Six questions for Kimberly Wells, VP of women’s services, Ascension Saint Thomas

By Cathi Cunningham, Partner, Deloitte & Touche LLP

This week’s blog post, originally published by our US colleagues as a Health Forward blog, explores the concept of ‘whole-woman health’, a holistic approach to women's healthcare extending beyond traditional reproductive care. While focused on the US hospital, Ascension Saint Thomas, its insights are relevant to improving women’s health globally. Building on our previous blogs such as Accelerating progress in women’s health in England and Why investing in FemTech will guarantee a healthier future for all women, this blog offers valuable perspectives on how healthcare systems can better serve women's diverse needs throughout their lives. Improving women's health is not just a matter of addressing specific conditions, it's about fostering a supportive and accessible healthcare environment that prioritises overall well-being, and this blog provides practical examples of how this can be achieved.

The US health care system often delivers fragmented and episodic care. Five years ago, Deloitte introduced its vision for The Future of Health, forecasting a transformation from a reactive “sick-care” model to a proactive “well-care” approach. In this future, consumers and care teams prioritize early disease detection and prevention, shifting the focus from simply treating illnesses to maintaining overall health. A central element of this vision is the “whole-health” approach. Rather than just addressing a specific disease or condition, health care organizations focus on enhancing or preserving an individual’s overall well-being. Whole-health initiatives have the potential to improve the health status of entire populations. To achieve this, whole-health thinking must be prioritized, deliberate, and sustained over time (see A 'whole health' approach to health care transformation).

"Whole-woman health" refers to a holistic approach that goes beyond reproductive care and addresses all aspects of a woman's well-being, including physical, mental, and emotional health. This concept emphasizes personalized care that considers the individual needs and values of each patient. A growing number of hospitals and health systems are focusing on a range of women’s health services that go beyond gynecological health and obstetrical care and are addressing the unique health needs of women across their lifespans (see Can investors help women's health break through the glass ceiling?)

Ascension Saint Thomas, a Nashville-based health system, recently hosted HerHealth360, an immersive educational event for the community. Attendees had on-site access to specialists in heart, breast, digestive, and mental health care, and were able to schedule preventive screenings and medical appointments on-sight. The goal was to remove some of the obstacles women might encounter when trying to access care. Kimberly Wells, vice president of women’s services at Ascension Saint Thomas, told me that attendees were encouraged to interact with medical equipment, talk with clinicians, and schedule preventive screenings and other services. Physicians were on hand to explain some of the devices that are typically used during Pap smears and other routine procedures. The idea was to reduce the anxiety that might occur when the patient is sitting on an exam table in a medical gown.

I recently had an opportunity to speak with Kimberly about some of the unique health needs of women, and how health care organizations can help reduce the obstacles they might face in accessing needed care. Here’s an excerpt from that conversation:

Cathi: Traditionally, women's health has been focused primarily on women of childbearing age, and not much after that. But women in the US are more likely than men to have several conditions including Alzheimer’s disease and depression. ⁱ Women also account for up to 80% of all autoimmune disease cases. ⁱⁱ Then there are women-specific illnesses such as endometriosis, cervical cancer, and pelvic-floor disorders. ⁱⁱⁱ How do you see the focus on women’s health changing?

Kimberly: Women’s health care shouldn’t be complicated. Women make up 51% of the population. We're not a niche specialty population. How do we, as health care providers, help women navigate their own health? Health care leaders talk a lot about breaking down inter-generational knowledge gaps and making sure they provide age-appropriate care for women. While younger generations might be equipped with information about women’s health, some of it may be misinformation. Health care organizations should try to fill gaps in education and dispel some of the myths.

Cathi: Our research indicates that women are 31% more likely than men to skip care due to cost (see Why US women skip or delay health care). Women also tend to pay more than men for care, even after excluding maternity costs, and are more likely than men to skip care. What do you think health systems can do to discourage women from skipping needed care?

Kimberly: Three common reasons women skip care are resource availability, lack of education/knowledge, and anxiety. When Ascension Saint Thomas asks people why they haven’t scheduled a Pap smear or mammogram, the reason is often tied to the fear of a bad diagnosis. Improving education and knowledge can help reduce that anxiety. Some women might not know how to find the right specialist, or they might not know when it’s time to get a mammogram or a colonoscopy. There is a lot of baseline information some people just don’t have. Financial issues, limited access to reliable transportation, and family responsibilities can all be barriers that keep people from seeking medical care.

Cathi: What can be done to remove anxiety around fear of a bad diagnosis?

