-
No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.
-
The deal with the USA involves no tariffs on UK pharmaceutical exports until January 2029, but comes at a cost. The Government has raised NICE thresholds for cost-effectiveness of medicines from £20,000 to £35,000 per QALY. Additionally, the rebate mechanism is limited to 15%, down from 22.9%. This could result in increased costs for NHS and reduced returns through rebates. The Government aims to increase spending on new medicines from 0.3% of GDP to 0.6% by 2036. Layla Moran questions the transparency, impact assessment, and potential long-term effects of the deal.
-
BMJ analysis suggests that NHS funding diversion for pharmaceuticals could lead to 229,000 excess deaths by 2036. The Government's claim of £1 billion cost over the current spending review period is disputed; independent projections suggest it could be as high as £14 billion a year by 2036. There are concerns about NHS safeguards on drug pricing being weakened and the lack of parliamentary oversight for the deal.
-
Welcomes the UK-US pharmaceutical trade agreement but argues that underpaying for drugs, especially expensive ones, endangers UK supply chains and resilience. There are currently 254 price concessions out of 3,500 drugs in the drug tariff system, suggesting a significant issue with drug pricing and availability. Increasing drug prices could help value other types of treatment like social prescribing and is essential to rebuild UK manufacturing.
-
Instructed Members to edit their speeches due to limited time available for the debate.
-
The debate highlights significant changes to drug delivery in the NHS, which may weaken existing controls and politicise decision-making. The costs associated with this deal have not been properly analysed by NICE, leading to concerns about reduced services elsewhere. The Trump deal's justification of increased UK exports and investment lacks evidence. There is a risk that the NHS will be impacted due to reductions in other areas such as GP access or A&E services. I urge engagement from organisations like Global Justice Now for expert input before proceeding.
-
This debate should have occurred prior to signing the deal, but it shows a lack of transparency. The pharma and health tech deal will cost 0.3% to 0.6% of GDP with lower rebates leading to more expensive drugs. NICE's independence is compromised, potentially allowing for less flexibility in drug determinations. By 2028, the cumulative cost could reach £44.7 billion with cuts impacting social care and causing excess deaths by 291,000 by 2033.
-
Welcomes the UK’s role in drug development and the expectation of a £2 billion R&D expenditure from DHSC. AstraZeneca's commitment to invest £300 million is positive due to the US deal. However, regulatory complexity hinders research and innovation; recommends creating a unified application process for study approvals and a team to liaise with regulators for streamlined decisions.
-
The speaker argues against the UK-US pharmaceutical deal, highlighting its lack of transparency and the potential financial burden on the NHS. She points out that the deal will see the NHS paying at least £1.5 billion more in medicine costs by 2028, rising to over £9 billion by 2036, without additional funding from the government. Maguire emphasises the importance of domestic control over pharmaceutical procurement and suggests alternative measures such as a long-term plan with the sector and increased investment in UK life sciences manufacturing.
-
The speaker criticises the Government for their lack of transparency regarding the true cost of the UK-US pharmaceutical deal, questioning how it will be funded and what impact it might have on frontline NHS services. He mentions that since Labour took office in July 2024, several major pharmaceutical companies have warned about reduced investment due to increased regulation and tax rises.
-
The UK-US pharmaceuticals arrangement ensures patients can benefit from life-changing medicines as they are developed. NICE has already approved treatments like vorasidenib for brain cancer. The agreement is about ensuring the UK maximises benefits to patients and supports jobs in the economy, securing tariff-free access for pharmaceutical exports into the US. Concerns about undermining NICE’s independence are unfounded; it will operate based on evidence, clinical effectiveness, and value for money. The arrangement includes commitments to tariff protection for UK exports and improved patient access, alongside changes to NICE recommendations and VPAG rates.
-
Asked the Minister to publish the impact assessment as it would answer many questions raised during the debate.
-
Frustrated with lack of transparency, asked the Government to release the impact assessment or allow a Select Committee to see it confidentially.