The future of British healthcare: becoming a life science superpower

The link between deprivation and health outcomes is long established. Yet more than a decade since the Marmot review, a ground-breaking report on the topic, was published, the Covid pandemic has provided the starkest reminder yet of how much deprivation can influence public health – with both illness and mortality rates significantly higher in poorer communities.

With the support of pharmaceutical company MSD, The Spectator brought together a panel to address the issue – in particular, whether the UK’s burgeoning life sciences industry (the research-driven sector spanning pharmaceuticals, diagnostics and digital health) might be able to help in addressing some of these longstanding inequalities.

In her opening comments, Professor Louise Kenny – the executive pro-vice chancellor of Liverpool University and a research lead in its life sciences department – summed up the situation. ‘Nationally, we still have huge inequalities between the north and south of our country as well as between urban and rural areas,’ she said. ‘But we also have similar divides within areas as well.’ This meant populations were still showing divergent outcomes even when accessing the same resources.

But could there be a cause for optimism? ‘One of the consequences of the pandemic has been accelerating the data and technological revolution in healthcare,’ she said, pointing to the use of mass data to measure and track the virus and its impacts. This presented a significant opportunity for the UK to catch up in an area where it had historically been slow. ‘If you look at some of the Scandinavian countries, there is a much greater willingness to use health data for the greater good of society,’ she said. ‘Yet with our larger population, the UK could do much more on that front.’

For Cham Herath, MSD UK’s executive director for medical affairs, things were at least moving in the right direction. ‘When I started in this industry 18 years ago, it was difficult to understand the extent of a particular disease,’ he said. ‘Now you have the clinical practice research datalink – run by the Department of Health – which has more than 30 million anonymised patient records.’ This was a vital tool for the life sciences industry, which could use it to strengthen its research and development while targeting it to address the most pertinent patient needs.

The challenge now, he said, for the NHS, was to put in place a system where researchers could access real-time data while ensuring patients always maintained control of how their personal records were utilised. It was a challenge that struck a chord with Conservative MP Chris Green, who is the vice-chairman of parliament’s life sciences all-party parliamentary group. ‘NHS data is hugely sensitive politically,’ he said. ‘But I hope that most patients would be happy for universities and other organisations to use it in a very controlled way.’

The panel also identified another priority: giving more patients (particularly those in lower income areas) the chance to participate in research. ‘We know that outcomes for patients who participate in research are 30 per cent better’ than for those who don’t, said Professor Kenny. ‘Yet research spending is disproportionately focused in certain areas, which aren’t necessarily the same places where people are sick’. The key, the panel agreed, would be in fostering those partnerships between universities and their local NHS trusts – and giving more patients the chance to benefit from the UK’s world-class medical minds.