By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Essentially the study is stating that the hugely increased cost of medicines over the next 10 years will mean that many other important functions/treatments in the NHS will become underfunded leading to excess deaths that could be avoided.
"This deal commits government to increasing expenditure on new medicines from 0.3% to at least 0.6% of GDP in 2036, with interim targets for expenditure of 0.35% of GDP in 2028 and 0.4% of GDP in 2030.7 Assuming these targets are met and using the Office for Budgetary Responsibility’s (OBRs) long term forecast of real GDP growth (1.5%), the additional annual costs to the English NHS will be at least £1.3bn in 2028 (£25m per week), and £8.8bn in 2036 (£170m per week).9Figure 1 shows the estimated additional annual costs over the 11 years of the deal. The cumulative additional cost will be £2.6bn by the end of 2028 and £44.7bn by the end of 2036. Costs are even higher if the impact on publicly funded adult social care is also considered - modelling of English local authority data indicates that every £1bn the NHS must find to fund this deal will increase the costs of adult social care by £118m because of increases in morbidity and mortality."
"The agreement also establishes zero tariffs on UK pharmaceutical and medical device exports to the US for three years. However, the UK remains a net importer of medicines, meaning that much of the additional expenditure is likely to accrue to multinational manufacturers rather than remain within the NHS or wider UK economy.26 Furthermore, any economic benefits associated with increased drug expenditure must be balanced against evidence that reductions in available health and social care resources may negatively affect population health and local economic productivity.27 Furthermore, the economic benefits of securing zero tariffs for UK pharmaceutical exports has been substantially diminished since the US Supreme Court ruling reducing the proposed tariffs from 100% to 10%. Indeed, the projected costs of the agreement are expected to exceed the total annual value of UK medical exports to the United States (£5bn) before 2031.26"
SB
Avatar - M101 - Pinwheel Galaxy
3
BMJ study showing US/UK trade deal could cause up to 229,000 excess deaths on 08:13 - Jul 2 with 1464 views
"Starmer’s goodbye gift to Britain: a US pharma deal that could be more lethal than Covid
This shadowy treaty on medicine imports will cost the NHS billions and take funding away from doctors, nurses, cancer scans and the rest"
"In December, Starmer and Donald Trump struck a deal on medicine. Downing Street agreed it would spend more on branded drugs, in return for the White House not jacking up tariffs on British pharmaceutical exports to the US. As I wrote at the time, the treaty stank. One of the greatest achievements of British democracy, our NHS, set up to save lives, had been used to save face with Trump. The most rapacious president in American history now had his hands on our healthcare system.
Wes Streeting and his Department of Health and Social Care gave almost no detail about how much this would cost, or what that meant for patients. They created a black hole of information, then tried their damnedest to present defeat as victory. Look! ministers said: we get to buy these whizzy new drugs from America. Truth was, we always could, if we wanted to – except now the choice was no longer ours.
MPs never got to examine these vast changes. They had no chance to debate the great erosion of our independent system for providing medicine. No awkward backbenchers or querulous lords or scribbling hacks or public information for Starmer and Streeting. Using a statutory instrument, they smuggled the entire thing into law.
Only after the deal came into effect did the government publish even its headline facts and figures, sneaking them out just before the Easter bank holiday. Only this week did MPs finally get the chance to debate the changes, “long after the horse has bolted”, as Labour backbencher Rachael Maskell told me. And this morning we got the first detailed analysis of the cost for you, me and our NHS. The analysis has been conducted by three senior health researchers, including a former senior adviser to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice), the body that sets how much we pay for our medicines. Published in the British Medical Journal, it suggests the public has been misled on an epic scale.
When discussing the deal with Trump, Streeting made voters three promises. First, in any negotiation, “the NHS is not on the table”. Second, “we’re not going to cut NHS services to fund the pharma deal”. And finally, over the next couple of years the agreement would cost “around £1bn” a year. All three of these pledges now look utterly false."
[Post edited 2 Jul 8:34]
1
BMJ study showing US/UK trade deal could cause up to 229,000 excess deaths on 08:52 - Jul 2 with 1289 views
‘By the end of the decade, the authors believe, the cost will be a total £44.7bn. For perspective, this week’s headlines have been dominated by a plan that will require the government to find an extra £15bn for defence. The NHS may have to find triple that just to pay for drugs, thanks to a deal fronted by its own health secretary.’
