The industry’s message was sharp, the stories were human, and the future of UK life sciences was put firmly under the spotlight. But what will come next?
News is rarely made by process. It comes from people, soundbites and stories. Bridging the gap between human stories and sometimes arcane process is tricky but crucial to changing the status quo. The recent top-tier coverage of the UK pharma industry’s perspectives on the medicines approval organisation, NICE, shows how that gap can be bridged to significant effect.
At the heart of its cut-through has been framing the issues and implications in ways understandable to non-experts. Talk of severity modifiers and QALYs [quality-adjusted life years] without explanation or colour will likely lead to blank expressions. However, if the consequences of these things are highlighted (in this case, some people being unable to access medicines available elsewhere in the world), it becomes relevant and human.
One of the most impressive things has been the frankness of those being quoted. Straight-talking and candour are so much better than standard corporate speak. In part, this escalation is due to the increasing seriousness of the issues facing the sector (see Trump; breakdown in negotiations with the Government; and ongoing NHS pressures affecting frontline decisions) but also a refreshing understanding of what is needed to cut through. And it has led to better coverage.
This isn’t just about one drug. It’s about the UK’s ability to hold its place as a life sciences leader. Only nine per cent of NHS spend goes on medicines, compared with much higher levels in France and Germany. Britain’s share of global R&D is already slipping. For a government that has pinned its growth strategy to life sciences, that gap between ambition and reality is glaring.
Here again, the comms lesson is clear: frame the issue in terms that matter beyond health. It’s about patients, absolutely. But it’s also about jobs, investment, growth and Britain’s economic future.
The key question now is about what happens next – has the coverage changed anything? We have seen an emboldened industry position and a strong rebuttal in The Times from the Secretary of State Wes Streeting. But what does this mean?
The political optics of being seen to pay ‘more for pharma’ are tricky, but if the debate is about the returns on investment from more backing for medicines firms, then industry has a powerful argument. And the longer the stand-off goes on, the more patients, companies and the UK’s reputation are caught in the crossfire.
For now, the pressure is on. Either way, hopefully we will continue to see this candour and forcefulness maintained. Above all, industry must remember that human stories are at the heart of news.
katedarkins-2.jpg)
