Category Archives: Digital

Digital health: Are we transforming the NHS or merely digitising what’s there?

Drawing on his experience as a health minister and chair of the Health and Social Care Select Committee, GK’s strategic advisor Steve Brine examines the government’s ambition to shift the NHS from analogue to digital, arguing that its success will depend on whether technology genuinely transforms care and reduces frontline pressures, rather than simply digitising how patients access them.

The Labour government has made ‘analogue to digital’ one of the defining ambitions of the10-Year Health Plan. It is difficult to argue with.

A next-generation NHS App, (finally) a Single Patient Record, greater use of AI and digitally enabled neighbourhood health all offer the prospect of a service that is easier to navigate, more personalised and – whisper it – more productive.

Given the pressures facing the NHS workforce and public finances, technology is no longer an interesting addition to health reform; it is central to whether much of that reform can actually be delivered. Jim Mackey, Chief Executive of NHS England, believes this to his core.

But there is an important question underneath all this ambition: how deliverable is it in practice, and are we moving further away or getting closer since the change of personnel in government?

For most people, their interaction with the NHS happens through primary care. That means the digital NHS will ultimately succeed or fail not in Whitehall, but in thousands of GP practices, pharmacies, optometrists and other community settings.

And therein lies both the opportunity and challenge.

Digital technology should help patients reach the right service first time, automate routine administration, enable better self-management and allow clinicians to concentrate their time on people with more complex needs. Used intelligently, it can support the other great shifts the government wants to achieve too: from hospital to community and from sickness to prevention.

But there is a danger that we confuse digitising access with transforming care.

Making it easier to contact the NHS is not necessarily the same thing as reducing pressure on it. If a new digital front door simply produces more follow-up work for already stretched primary-care teams, we have made demand more efficient without making the service more productive.

That distinction seems to me, as a former minister for primary care, to matter enormously.

The real opportunity is not simply to give patients a digital route to the same services they have always used. It is to use technology to change where they go and, sometimes, whether they need to see a healthcare professional at all.

During my tenure as the minister, Pharmacy First was born of exactly that thinking and I wrote about it in a recent column. It is hugely successful but that success should give us confidence to ask the next question: is Pharmacy First an analogue service in a digital age?

Its great strength is its simplicity. You have a problem, you walk into a pharmacy and speak to a professional, often without an appointment. We must not lose that.

But today we should be able to open the NHS App, describe our symptoms and be directed towards the right destination: self-care, GP, urgent care or community pharmacy. If pharmacy is appropriate, we should be able to see which pharmacies nearby offer the service and, ultimately, which have the capacity to see us.

‘Try your local pharmacy’ is mere signposting. ‘Your local pharmacy can help you this afternoon’ is a pathway.

The same principle applies much more widely.

A patient should not need to understand the organisational architecture of the NHS before accessing it. The question should increasingly be not how do I get a GP appointment? but what is the quickest and most appropriate way for the NHS to help me?

A genuinely intelligent digital front door should help make that distinction.

This is where the government’s digital ambitions and its neighbourhood health agenda ought to come together. Digital should be the connective tissue which allows care closer to home to work, not a separate technology programme running alongside it.

The NHS App may become increasingly sophisticated, but a brilliant consumer interface sitting on top of fragmented clinical systems does not constitute a digital health service. In short, the NHS does not only have a digital-access challenge; it has an integration challenge.

There is a workforce issue here also. Digital transformation cannot simply become another set of requirements imposed upon primary care. Every new platform, pathway or form of digital access changes somebody’s working day.

For a GP practice already managing intense demand, the compelling technology is not necessarily the one with the most impressive functionality. It is the one that removes duplication, reduces avoidable contacts, automates routine processes or releases clinical time.

Perhaps that suggests a simple test for every significant piece of NHS digital transformation should be; what workload does it REMOVE, not simply what functionality does it ADD?

There is an important patient dimension too. Digital by default cannot become digital only. Some patients will continue to need telephone or face-to-face access and, for those with frailty, multiple conditions or other complex needs, human navigation may become more rather than less important.

That is not an argument against digitalisation. In many ways, it is the argument for it. If technology can deal more effectively with straightforward transactions and help digitally confident patients navigate services themselves, scarce capacity can concentrate on those who need it most.

That, ultimately, is the prize.

Digital transformation should not be an IT programme imposed upon primary care. It should be service redesign undertaken WITH primary care. And the real measure of success will not be what happens on the screen, but whether technology changes for the better what happens behind it.