There’s plenty of money going spare if you want to find it Sir Kier, Mr Burnham & lackeys, so let’s hear no more about no money, black holes, what the last sorry shower did. There is bucket loads of dough out there for stuff they want to spend on. In the public interest? No, in the Party and their own interest.
So ok, Sir Kier spent all those months brown nosing Trump. All those breath mints - for what? This? If this deal is as reported, why did they agree to it? Were there threats or little brown envelopes and lovely lunches to ‘encourage’ our government? Theres a stench of burying the bad news about this.
Conspiracy theory? Probably. Lack of knowledge in my part? Certainly.
0
BMJ study showing US/UK trade deal could cause up to 229,000 excess deaths on 11:41 - Jul 2 with 1088 views
Slightly risky me commenting here as I work really quite close to this…
Essentially, with American pharma companies threatening to stop UK investment and claiming they’d withdraw from upcoming NICE appraisals - the UK govt have committed to doubling in drug investment. But NHS has been told by govt it’ll need to come from existing budgets, so taking away from other NHS services.
Worth noting drug expenditure is already the second biggest expense to the NHS after workforce.
1
BMJ study showing US/UK trade deal could cause up to 229,000 excess deaths on 12:47 - Jul 2 with 980 views
BMJ study showing US/UK trade deal could cause up to 229,000 excess deaths on 11:23 - Jul 2 by Churchman
Interesting. The Guardian article says:
‘By the end of the decade, the authors believe, the cost will be a total £44.7bn. For perspective, this week’s headlines have been dominated by a plan that will require the government to find an extra £15bn for defence. The NHS may have to find triple that just to pay for drugs, thanks to a deal fronted by its own health secretary.’
There’s plenty of money going spare if you want to find it Sir Kier, Mr Burnham & lackeys, so let’s hear no more about no money, black holes, what the last sorry shower did. There is bucket loads of dough out there for stuff they want to spend on. In the public interest? No, in the Party and their own interest.
So ok, Sir Kier spent all those months brown nosing Trump. All those breath mints - for what? This? If this deal is as reported, why did they agree to it? Were there threats or little brown envelopes and lovely lunches to ‘encourage’ our government? Theres a stench of burying the bad news about this.
Conspiracy theory? Probably. Lack of knowledge in my part? Certainly.
There’s always money to spare if you kick the can down the road and make it someone else’s problem.
This deal stinks. As does the Palantir data platform one. Really poor governing from Starmer and his cabinet.
1. The EU doesn't seem to have entered into a similar agreement.
2. According to the Guardian article, the economic benefits of securing zero tariffs for UK pharmaceutical exports has been substantially diminished since the US Supreme Court ruling reducing the proposed tariffs from 100% to 10%.
3. This appears to be a case where the UK has been sold down the river in a futile attempt to tickle Trump's tummy, which hasn't turned out to be successful anyway because Trump has since turned on Starmer.
4. This is a poisoned chalice for Burnham, on top of the billions in the black hole relating to the defence investment plan, all of which points to austerity elsewhere.
5. In the latter connection, I thought this was an interesting article from Simon Jenkins which seems to me to have some merits.
BMJ study showing US/UK trade deal could cause up to 229,000 excess deaths on 18:35 - Jul 2 by DJR
A few other observations.
1. The EU doesn't seem to have entered into a similar agreement.
2. According to the Guardian article, the economic benefits of securing zero tariffs for UK pharmaceutical exports has been substantially diminished since the US Supreme Court ruling reducing the proposed tariffs from 100% to 10%.
3. This appears to be a case where the UK has been sold down the river in a futile attempt to tickle Trump's tummy, which hasn't turned out to be successful anyway because Trump has since turned on Starmer.
4. This is a poisoned chalice for Burnham, on top of the billions in the black hole relating to the defence investment plan, all of which points to austerity elsewhere.
5. In the latter connection, I thought this was an interesting article from Simon Jenkins which seems to me to have some merits.
I completely agree with the last point, even if I rarely agree with Jenkins. When was the last time we faced a military threat we needed to repel? Over 80 years ago? Our own nuclear deterrent, never mind the combined weight of NATO, is more than adequate to see off anything from Russia. America’s the only one who could militarily destroy us, and we’ve no hope of securing more firepower than them.
