Do Life Sciences & Pharma have a future in the UK?

A debate at Quintiles IMS,London, chaired by Roy Lilley.

And just look at the panel…

Roy Lilley (NHS Writer, broadcaster, commentator and conference speaker), chaired and cajoled

Meindert Boyson represented NICE

Chris Carrigan, patient involvement via My Data

Ben Howlett – Director of Public Policy Projects, and ex MP

Prof Keith McNeill, NHS Chief Information Officer, Ops and Info at NHS England

Mike Thompson, Chief Exec ABPI (Pharma Industry Group)

Tim Sheppard, General Manager QuintilesIMS – our hosts for the evening – thank you!

And the audience was a good cross section of patient group advocates, senior NHS folk, and high level representatives of global Pharma.

Pharmaceuticals is a big business – and personally, I do hope it continues to be successful, as I have pension interests tied up in that! £60bn turnover. £30bn exported (probably only defence is larger?). Anyway, pretty darn big.  We did really only have space for the question in the title, but with nuances around Brexit, John Bells report and a few asides to show Roy hasn’t lost his shin kicking skills. As Tim from Quintiles IMS said in his closing remarks, the shin kicking at least had been distributed equally…)

There was a lot of positivity from the panel – with Mr. Lilley providing the negative balance!

What do we think about the NHS? Here’s a feel for the opinions:

Patients love it, but good news doesn’t sell well, so we hear mainly bad.  Our Aussie prof (Keith) suggested we are excellent at beating ourselves up, and we should be proud of the level of care provided, and celebrate rather than denigrate. Tim, from the sponsors, felt it is creaking, and change, rather than evolution, might be necessary. Our ex MP reminded us that two million people more are seen in 2016 than in 2010.

What about Brexit – is it really the road to hell in a handcart? This question took us into John Bells report on the future of life science in the UK, and into Pharmaceutical Research and more. Roy was concerned this 75 page report specifically excluded pricing.  He did have more concerns – and I did too – read Roy’s critique on his e newsletter here, and look at the full John Bell report here.  It was this second question which took us all the way to wine and canapés ! OK there were many supplemental tangents and some inputs from the audience, but it does show how much people have invested in thinking about the effects it will have.  It was fascinating.  Let’s have a game of positive and negative tennis, shall we?

  1. The NHS helps to make the staying in UK decision easier. 60 million captive cohort to work with.
  2. The negative is our difficulty in sharing the data. We had one story of 30 contracts having to be drawn up to allow this to happen in one small research project.
  3. On the other hand, one of the audience talked of their local project needing only one sheet signed contract to gain consent
  4. NICE sounds like it has become very positive and cuddly, despite the chairmanship acerbic comments. 80% positive outcomes the institute that likes to say yes! They could also be recommending spending more on treatments that are more effective.  It isn’t just about saving money
  5. Not ugh MPs or people on the Clapham Omnibus really know what Life Sciences is all about, which doesn’t help the public debate
  6. Patients want to share their data, in Chris’s experience. Yes, many want safeguards, but data boundary issues are all solvable
  7. We are bad at spreading good practice.
  8. High skilled workers will continue to be allowed to immigrate
  9. But we need the lesser skilled too.

It does sound like a lot of positive things may be happening.  I was particularly heartened by the local initiatives stories. As an example, the Pharma Challenge from Christies in Manchester.  This grew out of a Vanguard group, doing what was said on the tin, and this forum manage to make things happen, and saved a lot of money. Everyone was involved motivated and they made it happen.

Unlocking the vast data store we have does not seem beyond the wit of man.  It needs to be shared and used well to inform patient outcome improvements. It has been done. It can be done more.  Care.Data 2 or the MY data patient led project need to happen quickly.  It feels like we need also to improve the speed at which Pharma research can start. It only takes 90 days in USA, and up to a year in UK. That could drive people away?

It does feel like a lot of things will focus minds with Brexit actively driving innovation through fear of the negative consequences?

Professor John Bells summary of the future of life sciences in the UK concluded, “This strategy provides a unique opportunity for the country and I hope it can be delivered effectively in the coming years”.

I think there are reasons for remaining optimistic.  The panel talked a good game.  The many local golden nuggets of good practice, already happening, gave me the most positive feeling.  We just need to keep innovating, which is what Britain and the whole Life Sciences sector has historically been good at.

Especially when under the cosh.

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s