Social media: how the government is trying to regulate an industry that moves faster than itself

The Online Safety Act 2023 was hailed by the then Conservative government as a world-leading piece of legislation that would protect children and adults online. The act places new responsibilities on technology and social media platforms to protect users from harmful content, particularly children, and grants Ofcom extensive enforcement powers, including the ability to levy fines of up to 10% of global annual revenue for non-compliance. The legislation was designed to create a safer and more age-appropriate online environment without fundamentally restricting access to digital platforms.

Less than three years later, the Online Safety Act has proven to be already out of date, leading to new policies exploring an outright ban of social media sites for under 16s. The political debate has shifted from regulating content to regulating access itself.

Australia took the first leap, being the first major democracy to announce its own social media ban for under 16s in December 2025. Since then, the debate in Westminster has not dissipated. A UK-wide ban has been endorsed across the political spectrum, with proponents including over 60 Labour MPs, Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch and London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

The government has so far taken incremental steps to more stringently regulate access to sites ahead of potentially endorsing an outright social media ban. A crackdown on phones in schools was pursued in 2024, and the 2025 Violence Against Women and Girls strategy included measures to prevent school-aged boys developing harmful misogynistic attitudes – which the government believes has largely been driven by online content. In early June 2026, the Prime Minister also announced a new requirement for tech companies to devise technological solutions that can detect and block children seeing or sharing indecent images. This announcement followed only a few weeks after safeguarding minister Jess Phillips resigned from government, criticising the Prime Minister’s inaction and delay on this very matter.

No piecemeal policy interventions have yet delivered enough protections for parents, teachers and policymakers to feel that young people are safe online. This has paved the way for a government consultation in early 2026 testing the waters on age restrictions for social media. The consultation, which the government is due to provide a full response to this summer, proposed removing or limiting addictive features such as ‘infinite scrolling’ and introducing a minimum age for social media access.

For social media companies, technology platforms, advertisers and organisations that rely on digital engagement with younger audiences, the policy implications are significant. Potential further restrictions on access, platform functionality or age verification requirements would have commercial, operational and regulatory consequences across the digital ecosystem. Businesses should also expect growing scrutiny of recommendation algorithms and engagement-driven design features, as well as the effectiveness of existing safeguarding measures.

This is a political argument that is leading down one path – and that is on the side of restrictions on children’s access to social media.

The government’s hesitancy to invoke such an interventionist ban is likely to come under growing pressure from politicians from across the political spectrum who are eager to introduce greater protections for children online, including through new age restrictions. The government cannot afford to weather another scandal in this area. The direction of travel appears clear, but the details remain up for debate. Organisations with a stake in the outcome should ensure their voice is part of the conversation, helping to shape a regulatory framework that is both effective and proportionate, and that properly reflects the practical, commercial and technical implications of impending policy change.

Risk-based or sector led? How we can expect the government to regulate AI

Elon Musk’s AI chatbot, Grok, has received significant backlash in recent weeks after its ability to create sexualised images of women and children generated widespread media headlines. The scale of the public outcry has sharpened concerns about how quickly AI capabilities are outpacing existing safeguards. This has increased pressure on the government to more stringently regulate AI, which is reshaping industries at an unprecedented pace, bringing both opportunities and risks.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer previously suggested that the government would move away from the last Conservative administration’s ‘pro-innovation regulatory framework’ for AI, as set out in its white paper on AI published in 2023. Instead, Starmer has publicly emphasised the need for an overarching regulatory framework with additional protections in specific areas. He has also expressed concerns about the potential risks and impacts of AI, while acknowledging its transformative potential for society. In January 2025, the government published its AI Opportunities Action Plan, which set out its ambitions to use AI to ‘turbocharge’ economic growth and create AI growth zones to speed up planning processes for AI infrastructure.

The government’s approach to AI differs from the EU’s risk-based framework, which classifies AI systems into four categories: unacceptable risk, high risk, limited risk, and minimal risk. Each category has a different set of regulations and requirements for organisations developing or using AI systems. UK-based organisations with operations in the EU or those deploying AI systems within the bloc are likely to fall under the jurisdiction of the EU AI Act, requiring UK organisations to keep abreast of legislative changes and any potential future misalignments between the UK and EU in this area.

Although Starmer has pledged to turn the UK into an ‘AI superpower’, ministers have so far struggled to find the right balance between regulation and harnessing AI’s economic potential. At the end of 2024, the government proposed relaxing copyright laws to allow developers to train AI models on any material they can legally access. The plans received widespread criticism from creatives and high-profile musicians who would be required to opt-out of having their work used. Ministers have since acknowledged that the move was misguided and announced that the associated legislation would be delayed while they develop a more extensive policy framework.

It is likely that we will see new legislation announced in the form of an AI and Copyright Bill at the King’s speech, which is due to take place in May 2026. This presents an opportunity for businesses to engage with the government at a key stage of the policymaking process.

