Asked by: Lord Warner (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to introduce an end of scheme reconciliation exercise for the Statutory Scheme to control the cost of branded health services medicines.
Answered by Lord Markham - Shadow Minister (Science, Innovation and Technology)
No end of scheme reconciliation exercise was proposed in the recent consultation on updating the statutory scheme. We are in the process of considering consultation responses.
Asked by: Lord Warner (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is the evidence that the Department of Health and Social Care used to support the statement in the consultation on the Statutory Scheme to control the cost of branded health services medicines that investment in research and development in the UK was not a "net benefit".
Answered by Lord Markham - Shadow Minister (Science, Innovation and Technology)
The approach to assessing the potential impacts on investment within the statutory scheme’s impact assessment followed well-established precedent and is in line with the Green Book paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6. As such, the impact assessment considers spillover benefits of investment, with a literature review suggesting an estimated mean benefit of 34% of the overall investment, but does not account for these within the net present value calculation due to investment being one of several possible company responses to change in profitability.
Asked by: Lord Warner (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Markham on 27 June (HL8632, HL8633), what was the estimated value of foreign direct investment in UK life sciences for each of the past three years for which such estimates are available.
Answered by Lord Markham - Shadow Minister (Science, Innovation and Technology)
The estimated value of foreign direct investment in the UK life sciences sector can be found in the ‘Life sciences competitiveness indicators’ publication, which is available on GOV.UK in an online-only format. The estimated value of foreign direct investment in 2022 was just over £1 billion, nearly £1.9 billion in 2021 and £927 million in 2020.
Asked by: Lord Warner (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Markham on 27 June (HL8632, HL8633), what is their response to the claim by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry that international investors are "abandoning UK life sciences as excessive revenue clawback rates start to bite".
Answered by Lord Markham - Shadow Minister (Science, Innovation and Technology)
The Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing and Access (VPAS) payment percentages have been at or below those projected when the scheme was agreed. Recent increases to payment percentages reflect the scheme working as intended to adjust for increased sales of branded medicines to the National Health Service, which is the result of the positive access and uptake environment within the NHS.
The VPAS agreement was described as a “pro-innovation deal” by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry who negotiated and signed the deal on behalf of the whole pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom.
There are several factors which influence company investment decisions in any country or region. Available evidence suggests that supply side factors, such as availability of expert scientific labour and favourable tax conditions, are of greatest significance in the decision on future investment. However, we understand that price regulation schemes such as VPAS may be a consideration in the decision to locate some investments, which is why we are committed to agreeing a successor voluntary scheme to VPAS that supports a strong UK life sciences sector.
Asked by: Lord Warner (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Markham on 27 June (HL8632, HL8633), what assessment they have made of the impact of a reduced rebate for products that are rendered uneconomical by the Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing and Access, as an alternative to increased prices for the National Health Service.
Answered by Lord Markham - Shadow Minister (Science, Innovation and Technology)
We are consulting on proposals to update the statutory scheme for branded medicines pricing, which is broadly commercially equivalent to the Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing and Access. The consultation includes a proposal for a “lifecycle adjustment” mechanism that would provide a flat, lower payment for older products in more competitive markets. This proposal is intended to be pro-competition as older products with little to no competition in the market currently could access this lower payment if competition develops.
Asked by: Lord Warner (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Markham on 27 June (HL8632, HL8633), how many Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing and Access-related price increase applications were submitted in each year from 2019 to 2023; and what proportion of these applications was successful in each of those years.
Answered by Lord Markham - Shadow Minister (Science, Innovation and Technology)
The following table shows the number of presentations between 2019 and 2023 to date where members of the 2019 Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing and Access had applied for a price increase. In addition, for 2023, price increase applications have been received for a further five presentations that are currently undergoing assessment by the Department.
Year | Number of Presentations |
2019 | 34 |
2020 | 21 |
2021 | 10 |
2022 | 107 |
2023 | 32 |
We are unable to provide the information requested on the proportion of successful applications, as such information is commercially sensitive.
Asked by: Lord Warner (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what action they will take if any new organisation prescribes puberty blockers to children, other than as part of a clinical trial in accordance with the policy of NHS England.
Answered by Lord Markham - Shadow Minister (Science, Innovation and Technology)
All healthcare providers, whether they are providing an NHS funded or privately funded service, should follow clinical best practice and be registered with their professional body and any other regulators, as appropriate for that service. The Department will work with relevant regulatory bodies to ensure that any organisation and people prescribing puberty blockers are doing so in line with the regulatory framework and appropriate professional standards which any health care provider must legally meet.
Asked by: Lord Warner (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what regulatory arrangements are in place to ensure the safety of children and teenagers in respect of any private organisation providing puberty blocking hormonal treatment or gender surgery.
Answered by Lord Markham - Shadow Minister (Science, Innovation and Technology)
All healthcare providers carrying out regulated activity should follow clinical best practice and must be registered with their professional body and any other regulators, as appropriate, for that service. If a private organisation fails to meet the standards expected of it, then regulators including the Care Quality Commission have powers to inspect these services to determine whether patient safety is at risk or if best practice is not being followed.
Asked by: Lord Warner (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of whether the Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing and Access has caused a reduction in the supply of biosimilar medicines, and any associated impact on (1) patient outcomes, (2) NHS finances in the short term, and (3) the ability to make cost-savings in the longer term.
Answered by Lord Markham - Shadow Minister (Science, Innovation and Technology)
The Department recognises the important role that biosimilars and generics play in ensuring affordability, patient access, and supply resilience. We have not seen convincing evidence that the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access has had an impact on medicines supply including biosimilars, given available mitigations such as provisions in the scheme for companies to apply for price increases should supply of products be otherwise uneconomical.
Asked by: Lord Warner (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what volume of sales under the Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing and Access are off-patent medicines; and how the suppliers of such medicines are represented in negotiations for the next scheme.
Answered by Lord Markham - Shadow Minister (Science, Innovation and Technology)
The information requested is not held centrally. It would not be appropriate for us to comment on a representation of the off-patent sector as this is closely connected with an ongoing legal case.