Kimberly: We try to give all of our patients as much information as we can, so they know exactly what to expect during an outpatient visit, a delivery, a surgery, or just a routine test. Along with our navigators [who answer questions and guide patients through their health journey], we also offer pre-surgery phone calls with an actual human on the other side—it’s a space where patients can ask questions. Sometimes they don’t know what they don’t know, so we try to guide them. When the patient comes into the hospital, they already know someone who is able to greet them. Small, intentional moments can help reduce anxiety.

Cathi: How can health systems let their communities know about women’s health services that extend beyond maternal health?

Kimberly: Maternal health is a huge focus for Ascension. But we have developed a narrative that highlights all of the services we offer to women at every stage of life—from 18 to 80. We do a lot of surgeries that fall under the umbrella of women’s health. We have an ob-gyn team, breast surgeons, mental health specialists, and a cardiologist who specializes in women’s health. We also have partners in pelvic health and bone health, mammography, and obesity. We decided to do a Women's Health Fair to show that women’s health is more than just maternal care.

Cathi: What do you think are some effective ways to connect with members of the community and educate them about the health needs of women?

Kimberly: We have provider-relations managers. They try to make face-to-face connections between patients and clinicians. They might take clinicians or nurse practitioners out to the community and go door to door with them. Patients can get lost in the system; even clinicians can get lost in the system. A face-to-face introduction can help to build relationships and simplify the process.

Cathi: How can health systems help ensure patients have a positive experience?

Kimberly: The patient is at the center of everything we do, and that makes some decisions easier because that is not negotiable. A patient should be able to call a number and be connected to an actual human who can answer questions and help the patient schedule an appointment. Patients should know a health system’s team members right down to the security officer. This helps to create an environment that feels safe and authentic. I've been a hospital CEO, a hospital COO, and I've also been a caregiver, so I've spent many nights in hospitals with family members. I understand the impact those intentional touches can have on patients and their families.

Conclusion

A whole-woman approach to care recognizes the complexity and individuality of women’s health needs across the lifespan, moving beyond a narrow focus on reproductive or maternal health. By addressing physical, mental, and emotional well-being, and by providing personalized, age-appropriate care, hospitals and health systems can help to reduce obstacles such as anxiety, lack of information, and logistics that can keep women from seeking necessary care. This holistic model has the potential to improve health outcomes by emphasizing prevention and early intervention, but can also foster trust, engagement, and a sense of safety among patients. A whole-woman approach can position hospitals to meet the health needs while helping them feel seen, heard, and supported at every stage of life.

The executive’s participation in this article is solely for educational purposes based on their knowledge of the subject and the views expressed by them are solely their own. This article should not be deemed or construed to be for the purpose of soliciting business for any of the companies mentioned, nor does Deloitte advocate or endorse the services or products provided by these companies.

 

 

 

______________________________________

i Women twice as likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease as men, Nature Medicine, March 2025

ii Advancing research on chronic conditions in women, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, September 25, 2024

iii The Office of Autoimmune Disease Research, National Institutes of Health

By Ditto Antony, Analyst, and Emily May, Manager, Deloitte Centre for Health Solutions

The consumer health landscape is undergoing a transformation, driven by evolving consumer expectations and technological advancements. Trust and consumer loyalty now need to be earned through clear brand identity, products with demonstrable efficacy, and wrap-around supporting services such as consumer information and support. This blog explores the results of a Deloitte survey of over 7,000 healthcare consumers to obtain a comprehensive understanding of consumer health profiles, product usage and future expectations, purchasing behaviours and the underlying motivations driving those choices. This blog is the first in a series exploring the geographical differences in our survey results and includes the importance of trust and influence as well as consumer attitudes towards health technologies. In future blogs we will explore topics such as the nuances of the UK population responses and how consumer health companies can adapt to the evolving opinions and expectations of consumers.

About our survey

This research is based on a survey conducted by Deloitte in Autumn 2024, gathering responses from 7,140 participants across seven key markets, see Figure 1.

Figure 1. Demographics of the survey

Source: Deloitte analysis, 2025

Building trust and loyalty: the importance of people and proof

Consumer trust is evolving across all consumers, in an era where consumers are also grappling with information overload across all TV, media and social media channels and in-store experiences. Trust is increasingly centred on two core pillars: credible, science-backed evidence and authentic human relationships. Seventy-seven per cent of consumers rated a product being ‘clinically proven or endorsed by a healthcare professional’ as important in influencing their purchase decisions. Furthermore, Figure 2 shows that brand switching is influenced more by recommendations, than advertising. This highlights the importance of expertise and personal connection in building trust and confidence in a consumer health product. Organisations that prioritise scientific evidence and empower healthcare professionals as advocates are likely to build the most resilient and trusted brands.

