Category Archives: Government

What is FemTech and is it the future of women’s health?

The term ‘FemTech’ refers to women’s digital health services in areas including reproductive health, menopause and maternal care. It covers medical devices, software, therapeutic drugs and consumer apps, amongst other innovative technologies. The concept of FemTech emerged in the 2010s in conjunction with discussions on gender equality in healthcare provision and the development of virtual care delivery models. As interest in the sector has grown, a new market has emerged for investors. The government has also caught wind of the importance that digitalisation plays in the future of women’s healthcare and is looking to promote the development of FemTech and is keen to encourage further investment in the sector.

Following backlash from the dire findings of the Ockenden maternity services review, which identified significant failings in the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, the Johnson-led Conservative government published its ‘Women’s Health Strategy for England’ in August 2022. The then government launched a call for evidence to support the development of the strategy, which led to stakeholders submitting requests for government support for the FemTech industry through improved collaboration between the NHS and private sector. The subsequent strategy encouraged the use of digital health technologies to support women’s access to information, healthcare professionals and healthcare options, stating ‘we want to see greater use of digital technologies to empower women by de-mystifying and simplifying the process for companies to scale and launch their products in the UK.’ The then government said that it would support stakeholders by working with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to speed up access to innovative health technologies.

The strategy fell by the wayside following successive changes in Conservative Party leadership. However, the Labour government is building on the Conservative’s work on women’s health policy and announced in October 2025 that it was developing a renewed women’s health strategy which would seek to reduce healthcare inequalities and improve women’s access to healthcare professionals. The strategy is being developed to work alongside the 10-Year Health Plan, the government’s long term plan for reforming the NHS in England. It is likely that the renewed strategy, when it is eventually published, will focus on reducing waiting times for women’s healthcare provision and developing new women’s health technologies. The timeline for the renewed strategy is currently unknown; however, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is likely to encourage stakeholder engagement with the process throughout 2026.

This is an important time for stakeholders working and investing in FemTech. The government is keen to encourage and promote the development of new FemTech solutions to support its wider policy objectives, such as reducing workplace absenteeism and modernising the delivery of health services. The government is looking to innovate and improve women’s healthcare by engaging with the industry and recognises that increased levels of digitalisation is the way forward.

If you would like to discuss the government’s approach to FemTech further, please contact Mariella Turley at mariella@gkstrategy.com

GK & Anchor Policy Spotlight: Emerging Regulatory Markets

The next decade and beyond will be defined by global challenges ranging from climate change and food security to geopolitical instability and competition for resources. Governments around the world will be forced to address these at pace, but many of the solutions will depend on technological advances and scientific discoveries that are only just emerging.

Curiosity has always been in GK’s DNA and over the last year we have dedicated considerable time to understanding and engaging with the emerging industrial sectors of the future. Ranging from technological developments in already highly regulated sectors to the sectors that are just emerging as future economic powerhouses, GK has put them under the microscope to unpick the political, policy and regulatory opportunities and challenges on the horizon.

This report is an introduction of that thinking to you. We know our investment community is keen to understand the risks and opportunities in these spaces to stay ahead of competitors in origination strategies, and most importantly, to invest for the future. With the decades of combined experience that informs our counsel, we pride ourselves on seeing the things that others don’t. Our team of consultants in the UK, Europe and the US is uniquely positioned to give a truly global perspective on understanding and growing the future sectors of the global economy.

Can the NHS deliver its new cancer plan?

Steve Brine is a former Health (and cancer) Minister, as well as a Strategic Advisor at GK Strategy. He also co-hosts the health and politics podcast, ‘Prevention is the New Cure’.

The government’s long-awaited National Cancer Plan for England arrives at a rare moment of agreement in health policy.

There is broad consensus across politics, the NHS, and industry that the current model – reactive, hospital-centric and stretched – is no longer sustainable. The focus now is prevention. Diagnose earlier, intervene sooner, and reduce the burden of disease before it overwhelms services.

We should first welcome the fact we have a plan. Attempts to water it down into a ‘major conditions strategy’ did not enjoy the support of the cancer community – or myself (while Chair of the Health Select Committee).

The evidence from around the world is clear; a focused and ambitious cancer plan drives performance and outcomes.

This plan recognises three fundamental truths: (i) the NHS cannot treat its way out of crisis, (ii) workforce shortages remain a major constraint, (iii) unless prevention is properly embedded, our cancer outcomes will continue to trail those of comparable nations.

The new cancer plan reflects much of this thinking and like the NHS 10 Year Health Plan before it, its ambition is not found wanting.

It sets out a new measurable goal that three-quarters of people diagnosed with cancer will survive at least five years or live well with the disease. It also promises to recover the cancer standards (maximum 62-weeks from diagnosis to treatment and the 28-day faster diagnosis metric) by the end of this parliament.

We’ve always known early diagnosis is cancer’s magic key, but if we’ve not built a system that can deliver such, it’s empty rhetoric and cancer patients don’t need that.

