Positioning the UK for global life sciences launches: what needs to change?
What does the UK life sciences sector need to change in order to be prioritized more often by global firms as a leading market for new product launches? This challenge was the focus of a recent roundtable discussion organized by Carrot Recruitment in conjunction with The Evidence Base, and Compass Carter Osborne, which brought together experts from across the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, corporate affairs, and market access consultancy.
The discussion explored the UK’s competitive position in a shifting global landscape, highlighting both its strengths and the barriers that undermine its attractiveness for product launches. Key topics included the impact of pricing and reimbursement policies such as VPAG, the growing influence of the European Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA), and the evolving role of real-world evidence (RWE) in regulatory decision-making. Participants also examined the unique challenges associated with launching treatments for rare diseases and the role of NHS data infrastructure in shaping market access.
The UK: a market defined by both strengths and challenges
Despite ongoing difficulties, the panelists agreed the UK offers a number of significant advantages as a destination for product launches. World-class university research, globally recognized medical institutes, and strong patient advocacy networks provide a sophisticated ecosystem for discovery and development. The NHS, while complex, presents opportunities for large-scale data collection and structured patient access pathways.
NICE is a highly credible regulatory body, both within the UK and internationally, often serving as a benchmark for pricing and reimbursement decisions in other markets. Moreover, the UK has shown a willingness to integrate real-world data (RWD) and RWE into decision-making, with NICE emerging as an innovator in this space. However, these advantages alone are not enough to ensure the UK remains a competitive launch market.
A number of structural barriers continue to limit the country’s appeal. One of the most pressing concerns is pricing and reimbursement. NICE’s stringent cost-effectiveness thresholds create difficulties, particularly for rare disease treatments, where the current health technology assessment (HTA) model struggles to accommodate the complexities of high-cost, low-volume therapies. Several panelists expressed concerns that the UK’s low per capita healthcare spending relative to markets such as Germany, the US, and Japan further compounds the issue.
The impact of JCA under the EU HTA Regulation was also a subject of debate. While some participants believe NICE will continue to serve as an international benchmark, others warned that JCA could diminish NICE’s influence, leading companies to reconsider whether they need UK approval before launching in other European markets.
The UK’s declining clinical trial activity compared to competitors such as the US and Germany also weakens its positioning. The EMA’s relocation to The Netherlands further reduces the UK’s integration with European regulatory frameworks, making companies more likely to base trials and early access programs elsewhere.
Another recurring theme was the fragmentation of policymaking and healthcare system integration. Participants highlighted the disconnect between the Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing and Access (VPAG), NHS England, the Department of Health and Social Care, and Treasury, which creates inefficiencies in pricing, reimbursement, and market access. Compounding these challenges is the lack of a cohesive NHS data strategy. While the NHS has the potential to be a world leader in RWD collection and utilization, its disjointed digital infrastructure and reliance on multiple prescribing systems make data integration difficult. The roundtable panelists acknowledged that these issues will not be resolved quickly, adding to the complexity of using UK-generated RWE for regulatory or reimbursement purposes.
Repositioning the UK: steps toward a more competitive market
The panelists identified several opportunities to address these challenges, emphasizing the need for greater collaboration and more coordinated policymaking. A joined-up approach was seen as essential to strengthening the UK’s position as a preferred market for product launches. The Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (ILAP), which facilitates early engagement between researchers and regulators, could help streamline clinical trials. Aligning licensing and reimbursement timelines would further accelerate patient access, benefiting all stakeholders and reinforcing the UK’s role as a global life sciences hub.
To achieve this, the panelists suggested life sciences companies should enhance their own collaboration and share insights more effectively, while also engaging proactively with policymakers and government bodies. The panellists highlighted the need for stronger cooperation with the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to advocate for life sciences innovation, alongside improved alignment between the NHS, the DHSC, and the Treasury. Additionally, better integration between the Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing and Access (VPAG), the NHS, and individual hospital trust integrated care departments would help address inefficiencies in pricing and market access, ensuring a more streamlined and predictable pathway for new treatments.
There was broad agreement that AI-driven research, digital health, and RWD integration present opportunities. Despite its complexities, the NHS offers a more structured data collection framework than many other markets. Progress in AI and digital evidence generation could provide compelling reasons for global firms to conduct clinical trials in the UK. The integration of advanced analytics into clinical research, combined with a more dynamic approach to RWE utilization, could strengthen the UK’s position in regulatory and payer discussions.
RWD also presents an opportunity to rethink pricing and reimbursement strategies. One participant suggested that a more sophisticated approach to RWE collection could enable dynamic pricing models, reflecting real-world usage, outcomes, and patient impact. This approach, if encouraged by NICE, could incentivize innovation while maintaining cost-effectiveness for the NHS. The participant emphasized that failing to embrace this opportunity represents a significant missed chance for both industry and policymakers.
Public perception was another area identified as critical to future success. A deeper understanding of the life sciences sector and its role in patient care could help reshape policy decisions. Greater transparency around pricing models, clearer communication on the value of innovation, and more proactive engagement with patient advocacy groups were all cited as ways to improve trust and alignment between industry and the wider healthcare ecosystem.
The discussion highlighted that the UK is at a crossroads. While it remains a globally relevant market for life sciences, its position is not assured. Greater alignment between industry, regulators, and policymakers is essential to strengthening its appeal as a destination for product launches. A proactive approach to AI, RWE, and pricing innovation will be crucial in ensuring that new treatments reach patients efficiently and sustainably. The challenge now is to translate these discussions into meaningful action.
Acknowledgements
The Evidence Base thanks Martin Anderson and colleagues from Carrot Recruitment for the opportunity to attend this roundtable discussion.