_Mark Samuels argues that in the current political climate the UK must prioritise security over innovation with medicine._
“There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact” said Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and, in these tense geopolitical times, you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out the clear and present global dangers.
In this context, it seems obvious that resilience and security should be the top priority for domestic policymakers, including on the supply of medicines to UK patients. But is that the case?
Recent UK governments of all denominations have had strategies for life sciences focused purely on innovation – not security. These were, however, developed in a world without the tensions of today. In 2024, Labour’s manifesto for life sciences followed suit. For example, laboratory clusters – but not medicine manufacturing sites – would be brought within the scope of the ‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure Regime’.
This leaves the NHS’s medicines supply at risk. We got through the pandemic from a medicines supply perspective in no small part thanks to Brexit reserves combined with the critical crisis collaboration of government and industry, but we may not be so lucky if, and when, the next crisis hits. Good work by the Department of Health and Social Care on resilience was unsupported by previous life science strategies, and that must change with today’s geopolitical environment.
Four out of five NHS prescription medicines are fulfilled by off-patent generics and biosimilars. These are medicines which provide competition to originator products when their patent protection has expired. Use of off-patent medicines in the UK saves the NHS billions of pounds every year.
About a quarter of them are manufactured here, but the remainder are reliant on supply chains stretching across Europe, India and China. The NHS cannot operate without off-patent medicines.
The government is currently in the throes of creating its latest iteration of the life sciences sector plan. This needs to strike a balance between developing new treatments and technologies, and protecting our supplies of established medicines.
The need to secure medicine supplies is being acted on elsewhere. The EU Critical Medicines Act is just out and lists a raft of recommendations aimed at improving competitiveness for medicine and active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) production on the continent. It also focuses on strategic EU reserves of medicines and mandates designed to avoid hoarding in times of shortage or crisis.
Back in Blighty, the latest life sciences plan must strengthen our supply capabilities. This may mean closer ties to Europe in some respects, and these conversations could be well received. In February, Belgian Health Minister Frank Vandenbroucke (instrumental in the EU’s work on critical medicines) expressed his support for diversifying the international partners that can help the EU with its medicine supply. The inference was clear: the EU should partner with countries close to it geographically and politically.
One early area of collaboration could be regulation. For example, there is currently an uneven playing field concerning batch testing, which is a critical part of the regulatory and quality process. The UK accepts medicines batch-tested in Europe, but the EU does not reciprocate. This disparity influences investment decisions and impacts the UK’s attractiveness as a supply destination and a place to launch new products. All these have a direct impact on levels of medicine shortages.
To its credit, the government is moving ahead in some areas already. The Office for Life Sciences is investing substantial sums in its Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund. The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, visited one of the first fruits of this in November: a joint public-private investment with Accord Healthcare – one of Europe’s largest suppliers of chemotherapy products – to build a state-of-the-art medicine manufacturing facility in Newcastle.
All this must be considered in the broader context of the UK operating in an increasingly febrile geopolitical environment where outside influences are potentially driving domestic policy decisions, such as increased defence spending. There is a sound case for established medicines to be given a similar status, given the impact a lack of supply could have on patients, particularly in times of future potential pandemics or hybrid warfare.
However, we are yet to see if supporting the everyday medicines on which the NHS relies is a top priority for the government’s forthcoming life sciences plan. It is imperative for the UK to not only focus on the innovation-driven aspects of its life sciences strategy but also to prioritise resilience and security in medicine supply chains. The lessons learned from the pandemic should guide policymakers in creating a comprehensive plan that truly addresses the everyday needs of the NHS and its patients.
**By [Mark Samuels](https://www.britishgenerics.co.uk/about-us/bgma-structure.html), Chief Executive, British Generic Manufacturers Association (BGMA)**