Given how measurable these targets are month-on-month – alongside the little-reported promise to provide every patient with a tailored support plan covering treatment, mental health and employment support – this is a very significant piece of work. To meet them, ministers promise faster diagnosis, expanded screening and more personalised treatment.

While some of the ‘big bets’ in the plan revolve around the wider use of cutting-edge technologies such as genomic testing, multi-cancer blood detection, AI-supported diagnostics and robotic surgery. There is also continued acknowledgement that around 40% of cancers are preventable; linked to smoking, obesity, alcohol consumption and environmental factors (even if doubts remain whether ministers have the political capital for further battles on the ‘nanny state’).

The National Cancer Plan is thoughtful and long overdue. But without a parallel focus on workforce protection, system transformation and sustained investment, it risks repeating a familiar pattern – bold promises undermined by fragile (and patchy) delivery.

As with many NHS strategies, including the 10 Year Health Plan itself, the challenge lies not in intent but in execution.

Understanding the government’s growth story

The government is facing a low-growth challenge that is constraining its ambition and capacity to improve living standards in the UK. GDP per capita, the average level of economic output per person and a metric key to understanding changes in living standards, has plateaued since the Covid-19 pandemic. Poor levels of economic growth have plagued the UK since the 2008 financial crash. GDP per capita rose by 0.9% year-on-year in Q3 2025, weaker than the 2010s average of 1.3% and a significant shortfall of the pre-financial crash average of 2.5% (1993-2008). High levels of immigration in recent years have also disguised the economy’s malaise and masks an underlying weakness in the UK’s per-capita economic performance. Weak growth directly limits the amount of revenue that can be collected through taxation to meet rising demand for public services and fund the government’s programme of reforms.

Improving the UK’s economic growth trajectory has emerged as a key objective of policymaking. It is vital that ministers create the regulatory and economic environment to stimulate growth in the economy that bridges the gap between policy ambition and fiscal sustainability. The Chancellor Rachel Reeves has called on regulatory bodies to rebalance their statutory duties and reduce the regulatory burden on business to stimulate competition and growth. This includes, for example, the Competition and Markets Authority’s reforms to the merger remedies guidance. At the same time, Reeves has increased public spending by almost £70 billion a year and tweaked her fiscal rules to offset capital expenditure to further increase spending. These decisions have help fund policies such as the energy secretary Ed Miliband’s £15 billion Warm Homes Plan to kick-start the domestic retrofit and energy upgrade sector over the next five years.

Mixed and unspoken signals

Despite some positive moves in the right direction, the absence of a clear, coherent political narrative from the centre of government has left investors and businesses grappling with mixed and often conflicting signals from different parts of the government machine. While Ed Miliband passionately talks about the Warm Homes Plan creating thousands of jobs, the cost of employment has significantly increased with changes to employer National Insurance Contributions and the introduction of the Employment Rights Act which is estimated to cost businesses £1 billion a year.

The cumulative impact of policy decisions has meant inflation in the economy has remained stubbornly high. The UK was an outlier amongst G7 economies in reducing levels of inflation in 2025. Numerous flagship government policies have also directly increased the cost of doing business in the UK which has translated into higher prices for consumers, reinforcing inflationary pressures. This is despite treasury ministers inheriting the sharpest fall in the headline rate of inflation from the previous Conservative government. Inflation was 2.8% in June 2024 (the Conservatives’ last month in office) and now stands at 3.4%, having peaked at 4.2% in July 2025.

The unspoken message to investors and businesses is thus: bear the brunt of higher business costs now before any economic gains begin to materialise from wider de-regulatory reforms, such as changes to streamline the planning system being introduced through the government’s Planning and Infrastructure Act. It is a sizeable political and economic wager and 2026 will be critical in determining whether this strategy begins to pay off. Ministers will be keeping a close eye over the coming year for early signs of economic improvements.

The strategy’s political risk is timing. The economic dividend of the government’s supply-slide reforms, such as overhauling the planning system or the new growth imperative on regulatory bodies, risks arriving too late in the parliamentary term for the government to get any meaningful credit. If the economy is not firing on all cylinders or living standards do not meaningfully improve for voters, the state of the economy will be a key battleground issue at the next election.

For businesses, 2026 will be a critical year for engaging with government as ministers will be eager to expediate regulatory barriers that are currently holding back growth plans and economic activity. For investors, understanding where ministers are politically committed and where a possible course correction is most likely to take place will be critical to navigating the rest of the parliamentary term.

GK Look Ahead: Health and Social Care Policy

GK Strategy is pleased to share its ‘Look Ahead’ report which sets out some of the key health policy and regulatory trends to watch out for in 2026.

The report includes insights from GK Strategic Adviser Steve Brine on the government’s policy plans for health sub-sectors, such as dentistry and community pharmacy. Steve is a former Health Minister and was Chair of the Health and Social Care Select Committee.

The report can be accessed here: https://gkstrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/GK-Look-Ahead-Health-and-Social-Care-Policy-January-2026.pdf

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.