The overwhelming demand is for spend on domestic projects imo. It’s not even close. Our main threats where we’re least able to cope are from cyber security and the like, not weapons. Drones would be the only exception I’d make, as they’ve been a bit of a game changer and we need a way of being able to intercept any in the unlikely event any are launched against us.
"Starmer’s goodbye gift to Britain: a US pharma deal that could be more lethal than Covid
This shadowy treaty on medicine imports will cost the NHS billions and take funding away from doctors, nurses, cancer scans and the rest"
"In December, Starmer and Donald Trump struck a deal on medicine. Downing Street agreed it would spend more on branded drugs, in return for the White House not jacking up tariffs on British pharmaceutical exports to the US. As I wrote at the time, the treaty stank. One of the greatest achievements of British democracy, our NHS, set up to save lives, had been used to save face with Trump. The most rapacious president in American history now had his hands on our healthcare system.
Wes Streeting and his Department of Health and Social Care gave almost no detail about how much this would cost, or what that meant for patients. They created a black hole of information, then tried their damnedest to present defeat as victory. Look! ministers said: we get to buy these whizzy new drugs from America. Truth was, we always could, if we wanted to – except now the choice was no longer ours.
MPs never got to examine these vast changes. They had no chance to debate the great erosion of our independent system for providing medicine. No awkward backbenchers or querulous lords or scribbling hacks or public information for Starmer and Streeting. Using a statutory instrument, they smuggled the entire thing into law.
Only after the deal came into effect did the government publish even its headline facts and figures, sneaking them out just before the Easter bank holiday. Only this week did MPs finally get the chance to debate the changes, “long after the horse has bolted”, as Labour backbencher Rachael Maskell told me. And this morning we got the first detailed analysis of the cost for you, me and our NHS. The analysis has been conducted by three senior health researchers, including a former senior adviser to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice), the body that sets how much we pay for our medicines. Published in the British Medical Journal, it suggests the public has been misled on an epic scale.
When discussing the deal with Trump, Streeting made voters three promises. First, in any negotiation, “the NHS is not on the table”. Second, “we’re not going to cut NHS services to fund the pharma deal”. And finally, over the next couple of years the agreement would cost “around £1bn” a year. All three of these pledges now look utterly false."
[Post edited 2 Jul 8:34]
I'm shocked I tell you that lefty Wes would allow such a thing to happen on his watch!
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
BMJ study showing US/UK trade deal could cause up to 229,000 excess deaths on 18:59 - Jul 2 by Swansea_Blue
I completely agree with the last point, even if I rarely agree with Jenkins. When was the last time we faced a military threat we needed to repel? Over 80 years ago? Our own nuclear deterrent, never mind the combined weight of NATO, is more than adequate to see off anything from Russia. America’s the only one who could militarily destroy us, and we’ve no hope of securing more firepower than them.
The overwhelming demand is for spend on domestic projects imo. It’s not even close. Our main threats where we’re least able to cope are from cyber security and the like, not weapons. Drones would be the only exception I’d make, as they’ve been a bit of a game changer and we need a way of being able to intercept any in the unlikely event any are launched against us.
As it is, the EU alone spends three times more on defence than Russia but you wouldn't know it. And that doesn't take into account what the UK spends.
What's going on brings to mind the following song.
"You'll see kidney machines replaced by rockets and guns And the public wants what the public gets But I don't get what this society wants"
[Post edited 2 Jul 20:24]
0
BMJ study showing US/UK trade deal could cause up to 229,000 excess deaths on 20:36 - Jul 2 with 610 views
BMJ study showing US/UK trade deal could cause up to 229,000 excess deaths on 19:54 - Jul 2 by BanksterDebtSlave
I'm shocked I tell you that lefty Wes would allow such a thing to happen on his watch!
Interestingly, Farage has been criticised recently for having a conflict of interest by accepting a large donation from a cryptocurrency tycoon but is Streeting any better given the following from April 2025?
"These latest donations bring the total Streeting has accepted from private health-linked interests since 2015 up to £372,000 as declared to parliament and the Electoral Commission."
[Post edited 2 Jul 20:37]
1
BMJ study showing US/UK trade deal could cause up to 229,000 excess deaths on 21:19 - Jul 2 with 550 views
"The EU doesn't seem to have entered into a similar agreement." - reason #10,967 we shouldn't have left the EU. Bargaining power. Almost everything pales into insignificance versus the need to rejoin.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
