Welcome to the latest edition of the Atticus Partners Health Newsletter: The Waiting Room. This edition examines policy shifts shaping UK health and care - from the government’s call for evidence on the NHS 10-Year Workforce Plan, to growing demands for a public inquiry into online safety failures, and Wes Streeting’s approach to NHS culture. We also examine the implications of a potential new US-UK pharma deal and what it could mean for patients, prices, and innovation.
The forthcoming NHS workforce plan
The government recently launched a new call for evidence to shape a forthcoming 10-Year Workforce Plan for the NHS in England, marking the latest stage in its long-term health reform agenda.
Announced towards the end of September, the Department of Health and Social Care is inviting input from health professionals, trade unions, and organisations on the future shape, skills, and structure of the NHS workforce.
Unlike previous workforce plans which were primarily focused on recruitment numbers, this workforce planning follows the announcement of the 10 Year Health Plan for England. Following this, it is closely linked to the three key shifts it is seeking to deliver from hospital to community; analogue to digital; and sickness to prevention.
The call for evidence recognises that in 10 years, healthcare will look very different and that the workforce must reflect this. Various stakeholders have already outlined their views and positions which provides an indication of things to come.
The Royal College of General Practitioners has argued the government should prioritise GP recruitment and retention and is calling for a plan that commits to a 'clear roadmap' to train, recruit and retain GPs.
Meanwhile, the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) General Secretary and Chief Executive, Professor Nicola Ranger, highlighted the importance of investing in the nursing workforce which was characterised for the plan to succeed.
However, critics warn that the future workforce plan will need to match the ambition with sufficient funding and credible implementation, with issues of retention, staff wellbeing and development remaining key pressure points.
With the call for evidence ending in early November, these issues will continue to dominate the health agenda and be a key area of the government’s focus for the remainder of the year.
Online Safety in Question: Why Bereaved Families Are Demanding a Public Inquiry
Bereaved families are calling for a public inquiry into what they describe as a serious failure by the government to act on repeated warnings about a pro-suicide website linked to more than 130 deaths. Supported by the Molly Rose Foundation and Survivors to Prevent Online Suicide Harms, the families argue that repeated alerts from coroners, regulators, and campaigners were ignored for years, allowing preventable tragedies to occur.
The forum at the centre of the controversy hosts discussions promoting suicide methods and access to a toxic substance linked to numerous UK deaths, including those of children as young as 13. While the site has now been geoblocked for UK users, campaigners argue the measure is insufficient, noting that it remains accessible via virtual private networks. The families have written to the Prime Minister demanding a statutory public inquiry to establish how government departments failed to respond effectively to clear and repeated warnings.
Reports by the Guardian and the BBC reveal that coroners issued at least 65 “prevention of future deaths” notices since 2019 to departments including Health and Social Care, the Home Office, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Each notice warned of the dangers posed by the substance and urged immediate action to limit its sale and online promotion. Despite this, no single department assumed responsibility, resulting in what campaigners describe as a “pass-the-parcel” approach to governance.
Andy Burrows, Chief Executive of the Molly Rose Foundation, said: “Repeated failures of the state mean that the nihilistic potential of a suicide forum has cost countless lives. It is unacceptable that families have had to campaign for years to see basic regulatory intervention.” He added that a public inquiry is the only way to expose systemic failings and drive meaningful reform.
A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care expressed sympathy for those affected and highlighted that the Online Safety Act now makes it illegal to promote or encourage suicide or self-harm online. Ofcom confirmed that the site has been geoblocked and that investigations into its content and moderation practices continue.
However, campaigners and legal representatives remain sceptical. They argue that enforcement under the new Act remains limited and that stronger coordination between departments, regulators, and law enforcement is urgently needed.
This case highlights a wider challenge in digital regulation, ensuring government, regulators, and tech platforms act swiftly and collaboratively to prevent online harms. For policymakers, it raises urgent questions about accountability, interdepartmental coordination, and the practical enforcement of new online safety laws. The families’ campaign now stands as a test of the UK’s ability to protect vulnerable citizens and restore public confidence in the nation’s approach to online safety and mental health.
Breaking NHS barriers and how Wes Streeting is approaching the culture of the health service
Jeremy Hunt’s recent column on the NHS’s “blame culture” drew attention, particularly during Baby Loss Awareness Week. He described a system where staff often fear speaking up, families feel compelled to turn to lawyers, and crucial lessons from tragic mistakes can be lost. Hunt pointed to countries such as Sweden and Japan as examples of a different approach with “no-fault” compensation systems, in which clinicians can acknowledge errors without fear of punishment, supporting both safer care and more constructive interactions with families.
