Author Archives: GK Strategy

gk - government blueprint copy 2

What does the Government’s Healthcare Blueprint really mean for the NHS, independent providers and the care sector?

GK’s Strategic Advisors and former health ministers Alistair Burt and Phil Hope share their thoughts on the Department for Health & Social Care’s recent proposals for healthcare reform and integration and they explore what this means for investors and providers.

GK are experts in health and social care policy, working across the system with care providers and med tech and life sciences companies. We support investors to evaluate political, policy and regulatory risk in the investment process, and support independent providers and charities to engage and shape the political and policy landscape.

Download their analysis here: Healthcare Blueprint

For more information or to set up a meeting to discuss the health and care landscape further please contact robin@gkstrategy.com

 

gk - education and skills 2021

Education & Skills Insights – 2021

GK’s education experts, including former education Minister, David Laws share their thoughts on key education and skills issues:

  • A new university admissions system?
  • What will come from the new Green Jobs Taskforce?
  • The National Tutoring Programme, funding, and media scrutiny
  • Children’s social care is still ripe for investment: Here’s why
  • Will COVID-19 change anything for early years?
    In difficult times, research impact can be a beacon for the Higher Education sector

Download your copy of Issue 3_Education & Skills insights 2021

gk - 2020 Lessons for Private Equity in 2021

2020 Lessons for Private Equity in 2021

What lessons and insights does this astonishing year offer private equity and portfolio companies as they look to 2021?

Robin Grainger, GK’s CEO and Founder shares his thoughts on the ten main themes investors and companies should consider when they assess risks and opportunities and new investments in 2021.

Download your copy of 2020 Lessons for Private Equity in 2021

gk - spending review

What the Spending Review means for Health and Social care

The recent Comprehensive Spending Review was the last of several fiscal injections for the health and care system in 2020 and there is much of relevance to organisations who depend on public health and care spending, especially in the wake of COVID-19. The GK team outline the key funding announcements, analyse what they mean in practice and highlight where further information is required

To read more, download your copy here: What the Spending Review means for Health & Social Care.

For any questions or to discuss the health & care political and policy landscape contact joecormack@gkstrategy.com

gk - health and social care insights

GK launches Health and Social Care Insights Report

We are delighted to launch GK’s new Health & Social Care Insights report which we will be producing every month.

Download your copy of the newsletter where GK’s expert consultants and advisors cover:

  • NHS Spending – a look forward
  • New risks and opportunities for private sector providers and investors
  • What does the end of the transition period mean for medicines and medical devices?
  • 2021 – finally, a new future for social care?
  • 2021: A Reset for NHS Digital Strategy?
  • What does the pandemic mean for the future of NHS dentistry?
  • Dividing line? Reassessing pharmacy funding

If you would like to discuss the health and landscape with our team contact Louise Allen at louise@gkstrategy.com

gk - What to expect from the 2020 Comprehensive Spending Review

What to expect from the 2020 Comprehensive Spending Review

The Comprehensive Spending Review has been dialled back in ambition but will still set the future direction of departmental spending and will impact on policy development, writes Rt Hon David Laws, former Cabinet Minister

It is commonplace these days for large parts of Budgets and Spending Reviews to be leaked in advance, so it is no surprise that we have already learned that in next week’s Spending Review the Defence budget will get a boost, while Overseas Aid faces cuts – as yet, of an uncertain size.

This Spending Review is arguably less important than when it was first announced, many months ago, because at that stage it was designed to be a long term review, setting out spending plans for the next three years. The Treasury has now understandably got cold feet about long term spending plans, when there is so much uncertainty about the size of our economy next month, let alone in three years’ time. So, because of COVID, most budgets will only be set for the financial year ahead (incidentally one-year settlements are the norm across many western nations).

But to conclude that the Review no longer matters would be a big mistake, for three reasons. Firstly, it will allocate hundreds of billions of pounds over the next year, and it could involve some big changes in priorities. Budgets such as health, business support and welfare could be increased dramatically due to COVID related pressures. Other budgets could also face a big squeeze, as the Treasury fights to prevent a further upward spiral in public borrowing.

Secondly, while budgets for day-to-day spending may only be set for a year, the allocations for “capital spending” could be set for much longer periods – perhaps even up to a decade. These days the Treasury accepts the case for longer term capital budgets for infrastructure spending, in areas such as transport, housing, defence equipment, and school building. And with interest rates at historic lows, money for such projects can be accessed incredibly cheaply – meaning that productive investments can be made for a zero or even negative real cost. In some policy areas departments have been pressing for longer term capital budgets than have been usual in the past (for example school buildings), and it will be interesting to see if the Treasury is willing to allocate more capital spending for 5-10 years, rather than the usual three.

Finally, this is our first real opportunity to see the spending priorities of what is, after all, essentially a new government. While much will be distorted by the near term imperatives of responding to the COVID crisis, it should also be possible to discern new areas of priority, and to distinguish these from areas the government does not seem to want to give top billing to.

It is important to understand the Spending Review process, and what the final published “numbers” actually mean. In essence, the Treasury starts by deciding privately how much in total it wants to spend and save, and it then sends out a proposed “settlement” to departments. Departments then supply detailed papers, usually explaining why they want more money, and make the Treasury a counter-proposal about how much money should be allocated. The Treasury knows departments will never settle at the first number it proposes, so it always builds some “fat” into the negotiation, which it can generously concede. But it will have a “bottom line” with each department that it cannot go beyond, if the Spending Review as a whole is to add up.

During these negotiations, departments will look at their spending programmes in huge detail – and will have assumptions for every programme about how its budget should grow or shrink. This means that when the Review is concluded and announced, there is a departmental assumption somewhere about how each budget line will be affected. But this detailed information is usually not publicly released on the day of the Spending Review – leaving more time for departments to decide how to “share out the cake” So it’s crucial to understand that not all decisions on individual budgets will be baked in after the Spending Review is announced, and within departments there is huge scope to debate and discuss what the spending priorities should be.

That’s why for all those interested in helping shape the detail of government spending, next week’s announcement should not be seen as the end of a process, but as an opportunity to start more detailed and serious engagement with Ministers, advisers and civil servants.