Tag Archives: Health

Portrait of Stephen Brine - Uk Parliament Official

The Rare Diseases Action Plan: A refreshing focus on implementation

GK Strategic Adviser and former health minister Steve Brine examines the government’s new Rare Diseases Action Plan and its impact on people living with rare diseases. 

As someone who has spent many years engaged with health policy, both inside and outside government, I was genuinely heartened to see the England’s Rare Diseases Action Plan published to mark Rare Disease Day last month.

This fifth annual plan builds on the UK Rare Diseases Framework and sets out clearly how we intend to turn the strategic priorities I first produced as the minister into real improvements in people’s lives.

Rare diseases may, individually and as the name suggest, be uncommon – but collectively they affect a significant number of people – and even more indirectly via family members.

I have always been acutely aware how too many families face what is heartbreakingly called a ‘diagnostic odyssey’; years of uncertainty, multiple referrals, and repeated explanations before a condition is recognised and understood.

This isn’t just about medicine; it’s about dignity, continuity of care, and basic fairness across the NHS.

The new 2026 Action Plan wisely positions itself as a practical implementation of the Rare Diseases Framework’s four core priorities:

  • helping patients get a final diagnosis faster
  • increasing awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals
  • better coordination of care; and
  • improving access to specialist care, treatment and drugs.

But it does much more than repeat them, it brings them to life in the context of the Government’s 10 Year Plan for the NHS in England.

At its core, the plan seeks to show how system-wide reform – from digital transformation to community-based care – can make a real difference for people living with rare conditions.

One of the most meaningful aspects of this year’s plan is its emphasis on health equity, something ministers often say is central to their health mission.

For too long, people living with rare diseases have experienced variation in the care they receive, depending on where they live or what their condition is.

This is not unique to this cohort of patients of course but, for the first time in an action plan of this kind, the system explicitly recognises rare disease as a health inequality, and commits to addressing this through better data, targeted improvement work, and integration with NHS England’s longstanding approach to tackling inequalities.

This marks an important shift – one that sits right at the heart of a modern health service, and was important to me when drawing together the original priorities.

On the diagnostic front, progress is evident but needs to go further and faster.

The NHS Genomic Medicine Service now delivers genomic testing for more than 7,000 rare conditions, and there’s a renewed focus on significantly shortening that ‘odyssey’.

The re-procurement of the NHS Genomic Medicine Service (GMS) from April 2026 is welcome as is the suggestion, something I wish I had been able to do, the new contracts will give certainty and run for ten years from this spring.

What this renewed GMS should deliver is a forward-looking contract which embeds genomic technology into standard clinical pathways and, in-turn, makes a positive impact on diagnosis delays.

Last year also saw the establishment of pilot clinics for people with undiagnosed rare diseases that bring many more services ‘under one roof’.

Two of these pilot centres – one in the north and one in the south of England – are expected to be operational by autumn 2026. Their purpose is simple but should make a big difference; to give people who have exhausted standard lines of diagnosis a new path to understanding what’s wrong. This brings vital hope.

Coordination of care remains a longstanding challenge for people with rare conditions, for whom the term comorbidity was coined. This requires input from a range of specialists and can be very challenging for a health system such as the NHS.

To answer this, NHS England is looking at models of care that support rare disease collaborative networks (28 of which now exist) to join things up and bring that consistency across services.

Another significant advance is the work being done on so-called ‘novel’ therapies.

Regulators like the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency have made commitments to change how rare therapies are treated, with a view to facilitating more timely access to the latest treatments.

These are the sorts of advances that not only push scientific boundaries, but also give real hope to individuals and families living with rare conditions. We need to see, soon, the first patient treated by one of these therapies to keep momentum in this space.

Of course, none of this has happened by accident. Central to the 2026 Action Plan’s development and delivery has been the voice of the rare disease community.

I launched the ‘National conversation on rare diseases’ in 2019 which gathered over 6,000 responses across the UK and directly informed the four priorities being settled upon.

This time, patient organisations, clinical experts and charities seem to have again provided insight, and lived experience, ensuring the new plan lands with the credibility it must have to be successful.

I have tried to be positive in this piece – and there is much to be positive about – but we shouldn’t fool ourselves there isn’t a LOT of work to be done.

Today, only around 5 % of rare conditions have an approved and effective treatment, and for too many people the journey towards diagnosis is more long wandering road than ‘odyssey’ which suggests an adventure eventually leading somewhere good.

This plan isn’t the endpoint – and it’s not meant to be. It is the next part of a long-term commitment which builds on the work I did, which in itself built on the 2013 UK Strategy for Rare Diseases.

Credit to the current team of health ministers, across the UK, who have agreed to further extend that work giving us further chances to address unmet need and prepare for the future.

As someone who has seen both the frustrations and the progress in this policy area over many years, I welcome the clarity, ambition and practical focus of the 2026 Action Plan.

At a time when Ministers in this government are (rightly) criticised for producing grand plans without much of a nod to implementation, it is refreshing indeed.

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.

