Tag Archives: NHS

Treasury to Treatment: James Murray Appointed Health Secretary

As predicted, England has a new Health Secretary – James Murray.

Above all else, he deserves the goodwill that comes with inheriting one of the best jobs in government.

The Department of Health and Social Care is unlike any other brief. It combines immense public affection for the NHS with relentless operational pressure, difficult fiscal realities and an almost impossible expectation that Ministers can ‘fix’ deep-rooted problems decades in the making.

So my advice to James above all else would be this; you inherit a Ten Year Plan (and numerous other strategies) so don’t waste time and try the patience of the sector by re-writing them.

Focus on operationalising them and give your civil servants (as well as Jim Mackie who I suspect will be feeling deflated right now) a very clear steer from day one on your top three policy areas. Not the infamous three ‘shifts’ – they’re the means to the end – but the areas they know you personally will never drift from.

James takes office with a formidable in-tray. NHS waiting lists still high and a media (as well as a sector) that is sceptical recent falls weren’t more about politics than clinical reality.

Access to primary care continues to define the ‘retail offer’ in health, while care reform of course remains the great unresolved question of British domestic policy.

Not to mention a Ten Year Workforce Plan that remains illusive, medicine shortages (which I predict will grow as an issue in 2026) and rising demand because we are living longer, but often not healthier, lives.

And hanging over all of this is perhaps the biggest challenge of all; how we finally move from a sickness service to a genuine health service.

That is why the NHS Modernisation Bill he inherits matters. Much of the early discussion around it has understandably focused on the proposed Single Patient Record — a potentially transformative attempt to join up fragmented patient information across the NHS.

Done properly, this could save lives, reduce duplication, improve productivity and finally give clinicians the information they need at the point of care. Done badly, it risks becoming another expensive digital programme which loses public trust before it delivers meaningful change. The new Secretary of State will need Number 10 (whoever occupies it) to back him fully when the going gets tough.

But the Bill goes wider than that. It is likely to include measures aimed at modernising NHS structures, expanding the use of technology and AI, improving data sharing, reforming procurement and accelerating innovation adoption. And that’s before Labour MPs, increasingly keen to reject incrementalism, get their hands on amendments come the Bill Committee stage.

The challenge, of course, is delivery. Every Health Secretary arrives in office promising reform. Most discover the system is better at absorbing change than enabling it.

The NHS is enormous, complex and deeply institutionalised. Structural reform alone rarely changes outcomes unless accompanied by cultural change, workforce support and political honesty about priorities.

And that brings me to Wes Streeting. I know how hard it is to leave that Department so it can’t have been easy.

Politics is often too tribal to acknowledge effort when people leave office or move on from major briefs. But it is right to recognise the energy, seriousness and determination Wes brought to the health debate.

Whatever one’s politics, he helped force difficult conversations into the open — about productivity, reform, prevention and the need for the NHS to modernise if it is to remain sustainable.

Wes deserves credit for that as well as the HIV Plan, the Men’s Health Strategy and some lesser noticed progress around things like the Rare Diseases Plan or England (finally) testing newborns for Spinal Muscular Atrophy as a result of his work with Jessy from Little Mix.

The new Health Secretary will quickly discover there are a thousand competing voices telling him what matters most.

My hope is that, amid the noise, he keeps sight of a simple truth: the future sustainability of the NHS will depend not only on how we treat illness, but on how seriously we take the business of creating a healthier society in every sense of the word. We should all wish him nothing but success.

Steve Brine, consultant, podcaster, trustee, former MP for Winchester & Chair of the Health Select Committee

Prevention is the new cure podcast – all things health and politics

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

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.

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.

Key Takeaways from the Spending Review: A future that is less generous than the past

GK had the pleasure of hosting former Treasury and education minister David Laws and the Financial Times’ Economics Commentator Chris Giles in our latest webinar on Thursday (12th June) to discuss the winners and losers from the government’s spending review, and what it means for business.

The spending review is a significant moment in the political calendar. The settlements it confirms set departmental day-to-day budgets for the next three years (2026-27, 2027-28 and 2028-29) and capital expenditure for the next four (until 2029-30). It is also the moment when No.10 and the Treasury must publicly commit the funds to support their political objectives – in essence, we get to see where spending is going to be prioritised and where it is not.

In the webinar, David and Chris detailed what the spending review means for overall public spending, where the government could come undone, and the possibility of future tax rises. You can read a summary of their key takeaways below:

The spending review is not about making new money available or introducing new taxes.

Spending reviews are all about the allocation of a pre-determined spending envelope which, in this instance, the Chancellor set out in the October budget last year. It does not introduce any new taxes or make new money available. Instead, it confirms what areas of public spending the government wants to prioritise, and which departments will have to be squeezed.

The departmental settlements do not represent a return to the austerity years.

While the overall spending envelope is tight – especially given growing pressure on public spending across health, pensions and defence – day-to-day spending is still rising by 1.2% per year in real terms (i.e. accounting for inflation) over the spending review period. This means it is broadly in line with the departmental spending settlements put forward by various governments since 2019.

A lot of the spending assumptions depend on public sector productivity improving, which is no guarantee.

Public sector productivity has declined since the Covid-19 pandemic and in 2024 it fell by 0.3%. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has historically assumed quite generous improvements in public sector productivity each year which is a key component of its overall economic growth metric.

If the OBR significantly revises down its assumptions about improvements in productivity, this could seriously impact the funds it is projecting the government will have to work with over the spending review period. This increases the likelihood of the government having to do introduce large tax rises at the autumn budget.

Defence will continue to put pressure on the government’s overall spending envelope.

Since the end of the Second World War, successive governments have used cuts to defence as a means of boosting other areas of public spending, most notably health. Persistent global instability and geopolitical uncertainty means that higher levels of defence spending are likely to continue for the foreseeable future. No.10 and the Treasury will have to contend with this new spending pressure as demographic challenges continue to pile up and economic growth remains sluggish.

The NHS is the big winner from the spending review, albeit with a smaller settlement than it has historically received.

Health secretary Wes Streeting will undoubtedly be the happiest around the Cabinet table following the confirmation of the Department of Health and Social Care’s settlement, with spending on the NHS set to grow by 3% per year in real terms. However, this is below historic average rises of approximately 4-5%. With a growing elderly population and people living with complex conditions for longer, the funding put forward in the spending review settlement is unlikely to significantly move the dial on the performance of the NHS.

Small tax rises are likely at the autumn budget to meet the Chancellor’s fiscal rules.

The government has committed to meet day-to-day expenditure through its own revenues by 2029-30. This means its current budget will have to be in balance or surplus by the end of the decade, and any money the government does borrow will be to invest. If the OBR projects that the government is not on course to meet this fiscal rule (or any of its others), then Chancellor Rachel Reeves will be forced to come back for a second round of tax rises or decide to break a fiscal rule. Either look fairly unpalatable to the government given where they currently are in the opinion polls.

A cabinet reshuffle should be expected in the second half of 2026 as the government begins to ramp up to the next general election.

2026 is projected to a big election year in the UK. Elections are due to take place for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, along with a series of newly created unitary authorities. Should the results prove poor for Labour, as current polling indicates they will, then Prime Minister Keir Starmer is likely to reshuffle his cabinet to get his top team in place as the No.10 machine starts to think about the next general election in 2029.