UK Pharma Deal Offers Some Relief, But Reality Remains: US Dominance Persists
The UK government's recent agreement to raise prices paid by the National Health Service (NHS) for new medicines has been touted as a victory, but for pharmaceutical companies like GSK, the reality remains that the United States remains the leading market in terms of launching new drugs and vaccines.
GSK CEO Emma Walmsley's comments on the matter are not surprising. The US is still the gold standard for life sciences investment, with a much deeper research pipeline and manufacturing base than the UK. Despite claims of Britain becoming a "superpower" in this field, the reality is that the US has been outspending the UK on new drugs for years.
While Walmsley's comments have caused some stir, they are largely a reflection of the current state of affairs. The deal struck between the UK and the US does offer some benefits, including zero tariffs on pharmaceutical exports to the US for three years and a capped rebate payment rate of 15%. This is seen as a step in the right direction, but not necessarily a five-star review.
Critics have argued that the terms represent a capitulation to big pharma and Trump-era protectionism. However, this view overlooks the fact that the alternative – no deal at all – would have led to even less investment in UK pharmaceuticals, potentially further straining NHS budgets over time.
The post-2029 "voluntary" scheme is another area of uncertainty. While some projects are underway, such as the £600m-backed Health Data Research Service, the pace of progress on this front seems slow by comparison.
One issue that was a major point of contention in these negotiations was the unpredictability of rebate payments. In 2022, these payments made up 23% of sales – significantly higher than comparable rates in other large European countries. The new deal aims to cap these payments at 15%, but it's unclear how effective this will be.
While there are valid concerns about NHS budgets and access to new medicines, the alternative – doing nothing – would have led to further pressure on front-line equipment and hospitals down the line.
Ultimately, the UK's position in life sciences is precarious. The US pull remains undeniably strong, but any deal that's struck represents a trade-off. The government seems to have landed in roughly the right spot, at least for now.
The UK government's recent agreement to raise prices paid by the National Health Service (NHS) for new medicines has been touted as a victory, but for pharmaceutical companies like GSK, the reality remains that the United States remains the leading market in terms of launching new drugs and vaccines.
GSK CEO Emma Walmsley's comments on the matter are not surprising. The US is still the gold standard for life sciences investment, with a much deeper research pipeline and manufacturing base than the UK. Despite claims of Britain becoming a "superpower" in this field, the reality is that the US has been outspending the UK on new drugs for years.
While Walmsley's comments have caused some stir, they are largely a reflection of the current state of affairs. The deal struck between the UK and the US does offer some benefits, including zero tariffs on pharmaceutical exports to the US for three years and a capped rebate payment rate of 15%. This is seen as a step in the right direction, but not necessarily a five-star review.
Critics have argued that the terms represent a capitulation to big pharma and Trump-era protectionism. However, this view overlooks the fact that the alternative – no deal at all – would have led to even less investment in UK pharmaceuticals, potentially further straining NHS budgets over time.
The post-2029 "voluntary" scheme is another area of uncertainty. While some projects are underway, such as the £600m-backed Health Data Research Service, the pace of progress on this front seems slow by comparison.
One issue that was a major point of contention in these negotiations was the unpredictability of rebate payments. In 2022, these payments made up 23% of sales – significantly higher than comparable rates in other large European countries. The new deal aims to cap these payments at 15%, but it's unclear how effective this will be.
While there are valid concerns about NHS budgets and access to new medicines, the alternative – doing nothing – would have led to further pressure on front-line equipment and hospitals down the line.
Ultimately, the UK's position in life sciences is precarious. The US pull remains undeniably strong, but any deal that's struck represents a trade-off. The government seems to have landed in roughly the right spot, at least for now.
omg, so like, i dont get why ppl are making such a big deal about this uk pharma deal 
its def better than nothing, but lets be real, us is still killin it in life sciences 
gsk ceo emma walmsley says the truth, brits cant compete with the americans on investment and research pipeline 
and yeah, 0 tariffs for pharmaceutical exports to the us is def a win 
but i feel like ppl r overthinking this whole thing 
it's not like they had nothing to work with 
btw, post-2029 "voluntary" scheme seems super vague 
. The reality is, the US market still holds a lot of sway, and our own industry is playing catch-up 
. It's not that we're not making progress - there are some great initiatives underway like the Health Data Research Service 
- but those projects feel like they're happening in slow motion compared to what's going on across the pond 
.
. We need to find a balance between supporting our own industries and not being isolated from global market trends 
. Maybe we're not yet the "superpower" everyone says we are, but with deals like this, we're at least trying to level the playing field 
.
.
. The NHS is still gonna be under pressure, and I worry about those rebate payments – 15% just doesn't seem like enough 
But seriously though, the fact remains that the US is still where all the big bucks are 
- just because we've got some big pharma deals doesn't mean we're suddenly going to leapfrog the US in terms of innovation and research 
.
. The US just keeps pulling ahead, and it's hard to see how we're going to close the gap anytime soon 
... those 15% rebate cap payments might be a stretch tho, time'll tell if they work out 
. It's true the US is still leading the pack on new meds and vaccines, but this new agreement does bring some relief, especially with zero tariffs on exports to the US for three years 
. I think 15% rebate cap is a good start, might help keep NHS budgets from getting too slammed 
. And I'm not sure if capping rebate payments at 15% is gonna make a huge difference, we'll see how that plays out. At least it's better than nothing, right? 
️. I mean, Emma Walmsley says the UK isn't competing on an equal footing? That doesn't sit right with me 
. The whole rebate payment thing though... 15% might seem small, but what if that's not enough? We need to keep pushing for better deals and more control over the market 
. Anyhow, at least we know where we stand... or so it seems 
.
. It's like, can't we just be our own superpower or something? 
. But at the same time, some people are saying it's better than nothing, like if we didn't have this deal, our NHS budgets would be in shambles 
.