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

The case for agri-tech in public health

The public health problem

Over one in four adults are obese, with an additional 36% classified as overweight in England. The prevalence of obesity has been steadily rising since 1993, with little evidence to suggest this trend is slowing. This is not solely an adult issue. The sharpest increases in obesity have recently been observed among children. Currently, 15% of children aged 2 to 15 are obese, and a further 27% are overweight. Projections from the Royal Society of Public Health suggest the situation will get worse. 39% of children are expected to be obese or overweight by 2029–30, rising to 41% by 2034–35.

The cost

The government estimates that obesity is costing the NHS £6.5bn a year and is the root cause of diabetes and heart disease and the second biggest preventable cause of cancer after tobacco smoking. Less conservative estimates that account for wider consequences suggest that poor diets cost the UK £126bn a year. There is a strong rationale for public health intervention and the Labour government is demonstrating a willingness to intervene. One of health secretary Wes Streeting’s big three healthcare shifts set out in this week’s NHS 10 Year Plan is a shift from treatment to prevention, and for public health this means intervention.

Government action

Trailing the publication of the NHS 10 Year Plan alongside an obesity strategy, the government has announced a new standard for food retailers to make the average shopping backet of goods healthier. Big food businesses will be required to report on healthy food sales and will be overseen by the Food Strategy Advisory Board. This builds on a government consultation launched in May on plans to tighten the sugar levy by reducing the minimum sugar content level from 5g to 4g and remove the exemption for milk-based drinks. This signals a clear appetite within government for more interventionist policies. Such an approach will undoubtedly incur backlash from anti-nanny state politicos and big industry actors. However, it also creates an opportunity for innovators.

Agri-tech innovators

A contested political environment driven by a firmer stance on obesity and healthy foods by ministers, creates a window for pragmatic, science-driven solutions. Crop biofortification to increase the nutritional profile of foods. Precision fermentation to produce low-fat dairy and bioactive compounds. Modified starches with a lower glycaemic index. The agri-tech sector is well-placed to engage and support the government to achieving public health outcomes. Junk food advertisement bans might grab the political headlines, but ministers will need solutions that measurably change health outcomes and improve the health of the nation.

What next

The NHS 10 Year Plan and the obesity strategy will feed into Defra’s set piece item due for publication later this year: the national food strategy. Broadening access to healthy foods dominates the political discourse around this food strategy. Improving public health and tackling obesity have shot up the political agenda and joining this up with food and farming policy is the key to successfully achieving these policy aims. Aligning with the government’s thinking and offering solutions to public health priorities will strengthen the agri-tech sector’s positions to shape policy and work alongside ministers and policymakers.

Milking it! Extending the sugar tax for public health and economic gain

This week the government launched a consultation on its plans to tighten the sugar levy. This follows last year’s review of the effectiveness of the SDIL to date. Chancellor Rachel Reeves strongly hinted that the government was considering broadening the scope of the levy at October’s autumn budget and the consultation document does just that.

The government’s proposals include reducing the minimum sugar content level at which the levy applies from 5g to 4g; removing the exemption for milk-based drinks; and removing the exemption for milk substitute drinks. This means milkshakes, pre-made coffees and many of your favourite fizzy drinks will be reformulated or face becoming taxable.

Initial analysis suggests that over 90% of milk-based products will be affected. Initially exempt because milk is a source of calcium for children, the government’s revised position is that any potential health benefits are outweighed by the negative impact of consuming high levels of sugar.

Although the contents of this consultation come as no surprise to those who have been closely following policymaking in this space, it does set the mood music for the upcoming national food strategy and signals a government unafraid to be heavy-handed when it comes to public health. Although the SDIL is widely considered to be a successful and effective policy intervention, the UK’s sugar consumption remains significantly above recommended levels, especially among children. By lowering the sugar thresholds and widening the scope of products, more soft drink producers will be forced to reformulate products or see their production costs increase. However businesses decide to act in response to changing regulations, the government hopes the result is a significant reduction in the nation’s consumption of sugar.

Obesity costs the NHS around £6.5 billion a year. NHS data shows a deeply concerning trend of rising childhood obesity. Almost 10% of children are now living with obesity by the time they start school and 24% of children have tooth decay by aged five thanks to excess sugar consumption. With obesity taking effect earlier in life, the associated costs for the NHS are set to soar to £9.7 billion by 2050. This is especially bad news for a government grappling with a challenging economic environment and acute pressures on public spending. But for Labour, it feels all the more personal because in the most deprived areas the prevalence of obesity can be almost 15% higher than in the least deprived ones – something that the last government’s food strategy picked up on. Tackling health inequality is a huge part of the government’s commitment to ensuring all children and young people have the same opportunities and start in life.

For industry, there is a fine balance to strike. Full resistance to public health reforms designed to improve the health of our children would leave a bad taste in consumers’ mouths. Developing and maintaining an open, constructive dialogue with government, including showcasing innovative reformulations, will be a far more effective approach. Framed in this way, industry will be able to better make the case that a proportionate approach to SDIL and wider public health reforms will deliver positive health and economic change.

Now is the time to engage. Those who can successfully demonstrate alignment with the government’s public health goals will be well-positioned for future discussions about the developing national food strategy, which will set the strategic direction of travel for the rest of this parliament and beyond. One thing is for sure, this is unlikely to be the last government intervention in the name of improving the nation’s health.

The consultation runs until 21 July. If you’d like to discuss contributing to it or the wider HFSS policy environment, please contact Lauren on lauren.atkins@gkstrategy.com.