Sally Gainsbury
sallygainsbury.bsky.social
Sally Gainsbury
@sallygainsbury.bsky.social
Senior Policy Analyst for the Nuffield Trust, writing and doing whatever-things-on-here-are-called about NHS funding, finance and healthcare equity
see p50 (printed p50, not pdf p50...) here efpia.eu/media/676753...
efpia.eu
October 8, 2025 at 3:56 PM
Patent protections mean pharma cos can set prices high. The VPAG agreement at the centre of the row offers the NHS a modest counterbalance against those high prices when sales volumes exceed expectations and already contains exemptions to allow companies to recoup their R&D costs
October 8, 2025 at 2:53 PM
There is mounting evidence that rather than being “too low” the NICE threshold (the max the NHS will pay for a yr of health gained through a drug) is currently too high as it outstrips how much health could be gained if the £ was spent instead on extending existing services >
October 8, 2025 at 2:53 PM
Key points: Big pharma’s threat to pull investment from the UK if the NHS doesn’t pay more is based on politics, not economics. Industry’s own research shows that decisions on R&D location are driven by where you can do good science, not local market prices for the end product >
October 8, 2025 at 2:53 PM
interesting. I wonder if the catch up at 16 seen in the overall dashed ECHP line is a genuine improvement in outcomes, or rather a widening of who is included in that cohort to include those whose edu outcomes were higher/likely to be slightly higher already?
October 3, 2025 at 3:03 PM
this is really interesting Luke, thank you. It seems to suggest that educational outcomes (measured by the standardised score) have improved since ~2015 for the older kids on ECHPs, but declined for the younger. Or am I misinterpreting that?
October 3, 2025 at 1:51 PM
But the gov hasn’t made things easy for itself with its rhetoric around the NHS as an engine of economic growth (rather than the quaint notion it is there to improve our health)>>
August 25, 2025 at 8:34 AM
If the gov pays more for new medicines, we are highly likely to get LESS health benefit out of the NHS, not more. It’s right the gov holds firm and considers population-wide health needs rather than bow to industry threats and scare stories >>
August 25, 2025 at 8:34 AM
It’s correct the £30k threshold has been in place since the late 1990s, but ample economic research shows it is likely too high rather than too low >>
August 25, 2025 at 8:34 AM
This isn’t penny pinching: the threshold exists in order to ensure expensive new drugs don’t displace pre-existing treatments, because the nhs can only spend its budget once >>
August 25, 2025 at 8:34 AM
Sometimes new drugs fail that test simply because they are very expensive. Other times they fail because their price might be modest, but the health improvements they offer above already existing treatments are extremely marginal >>
August 25, 2025 at 8:34 AM
The nhs (via NICE) generally requires that for a new drug to be adopted, the extra health benefits it brings should not add more than £30k above existing treatments for that disease >>
August 25, 2025 at 8:34 AM
The 10 year nhs plan already sets out a terrifying raft of concessions to pharma and med tech to try and convince them to invest in the uk to feed the political addiction to economic growth >>
August 25, 2025 at 8:34 AM
Thanks Dave
July 17, 2025 at 1:45 PM