The legislation is likely to focus on safety, copyright protections, and transparency. The government has been clear that it does not want to introduce measures that could drive AI investment out of the UK. Appearing before the Digital and Communications Committee in January 2026, technology secretary Liz Kendall stated that many of the larger AI companies are opposed to ‘onerous burdens’, suggesting the government is likely to adopt a cautious approach in its efforts to more stringently regulate AI to avoid deterring potential investment in the UK.

This means we can expect the government to attempt to tread a line between the EU’s risk-based framework and the deregulatory approach taken in the US in order to strike the right balance between innovation and oversight. Despite both the EU and UK focussing on principles such as accountability and transparency, the diverging approaches observed so far in practice mean a consistent approach to the regulation of AI is unlikely, at least in the near term.

If you would like to discuss AI regulation in more detail, please reach out to Annabelle Black at annabelle@gkstrategy.com.

Cleared for take-off? The policies shaping the UK drone industry

The government has set itself the ambitious goal for becoming the fastest growing economy in the G7. This lofty ambition sits at the heart of the government’s agenda and is central to its industrial strategy – a 10-year plan to increase business investment in the industries of the future. The drones sector has been identified as a frontier industry, with the government clearing a flightpath for the UK to be a world leader in drone innovation and technologies.

Driving this move is the extraordinary economic potential of drones. A recent PwC report states that the sector could contribute £45 billion to the UK economy and support 650,000 jobs by 2030. Further analysis undertaken by Frazer-Nash consultancy for the government suggests that with public support and a shared strategy and ambition between government and industry, the sector could have contributed £103 billion by 2050. Together, these findings demonstrate how collaboration between government and industry can lead to a thriving drones sector which can drive growth and innovation across the UK.

Regulatory challenges

For this growth to be unlocked, the government must work to address regulatory challenges that constrain innovation. Across government, companies face a range of overlapping rules that can slow commercial deployment and limit investment. One of the largest constraints on the sector is the requirement to keep the drone within the line of sight of the operator. Additional health and safety regulations enforced by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) also prohibit drones being flown within a 50m radius of people. This constrains the range of operations drones can perform, limiting their use in many areas such as delivery, infrastructure inspection, and large-scale surveying, particularly in urban areas.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) also limits the growth of drones operating in the agricultural sector, with the HSE requiring companies to get approval for almost all aerial spraying. The HSE states that there is a 52-week processing time for drone applications, which will inevitably undermine the innovation and adoption of drones in the agricultural sector.

All these affected areas are where drone technology offers incredible commercial potential, so overcoming these regulatory barriers will be key for businesses looking to unlock growth in the drones sector.

These challenges are not insurmountable and government and industry collaboration is already underway to tackle them. The Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO) is leading a series of pro-innovation reforms for the drones sector, including the introduction of a single, standard risk assessment process to cut approval times for complex drone operations. They are also working on expanding the CAA’s atypical air environment policy, which enables the use of drones Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS), with the ROI providing £8.9 million in funding for innovative projects that will test the effects of new BVLOS standards. The ROI has also worked with the HSE to make it legal for drones to spray slug pellets, which is a major step forward for agricultural drones businesses.

Public concerns

Drones businesses also face challenges of public perception. The research done by Frazer-Nash consultancy estimated that without public support, the size of the sector will be £65 billion by 2050. That represents a £38 billion reduction in the sector compared to the scenario with public support. Given the incredible economic value that lies in public support, addressing public concerns, such as the use of drones for criminal activities, are of great importance to the sector and government to ensure businesses reach their full potential.

The government is already thinking about innovative solutions to the public perception challenge. In November 2025, the government launched a technology challenge which will encourage industry to develop innovative systems capable of detecting drones designed by criminals to evade current detection methods. If successful, this challenge will help the government intercept drugs being delivered by drones into prisons.

The government’s willingness to cut red tape and find innovative solutions to the challenges facing the sector creates opportunity for the sector. However, it remains essential for companies to engage with the government, both to push further on reducing overly prohibitive regulation and to address public concerns surrounding drone safety. By doing so, businesses can play a central role in shaping a regulatory landscape that supports innovation, builds public trust, and cements the UK’s position as a global leader in drone technology.

If you’d like to discuss drones and the wider political landscape in more detail, please reach out to Jacob on Jacob.walsh@gkstrategy.com

GK Strategy in Conversation with Steve Brine and Richard Meddings

GK Strategy was pleased to host former Chair of NHS England Richard Meddings and former health minister and Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee Steve Brine for an ‘in conversation with’ discussion on Thursday 15 May to examine some of the challenges facing the government, the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS 10 months into Labour’s term in office.