Yet while Hunt emphasised the value of openness, several doctors offered a more cautious perspective. Dr David Zigmond welcomed his focus on fear in the NHS but argued that Hunt overlooked a deeper factor: decades of government reforms that have fragmented the service into competing, semi-commercial trusts. These structural changes, he said, can encourage defensiveness and make honesty more difficult. Dr Richard Sloan added that politicians themselves often find it challenging to admit mistakes, citing Hunt’s own 2015 junior doctors’ contract as an example of political decisions that can erode trust.
Meanwhile, Dr Eric Watts noted that calls for a “no-blame” culture are not new as reports such as To Err Is Human and An Organisation with a Memory have been urging the NHS to learn from mistakes for over 25 years, yet political inaction has limited progress. Dr Ian Freeman also highlighted that barriers extend beyond culture: complaints processes, coroners’ inquests, and professional regulation can reinforce fear rather than support learning.
For Wes Streeting, these debates underline the complexity of addressing the issue. Shifting culture alone is unlikely to be sufficient. Any approach will need to consider structural and legal pressures that currently make fear a rational response for staff, including litigation, complaints processes, and regulatory expectations. It also involves balancing transparency with accountability, ensuring that clinicians feel able to raise concerns without compromising professional standards or patient safety. Political leadership plays a role as well: fostering trust between government and clinicians, supporting evidence-based reform, and creating mechanisms that allow lessons to be learned from mistakes. The challenge is not simply to promote openness, but to design a system in which openness can be maintained safely, consistently, and equitably across the NHS.
Hunt’s column underscores what is at stake: safer care, more constructive relationships between clinicians and families, and the ability to learn from tragedy. For Streeting, the task will be to consider how reforms, culture, and policy can interact to support these goals, without oversimplifying the pressures that staff face or the systemic challenges that have accumulated over decades.
What Does the New US-UK Pharma Deal Mean for NHS patients?
The government is poised to ink a new drug pricing deal with the White House in a move that could see the NHS pay very different prices for medicines and get quicker access to patients. In return for Britain paying a considerably higher price for some drugs, under the suggested terms, the US is to be expected to lower or remove tariffs on British pharmaceutical exports.
Central to the agreement is the government’s decision to raise the NICE cost-effectiveness threshold, the benchmark it uses to judge whether a treatment offers good value for the NHS. By increasing it by up to potentially 25%, ministers are signalling that the NHS is now prepared to spend more per patient to access new, often expensive, medicines.
The Trump administration has raised concerns European countries pay less for American-developed drugs, resulting in US consumers covering a larger share of research and development costs. President Trump recently proposed imposing 100% tariffs on imported medicines unless countries such as the UK and EU agreed to increase their payments. In response, the UK has aimed to reach a compromise, allowing for higher NHS drug prices in exchange for reduced export tariffs on UK-manufactured pharmaceuticals.
Supporters argue it could revive Britain's life sciences industry, which might just prompt pharmaceutical companies to invest and run more clinical trials in the UK. Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves has argued that this will yield a better pricing environment that could make the UK a more attractive place for pharmaceuticals and translate into faster access to innovative treatments for patients.
Some observers note many of the anticipated benefits may be primarily commercial rather than clinical. With the NHS already under financial pressure, raising the NICE threshold could lead to significantly higher long-term spending. Without additional funding, this may require trade-offs in other areas, such as GP access or mental health services.
The policy could also increase returns for pharmaceutical companies, though it remains unclear whether patients will see faster access to new treatments. Delays are often attributed not only to pricing but also to administrative hurdles, including lengthy approvals, limited local capacity for clinical trials, and inconsistent adoption of therapies across regions.
In the short term, the move may help strengthen UK-US trade relations and reduce the risk of tariffs, potentially reassuring global investors about the UK's business environment. However, the direct impact on NHS patients is less clear. Higher drug prices do not necessarily lead to improved or faster care, but rather adjust the criteria NICE uses to assess what is considered affordable.
Unless the government couples this shift with system-wide reform of speeding up drug approvals, increasing the NHS's capacity for trials, and protecting healthcare budgets, the risk is that patients face higher costs without better outcomes. It will be the next few months that will reveal whether this new transatlantic deal is a breakthrough for access to innovation-or just another bill which the British taxpayers are asked to pick up.
To find out more about how Atticus helps health organisations navigate the changing regulatory, legislative and media landscapes, get in touch with our team at health@atticuscomms.com to learn more about what we can do for you.