UK's GSK Boss Says US Remains Top Destination for Pharmaceutical Companies' Investment
The CEO of London-based pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, Emma Walmsley, has asserted that the United States remains the ideal location for companies to invest in the pharmaceutical sector. The remarks come as the UK government seeks to strengthen its industry and navigate ongoing challenges in the global market.
Walmsley pointed out that the US leads the world in terms of launches of new drugs and vaccines, and alongside China, it is the most promising market for business development opportunities. This assertion echoes those made by Pascal Soriot, CEO of AstraZeneca, who recently highlighted the "vital importance" of the US market.
The UK government has been pushing to reduce the proportion of revenues that pharmaceutical companies must return to the National Health Service (NHS) as part of a revenue clawback mechanism. The rate is currently set at 22.5%, but it will decrease next year to under 15%. However, negotiations on the revised rate broke down in late August, prompting several major companies, including AstraZeneca and US-based MSD/Merck, to pause or cancel large UK investments.
The government has also requested that the NHS spend an additional 25% more on new medicines as part of a zero-tariff deal with the US administration. The proposed agreement is aimed at reducing costs for pharmaceutical companies while providing better access to innovative treatments for patients.
Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump has criticized other rich countries for not contributing enough to the global effort to fund life-saving medications. High drug prices in the US are partly due to a complex system of intermediaries, which contributes to the country's high costs compared to other nations.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) will soon raise its price threshold for determining whether new medicines are deemed cost-effective. The Department of Health has also proposed giving ministers limited authority to set this threshold, further emphasizing the government's commitment to making Britain a more competitive player in the pharmaceutical sector.
Industry experts caution that while some progress has been made, there is still much work to be done to bring UK payment rates closer to those in other countries. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) estimates that spending on medicines will increase by around £1 billion over the next three years, raising concerns about potential cuts to funding for healthcare staff and equipment.
Walmsley's statement suggests that GSK remains committed to expanding its presence in the US market, where it generates half of its revenues. The company has recently outlined plans to invest $30 billion (£23 billion) in the US by 2030.
The CEO of London-based pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, Emma Walmsley, has asserted that the United States remains the ideal location for companies to invest in the pharmaceutical sector. The remarks come as the UK government seeks to strengthen its industry and navigate ongoing challenges in the global market.
Walmsley pointed out that the US leads the world in terms of launches of new drugs and vaccines, and alongside China, it is the most promising market for business development opportunities. This assertion echoes those made by Pascal Soriot, CEO of AstraZeneca, who recently highlighted the "vital importance" of the US market.
The UK government has been pushing to reduce the proportion of revenues that pharmaceutical companies must return to the National Health Service (NHS) as part of a revenue clawback mechanism. The rate is currently set at 22.5%, but it will decrease next year to under 15%. However, negotiations on the revised rate broke down in late August, prompting several major companies, including AstraZeneca and US-based MSD/Merck, to pause or cancel large UK investments.
The government has also requested that the NHS spend an additional 25% more on new medicines as part of a zero-tariff deal with the US administration. The proposed agreement is aimed at reducing costs for pharmaceutical companies while providing better access to innovative treatments for patients.
Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump has criticized other rich countries for not contributing enough to the global effort to fund life-saving medications. High drug prices in the US are partly due to a complex system of intermediaries, which contributes to the country's high costs compared to other nations.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) will soon raise its price threshold for determining whether new medicines are deemed cost-effective. The Department of Health has also proposed giving ministers limited authority to set this threshold, further emphasizing the government's commitment to making Britain a more competitive player in the pharmaceutical sector.
Industry experts caution that while some progress has been made, there is still much work to be done to bring UK payment rates closer to those in other countries. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) estimates that spending on medicines will increase by around £1 billion over the next three years, raising concerns about potential cuts to funding for healthcare staff and equipment.
Walmsley's statement suggests that GSK remains committed to expanding its presence in the US market, where it generates half of its revenues. The company has recently outlined plans to invest $30 billion (£23 billion) in the US by 2030.
I'm not saying it's all bad, but I think there's still some hard work to be done before the UK can really compete with the US on investment and innovation fronts. 
. UK's trying to reduce NHS clawback but it's not happening 
. Trump is complaining about high drug prices, but I guess that's a whole thing 
. NICE is raising its price threshold tho 
. GSK's still all in on US market and planning to invest big 
. Not sure how they're gonna make it happen tho 
. like, i get that we need to make uk payment rates more competitive, but what about the NHS? do we really wanna sacrifice patient access to meds just to attract big pharma investments? 
... anyways, gsk boss is also saying they're gonna invest a ton of cash in the us by 2030 
. It's crazy how innovative meds are getting launched there, and it's no wonder companies wanna be a part of that action 
But what I'm thinkin' is, is it really just about the benjamins or is there more to it?
Like, what if we invested in new meds for diseases that affect people here at home instead of just goin' after the US market?
I don't know, maybe I'm just bein' idealistic 
, but if we can make a difference and help people at the same time, that's somethin' to strive for. We might not get all the benjamins, but we'll feel good about ourselves 
.
. It's like, we gotta be patient and work towards a better future instead of just tryin' to catch up with someone else. 
, but it's hard to deny that there's something fishy about how it works.
but I think we should be looking at other markets too 
.
and then you've got the nhs trying to get more bang for its buck by cutting the revenue clawback rate, but it's not like they're going to start paying top dollar for meds or anything 
china's coming up but let's be real us is where it's at 
and 15% revenue clawback rate is like a dream come true for companies like GSK 
no need to pause or cancel investments over here 
let's just say walmsley knows what she's talking about 
. and with negotiations breaking down in late august, it's clear that the industry is still got some major challenges ahead of them.
. but ultimately, the issue is much more complex than just who's paying what - it's about creating a system that works for everyone and gets good meds to patients quickly 
! Emma Walmsley from GSK says its cuz they lead the world in launches & r the most promisin market 4 biz dev opps 
want to see some actual investment in research and dev instead of just trying to attract big pharma 
. Meanwhile, the UK is just trying to catch up with its own payment rates, and now they're worried about funding healthcare staff? 
Yeah, good luck with that. I mean, it's not like they're expecting us to somehow magically make more money appear out of thin air 
.
, and the US admin's all about keepin' it tight 
...