The latest UK-US trade agreement on medicines has sparked intense controversy, with critics warning that it puts the financial interests of big pharma ahead of those of patients. As Andy Burnham prepares for a potential role as Labour leader and Prime Minister, health organisations are urging him to reject the deal, which they say could lead to a staggering 229,000 excess deaths across the UK by 2036.
The agreement, signed last December, aims to facilitate British drug exports to the US by avoiding tariffs and provide access to life-extending medications that might otherwise be unavailable. However, critics argue that the UK government compromised too much in negotiations with the US, particularly under pressure from former President Donald Trump, committing the NHS to increased spending on drugs.
According to a report last week, the NHS could need to reallocate £44.7 billion from essential services by 2036 to cover the costs of new medicines under this deal, unless additional funding is secured. This has led academics at the University of York and the University of Liverpool, along with Christchurch Hospital in New Zealand, to warn that such a diversion of funds could have devastating consequences for NHS service spending.
A coalition of 19 health organisations, including Medact, the Doctors’ Association UK, and Doctors in Unite, has written to Burnham, urging him to make a 'decisive break' from current policy and commit to revitalising the NHS. They also call for a review of other contentious policies, such as Private Finance Initiative (PFI) arrangements for health centres, recent job cuts, and Palantir’s NHS contract.
Dr Tony O’Sullivan, co-chair of Keep Our NHS Public, has described the deal as 'deeply shocking' and warned that diverting billions to US pharmaceutical giants while the NHS is already under strain could have disastrous consequences. He points out that thousands of avoidable deaths are linked to delays in emergency care and ongoing issues in maternity services.