All change? What will the general election outcome mean for pharma

7 June 2017 08:00

In light of the upcoming snap general election, we pick through the three big parties’ policies and various industry analyses of these policies.

Theresa May’s call for a snap general election came at a time when there were clear fractions forming within government over the impending departure of the UK from the EU.

As soon as the election was called we have seen many comments on what a prospective new government should be looking to achieve for the UK’s health sector and pharmaceutical industry. So, how do the big three political parties’ policies hold up to the requirements and demands of pharma?

Health in crisis: Tackling the NHS

It has been widely reported that the NHS is at breaking point, after years of under-investment,^1–3 the British Medical Association stated: “it is crucial that the health service has the unrelenting focus of prospective parliamentary candidates.”

The UK BioIndustry Association (BIA) called upon political parties to provide solutions in support of the UK’s life sciences.⁴ “In particular, parties should think creatively about how to harness the unique strengths of the NHS, as a single integrated system, to bolster UK life sciences in the face of global competition for investment.”

All three major parties have included increased spending on the NHS in their manifestos. The Conservatives have specified £8bn, Labour have offered £30bn and the Liberal Democrats have stated a figure of £6bn.

In response to the party manifestos,^5–7 the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) revealed its hopes that the new government will secure a world-class NHS for UK patients. As stated in its manifesto: “The Government elected in June 2017 should set out a clear plan for how the NHS will support the health of the nation. This should include how patients can access the medicines they need.”⁸

Additionally, the ABPI highlights a necessity for an increase in NHS spending to bring it in line with the G7 average. Currently, the UK spends a total of 9.9% of GDP on healthcare and should be aiming for about 11.3%.⁸ Examining the figures more closely, the party that will offer the required level of spending is Labour, but the ABPI urges caution over how the party plans to raise these funds. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats offerings, however, seem to be more of a short-term commitment and may not deliver on a world-class health service.

Additionally, both the Conservatives and Labour highlighted the importance of fast access to medicine, although the Liberal Democrats were a little vague on how they would realise their ambitions to see the highest standards of care delivered by the NHS.

A key factor for this, raised by the ABPI is the agreement of a new long-term voluntary Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS), which should be done in partnership with the pharmaceutical industry. “This should balance investment in new medicines, value for money for the NHS and the need to maintain a strong pharmaceutical industry.”⁸

Life after Brexit: Global investment and relationships

With the UK’s departure from the EU a key topic in the election campaigns, it is important to examine how global investment and jobs will be secured and how we can ensure a new relationship with our closest neighbours.

In light of Brexit the BIA noted: “The fundamentals of UK bioscience remain strong. The UK life sciences sector is a dynamic, globally focused community, unfazed by new challenges and staffed by great management teams used to working with uncertainty and risk — whether it be scientific, financial or environmental […].”⁹

Out of the big three political parties, only the Liberal Democrats have outlined a policy to perform a ‘second EU referendum on the terms of any Brexit deal’ with both the Conservatives and Labour committing to uphold the original Brexit outcome.

With a very clear position on Brexit, the ABPI highlighted its disappointment at the lacking detail in the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto on how they would ensure patient priority and public health in Brexit negotiations. Also, the proposed increase to corporation tax by the party raised concerns that economic stability may be impacted. Although, the party’s stance on science and innovation was praised by the ABPI.

Labour’s proposed increases to corporation tax is a cause for concern, according to the ABPI. In its opinion, these tax increases “would have unintended consequences for the UK’s global competitiveness.” However, the increase in R&D spending proposed by the party of 3% of GDP was appreciated by the ABPI, which also welcomed the party’s negotiation plans to nurture a relationship with the UK and the EMA for the future.

Highlighting an ambition for the UK to be the most innovative country in the world, the Conservatives approach is supported by the ABPI. However, caution was urged in relation to the immediate doubling of the Immigration Skills Charge. “A tax on talent risk cutting off the fuel that supplies the pipeline of highly skilled workers our pharmaceutical industry needs,” the ABPI stressed.

Pharma industry is key to strength

Whatever the result on 8 June, one thing is clear, the position of the UK needs to be maintained, if not improved, to ensure a bright future for the pharmaceutical industry and that patients are kept as a priority focus.

As stated by the ABPI: “The pharmaceutical industry is key to the strength of the UK economy and the health of UK patients […] The new Government must be decisive in making sure the UK keeps its position as a location of choice for the global pharmaceutical industry.”¹⁰

References:

Related

Going global: How pharma is adopting to globalisation

NorthEdge Invests in Torbay Pharmaceuticals

Wegovy Available In The UK

Automata Raises $40m to Expand Automated Science Labs