Last week, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer confirmed plans to abolish NHS England (NHSE), which he referred to as an “arms-length body”. NHS England was established in 2013 during the Conservative government under David Cameron, with the intention of giving the NHS greater independence and autonomy, and operating at an arm’s length from the government.

It was set up as a quango, which means it is funded by taxpayers, but not directly controlled by central government. As the prime minister has said in recent days, the same jobs were being done by similar departments in both NHSE and the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC), so the plans will aim to streamline functions.

The prime minister has said that abolishing the body would “cut red tape” and bring management of the NHS “back into democratic control”, also adding that it would allow for a refocus on cutting waiting times at hospitals.

Speaking about the reported 9,000 jobs that will be lost due to the plans, Health Secretary Wes Streeting told Sky News’ Trevor Phillips: “[It] will be an anxious time for them… there’s no way of sugarcoating it. But we will be treating people with care and respect and the fairness that they are owned through this process.”

Med-Tech Insights heard from experts and members of the MedTech industry with their reaction to the news:

Chris Whitehouse, a political consultant and expert on MedTech policy at Whitehouse Communications said:

“The move is born of the frustration of government ministers that whilst they, in the eyes of the voters, are accountable for long waiting times, poor productivity, plummeting staff morale and poor health outcomes, ministers have not been able to exercise sufficient political control to force through change at the pace that will be necessary for voters to see real improvements delivered at sufficient pace.

“Wes Streeting’s announcement makes it clear that work must begin immediately to return many of NHS England’s current functions to the Government’s Department of Health and Social Care.

“A longer-term programme of work will deliver the changes to bring NHS England back into the department, while maintaining a ‘laser-like focus on the government’s priorities to cut waiting times and responsibly manage finances’. It will also realise the ‘untapped potential of the NHS as a single payer system, using its centralised model to procure cutting-edge technology more rapidly, get a better deal for taxpayers on procurement and work more closely with the life sciences sector to develop the treatments of the future’.

“The devil will be in the detail of future structures and priorities, but given the challenges facing government in terms of waiting lists, patient outcomes, and out of control spending, there’s every chance that the changes bode well for the MedTech sector, provided it continues to engage with government to promote the role it can play in helping the government deliver on its objectives.”

Sarah Woolnough, Chief Executive of The King’s Fund, said:

“The announcement lands on the same day that NHS stats show people continue to wait days in A&E and many patients remain stuck in hospital beds despite being well enough to leave. The most important question is how will the abolition of NHS England make it easier for people to get a GP appointment, shorten waits for planned care, and improve people’s health. That hasn’t yet been set out – ministers will need to explain how the prize will be worth the price.

“It is absolutely right that democratically elected politicians must have clear oversight of how the NHS delivers for patients and spends hundreds of billions of taxpayer money. It is also reasonable to want to deliver better value by reducing duplication and waste between two national bodies where they are performing a similar role. It is true that over its just over a decade of existence, NHS England has been asked to take on a lot more additional power, functions, and therefore staff, than it was originally designed to do.

“Having now made the decision to abolish NHS England, and whilst we still wait for the publication of the NHS 10-year plan, the government must be clear why this significant structural change at this time is necessary, and how its fits into their wider plans. The potential costs savings would be minimal in the context of the entire NHS budget, and so they must ensure that the changes produce the improved effectiveness which is sought by making this change.  As with previous NHS restructures, structural change comes with significant opportunity cost, with staff who would otherwise be spending their time trying to improve productivity, ensure safety, and get the best outcomes for patients, now worrying about whether they will have a job.”

Kate Davies, public procurement associate director in the life sciences and healthcare team at Osborne Clarke: 

“Over the next two years, existing contracts between NHS England and its suppliers will need to be novated to the Department of Health. For new contracts that would have been procured by NHS England under the Procurement Act 2023 (such as for goods and non-healthcare services), the Department of Health can procure those contracts under the same legislation. Suppliers will notice some changes in what and how contracts are procured.

“In particular, we expect to see more centralisation of approach, but fundamentally the same legal principles will apply. However, in relation to healthcare services that would have been procured by NHS England under the NHS Provider Selection Regime, the legislation does not currently allow the Department of Health to award contracts under that legislation. The government will need to amend the legislation to allow the Department of Health to have this power, and until then, we expect NHS England to continue procuring essential contracts under the PSR until the amendments can be effected.”

Peter Rudd-Clarke, regulatory and litigation partner in the life sciences and healthcare team at Osborne Clarke:

“Manufacturers of medical devices and pharmaceuticals will want to see how these reforms dovetail with the work the government is doing on its 10-year health plan for the NHS. The government has stated that its focus will be on reforming the current healthcare model by moving from analogue to digital systems, and by putting an emphasis on prevention of sickness.

“NHS England is being scrapped soon after the government’s creation of the Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO). RIO was launched in October 2024 and is intended to support the regulatory system in bringing innovative products and services to market more swiftly, including digital health products, medicines and services.

“Manufacturers will hope that by integrating NHS England’s functions into the DHSC, the healthcare system will be able to provide greater political support, and public money, for the adoption of innovative life sciences products that support the aims of RIO and the government. These aims are expected to receive further impetus when new pre-market medical device regulations, and associated MHRA guidance, is brought in during 2025 and 2026.”

Dr Sonia Szamocki, founder and CEO of 32Co, says:

“As someone who has worked as a front line doctor, delivered healthcare transformation projects as a management consultant, and now building a company in the dental sector – I have seen every angle, and re-organisation on this scale is incredibly challenging. I’d caution anyone who believes this will result in overnight change.”

Matt Skinner, CEO of CareCity said:

“The announcement of the planned abolishment of NHS England to help ‘put health service back into democratic control’ represents a shift in the UK’s healthcare system strategy.

“However, simply ploughing any savings from reducing bureaucracy into our existing frontline will only be a temporary fix to a much more permanent problem. A focus and investment into prevention is required to realise any significant benefit, to both the economy and our population, from these savings. Only by tackling health problems further upstream (and working closely with communities and social care) can we stem the tide which is already overwhelming services and delivering worse outcomes for people.

“This is a once in a generation opportunity to divert significant funds to local, on the ground prevention which can improve health outcomes, reduce healthcare costs, and improve quality of life. It should be an opportunity to embrace and properly fund new integrated ways of working, innovations and design led approaches to health and care that work with and for our communities. I hope we also see investment in meaningful digital and tech approaches to prevention, leveraging the cost effective potential in early detection programs, assistive technologies and remote monitoring.”