What the life sciences industry wants from the next UK government
pharmafile | June 1, 2017 | Feature | Business Services, Manufacturing and Production, Medical Communications, Research and Development, Sales and Marketing | ABPI, BIA, UK, general election, life sciences
The stakes are high as the UK general election draws ever closer, and the industry has come out in force to make its voices heard on what the next UK government – whichever political party takes victory on 8 June – needs to delivery in order to ensure a prosperous future, especially in light of the challenges brought by Brexit.
First out the door was the ABPI with the release of its manifesto Securing the opportunity for UK life sciences by 2022 on 27 April, which called on all political runners “to pledge to create an NHS that delivers improved access to the new medicines our companies research, develop and manufacture. The new Government must be decisive in making sure the UK keeps its position as a location of choice for the global pharmaceutical industry.”
The document asserts that the next government must raise NHS investment to meet the G7 average by the end of the next parliament. Currently, Britain stands sixth out of the seven nations in this regard. This needs to be supplemented by revamped NHS processes, including accelerated drug approval pathways and patient outcome assessment.
Furthermore, the association recommended an EU-UK relationship which has patient care at its core, primarily through a co-operative regulatory framework, free trade of medicines across borders, and access to funding for scientific collaboration.
The ABPI was followed on 2 May by the UK BioIndustry Association (BIA) and their own manifesto Now More Than Ever: Seizing the opportunity to make the UK a world leader in the life sciences, a report arguing that a continued lack of support from the government could lead to a loss of momentum and long-term damage for life sciences.
BIA also echoed the ABPI’s sentiments on the power of the NHS as an integral part of a wider strategy to reinforce the UK life sciences industry, urging the government to find solutions to maintain the service as a single integrated system.
Alongside these key points, the report also implores the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to become more involved in life science policy, in line with the Department of Health, and calls for reform in drug access in addition to the introduction of a central fund to facilitate this.
On the document’s release, BIA Chief Executive Officer Steve Bates stressed the implications of failure to meet these recommendations, remarking: “2017 is the time for action.”
Hot on BIA’s heels, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IME) highlighted the threat Brexit poses to the UK medical technology sector with the release of its own documentation Medical devices & CE marking –the impact of Brexit the following day, calling on industry to keep pace with EU regulation and funding in order to maintain jobs and investment.
Among its key points, the report recommended that the government work closely with med tech firms to come to a compliancy agreement with the EU, supported by parallel policies, in order to secure long term investment and attract SMEs to the country, and advised that the current imbalance in EU research funding between small start-ups and large pharmaceutical companies is addressed.
When contacted for comment, Dr Helen Meese, Head of Healthcare at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, told us: “Whatever political party gets into power, the MedTech industry needs to be high on the Government’s priority list as Brexit negotiations begin. Not only does this industry make a huge contribution to domestic and international healthcare – from the design of artificial joints and organs through to the production of aids for independent living – the sector is also worth £17 billion to the UK economy and supports 90,000 jobs.
“The Government needs to outline exactly how UK Research and Innovation bodies such as InnovateUK and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council will address the more than €1 billion a year funding short-fall from what the UK currently receives from the European Research Council.”
EEF – The Manufacturer’s Organisation – added to the debate with Making the future, making Britain great on 9 May, necessitating action to capitalise on the recent upsurge in the country’s manufacturing performance and adhere to a coherent and dedicated strategy.
Among its recommendations were a Brexit deal which provides the benefits of the single market and keeps trade costs between the UK and Europe low, in addition to an immigration system which gives employers access to skilled workers, a reduction in regulatory costs, and investment into digital technology and R&D initiatives.
EEF Chief Executive Terry Scuoler followed up the manifesto, remarking: “A clear commitment to an industrial strategy will give business confidence that the government is capable of looking long-term at strengthening some of the fundamental levers of our economy – from boosting innovation and improving infrastructure to ensuring we have a clear education strategy for industry where schools and colleges are preparing young people with the skills they need for the future.”
Finally, on 11 May, Cambridge-based health policy think tank PHG Foundation released an open letter noting the necessity of “transformational change”, invoking the House of Lords Select Committee on the Long-Term Sustainability of the NHS, released a month earlier, which slammed the ‘short-termism’ inherent in the health service in its past and current states.
The letter read: “a critical priority for the new Government will be dealing with the crisis facing the NHS, not only the immediate pressures on an over-burdened service, but also the looming threat of increasing demand and spiralling costs.”
The letter divided its recommendations into three key priority areas: individuals, calling for a patient-centric approach which hinges on the use of precision and personalised medicine; information, encouraging the sharing of personal data for the public good; and infrastructure, facilitating radical change to innovate the NHS and provide support and education for healthcare professionals.
Commenting on the letter, PHG’s External Affairs Director Dr Philippa Brice told Pharmafocus: “Whilst there are pressing issues for the new Government with respect to the NHS, it is important that science and technology form part of the longer-term solution to delivering sustainable healthcare in the way that patients want to receive it. This is why we call for actions that will support a world-leading twenty-first century health system built on science and technology and focused on the needs and preferences of individuals as well as populations.”
We join the industry to wait with bated breath to see who will take the responsibility of shouldering these commitments, but the prospect of a ‘hard Brexit’ as is likely to be delivered by certain runners may cast doubt over their actionability.
Matt Fellows
Related Content
Long COVID: 15 studies launched with £19.6 million government funding
The UK government has announced the launch of 15 new extensive studies, backed by £19.6 …
Drugmakers fined a record £260 million after 10,000% drug price increase
The UK’s competition authority has issued its largest ever fine of more than £260 million …
New targeted lung cancer treatment coming to UK under MHRA scheme
The MHRA has issued an Early Access to Medicines Scheme (EAMS) positive scientific opinion for …
