Controversy Surrounds UK–US Medicines Deal Impacting NHS Costs and Patient Outcomes
A UK–US medicines deal touted by government figures as world-beating aims to position the UK as a global life sciences hub, with claims that tens of thousands of NHS patients will benefit. However, concerns have arisen regarding the financial and health impacts of the agreement.
Last month, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) estimated that branded medicines could cost the NHS an additional £3 billion per year under the deal, a cost expected to be found within the NHS budget. Health Secretary Wes Streeting has denied the £3 billion figure, and critics highlight that no formal government assessment or published paperwork supports the deal.
Modelling by health economist Karl Claxton suggests the agreement could lead to 15,971 more deaths annually. Should Streeting’s cost assumption hold, this figure would be 6,192. Critics argue the deal diverts funds to large pharmaceutical companies, undermining NHS value-for-money. One health thinktank has described it as a “catastrophe” for NHS patients and equated it to a Ponzi scheme.
There is a tension between domestic praise for the deal and a US perspective that it primarily serves American interests. Some views suggest UK pricing under the deal might reflect higher costs for Americans due to tariff-related dynamics.
Adding to the context, recent industry moves such as Merck scrapping a King’s Cross centre, Eli Lilly cancelling a planned lab, and AstraZeneca pausing a Cambridge project, along with trade lobby concerns, indicate unease within the pharmaceutical sector about UK drug prices and the effects of the deal.
