NHS leader Mike Bell to our growing advisory board. Mike Bell brings a wealth of experience and expertise in the healthcare sector, having served in various senior roles within the NHS.

Mike is currently Chair of NHS South West London Integrated Care Board and Chair of Lewisham & Greenwich NHS Trust.

With over 25 years of NHS board level experience, including more than a decade on strategic health authority boards, including as vice-chair of NHS London, Mike brings a deep understanding of the healthcare landscape to his advisory role. Previously, he served as the Chair of Croydon Health Services NHS Trust, playing a pivotal role in improving healthcare services in the Croydon area.

Our specialist health practice offers integrated services in public affairs, corporate communications, digital, research, and creative services. Current clients include life sciences companies including Sanofi, AbbVie and Roche, as well as charities and patient groups including Guide Dogs and Muscular Dystrophy UK.

Mike Bell’s appointment to the advisory board further strengthens our commitment to providing strategic counsel in the healthcare sector.

WA’s advisory board is chaired by Sir Philip Rutnam – former Permanent Secretary at the Home Office and Department of Transport, and founding Partner of Ofcom. It also draws together senior figures from the communications industry, Westminster, the media, and the health sector, including former CEO of Grayling UK Alison Clarke, and broadcaster & journalist Steve Richards.

Commenting on the appointment, Caroline Gordon, Partner and Head of WA Communications’ health team said,

“I am delighted to welcome Mike to our team. His extensive experience and strategic insight in the NHS and medtech sectors will be invaluable in delivering senior counsel to our clients in health and life sciences. WA is now even better equipped to navigate the complex and changing landscape of healthcare delivery and drive meaningful outcomes for our clients.”

Mike Bell added,

“I am delighted to be joining WA Communications at this exciting time. As a member of WA Communications’ advisory board, I look forward to using my experience from two decades in the healthcare sector to provide strategic guidance that helps clients partner effectively with the NHS.”

Share this content:

Posts Tagged ‘WA Health’

WA strengthens award-winning health practice with senior appointment

The Rare Cancers Bill – a blueprint for inclusive health reform?

Establishing a new care pathway for children with vision impairment

Reflections on NHS Confed Expo 2025

NICE’s Gold Standard Status benefits the UK’s growth agenda – Government must ensure this is maintained

ICBs: What does the ‘less is more’ mantra mean in reality?

Are we deprioritising women’s health in the UK at a time when more focus should be on it?

How Amanda Pritchard’s departure signals a new dawn for the NHS

WA welcomes David Thorne as Senior Advisor

WA wins Communications Consultancy of the Year at the 2024 Communiqué Awards

In Conversation with NHS England’s Medicines Value and Access Team

What are the learnings so far at Integrated Care System (ICS) level to reduce health inequalities?

WA Communications wins prestigious Public Affairs and Policy Consultancy at the 2023 Communiqué Awards

NHS Leader Joins WA Communications Advisory Board

Register for insights

Sign Up