Meddings and Brine took a deep dive into a range of issues affecting the health and social care sector, exploring the implications for investors and service providers. From funding pressures to the abolition of NHS England, the discussion drew on our speakers’ extensive experience to evaluate the road ahead for the health system and the reforms the government will need to deliver to meet its ambitious policy objectives.

Much of the discussion focused on the NHS and the role of ICBs in a reformed health system following the announcement that NHS England would be abolished. There was agreement that health secretary Wes Streeting had received a tough inheritance, including mounting pressures on the health service and a poor fiscal climate making a significant injection of additional funding unlikely. The panellists highlighted the urgent need to redesign governance frameworks that better meet the demands of a modern health service.

Meddings and Brine spoke in detail about the role of technology in reforming the delivery of healthcare. They agreed there needs to be a steady stream of investment to maximise the increasing role AI will play in improving patient care and delivering efficiency savings within the NHS. The pair emphasised the need for Streeting to secure the ear of Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, who they argued will need to prioritise health targets despite a constrained financial budget.

The two panellists agreed that reducing the elective care backlog and meeting the 18-week referral to treatment target was the key retail offer to voters at the general election and will be the main health priority for the government. This is despite wider initiatives that might have more significant long-term outcomes for the health of the UK’s population. Other short-term priorities for the NHS that were discussed included reducing the number of people in urgent care, increasing access to primary care, and improving cancer detection rates.

Towards the end of the session, the discussion shifted to the upcoming 10-Year Health Plan which will set out the government’s healthcare reforms in detail. Meddings and Brine agreed it is likely to prioritise prevention, the shift from hospital-based to community care and greater digital integration, which were the three ambitions put forward by Labour pre-election. The panellists highlighted that meaningful progress will depend on early intervention strategies and targeted investment, particularly in tackling obesity, cancer and mental health challenges.

For investors and stakeholders, the panel’s message was clear: steady investment in health, coupled with a pragmatic embrace of technology and AI presents a significant opportunity to reshape the delivery of healthcare at a time when demands on the NHS continues to rise.

Health, social care, and life sciences is one of the GK’s core sectors. GK supports a range of businesses and investors to navigate the political, policy and regulatory landscape and help them to realise their commercial objectives. Please get in touch if you would like to discuss the impact of politics and policy on your business or investment decisions.

Education and Digital Revolution: AI under Labour

The government is embracing the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) and attempting to integrate it into the education system. Improving mainstream education and increasing accessibility for young people has been central to Labour’s agenda, with one of the five key manifesto missions being ‘breaking barriers to opportunity’. To address challenges in mainstream schools, ministers are focused on issues such as teacher recruitment and retention. However, in the current economic and political climate, immediate solutions are limited, bar the initial 5.5% teacher pay rise in September 2024. To address these shortfalls in the long term, the government is exploring innovative ways to make the teaching profession more appealing and improve the overall efficiency of educational provision, including the use of AI to support teachers and school administrators.

As the government recognises the potential risks for young children when accessing AI, the introduction of AI into the classroom will be a teacher and administrator facing policy. To mitigate further issues, the government has committed to implementing safeguards. These safeguards include age restrictions on who can use AI tools and filtering and monitoring standards to ensure schools have the appropriate restrictions in place. However, with appropriate regulation, there is potential for expanding the use of AI tools to student facing use in supervised educational environments. Stakeholders and developers should anticipate these restrictions and the potential expansion from a teacher facing policy to one that includes students when developing AI models for educational settings.

AI models in education will focus on generative AI, with applications across various teaching and learning functions, such as creating educational resources, curriculum planning, feedback, revision activities, administrative tasks and supported personalised learnings. The government is also likely to encourage the introduction of other AI tools outside of the classroom that can enhance efficiency in schools and reduce administrative burdens. The new technologies and tools will likely require additional skills training for teachers and support staff. Organisations that provide the necessary training in this area, alongside the development of AI, are likely to be viewed favourably by government and schools.

To ensure a safe and responsible introduction of AI into the classroom, the government is collaborating with educational technology sector, experts and academics. As part of this dialogue, the government is piloting the EdTech Evidence Board to analyse the impact of edtech tools on teaching and learning. The Chartered College of Teaching is delivering the initial pilot scheme and is inviting organisations in the edtech sector to submit projects to the board later this year. This is an opportune moment for education service providers and stakeholders to engage with policymakers, demonstrating how their products can support the government’s educational objectives.

We’d be delighted to share our thoughts on what the government’s approach to AI and edtech could mean for you and how you can engage with the ongoing dialogue. Please contact mariella@gkstrategy.com if you would like to discuss the reforms with the GK team.