Figure 2. Which of these statements best describes what influences your decision to try a new product format or brand?

Source: Deloitte analysis, 2025

Young adults: seeking innovation, demanding proof

Our survey reveals that a standout characteristic of the younger generation of health consumers (ages 18-34) is a blend of adventurousness and scepticism. While a majority (57 per cent) actively look for new products to try, and 55 per cent are willing to pay a premium for an innovative format like a gel or spray, a substantial portion (52 per cent) believe that ‘many consumer healthcare products are not as effective as they claim to be’, see Figure 3. This scepticism presents a crucial challenge for brands in how to attract this demographic: they are influenced by novelty but require transparent, demonstrable proof of efficacy. Conversely, the over 65s are less likely to experiment and switch brands.

Figure 3. Thinking about the way you (might) select consumer healthcare products, how strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Source: Deloitte analysis, 2025

Women are our ‘Chief Health Officers’: a powerful, yet complex role

Our survey results highlight the significant, yet complex, role of women in purchasing decisions. Women are often the primary decision makers for health and wellbeing products for their family, with 74 per cent reporting this responsibility. This influence is particularly pronounced among women aged 35-64 (79 per cent), who are more proactive in self-care for common ailments like headaches (44 per cent) and digestive issues (42 per cent) than men (39 per cent and 38 per cent respectively). This makes them a critical target demographic for most brands.

Women aged 35-64, however, also report the lowest levels of confidence in their own physical health (11 per cent rating themselves as ‘below average’ and 2 per cent as ‘very poor’), suggesting that they may not prioritise their own health as much as their family’s health or don’t see products that meet their needs. Furthermore, women aged 18-34 face the highest mental health challenges across all demographics (13 per cent rating their mental health as ‘below average’ and 4 per cent as ‘very poor’). This presents a dual challenge to consumer health companies: to engage and motivate women as the influential household purchaser while simultaneously developing products and services that directly address their unique and often unmet health needs.

How location and income are dividing the world’s approach to wellbeing

The concept of a single ‘average’ consumer is outdated. Health realities are profoundly shaped by location and socioeconomic factors, creating significant disparities in attitudes, behaviours, and needs. Our survey analysis reveals a distinct ‘urban health bubble’, where affluent city-dwellers report the best health outcomes, highest exercise rates, and have the greatest receptiveness to new technologies like AI screening tools. Conversely, consumers in rural areas demonstrate more traditional health behaviours and significantly higher resistance to new technologies, for example, resistance to trying an AI health chatbot is twice as high in rural areas as it is in cities (24 per cent and 12 per cent respectively), potentially influenced by lower health and digital literacy levels.

There is also disparity between countries, with India and China-based respondents reporting engagement with AI health assistants (67 and 63 per cent respectively likely to use one), but the UK and Germany exhibiting considerable scepticism, (45 and 42 per cent, respectively). Additionally, Asian markets demonstrate significantly higher engagement with health tech and at-home testing than Western markets.

We asked consumers how likely they were to use a list of devices in the next six months, ranging from health tracking apps, to smart weighing scales to heart rate monitors. Respondents from India, Brazil and Turkey show the highest ‘plan to use rates’ across almost every category, whereas the UK and Germany have the highest rates of consumers ‘not planning to use’ these devices, often exceeding 70 to 80 per cent. Furthermore, the majority of consumers in the UK (62 per cent) and Germany (59 per cent) have never used any at-home tests, this contrasts to just 21 per cent of India-based respondents. This suggests the importance of targeted approaches that cater to the diverse needs and preferences in different geographies.

The growing demand for personalised health and technology solutions

Our survey analysis reveals three rising consumer expectations for health companies:

1. a growing demand for personalised health solutions, with over a third of consumers expressing ‘strong interest’ in tests that lead to tailored product recommendations (36 per cent)
2. while there is interest in AI-powered health tools (25 per cent plan to ‘seek advice/care from an AI assistant’ in the next 12 months), adoption remains concentrated among younger affluent urban populations who see it as a convenient source of information (51 per cent)
3. at-home testing, such as blood tests and DNA kits, is becoming more prevalent, with consumers viewing them as a potential entry point for more personalised healthcare; 36 per cent say they would like to ‘take a blood/saliva/DNA test to learn more about my body/health’ in the next 12 months.

Strategic questions for companies to answer

Understanding consumer opinions and expectations is crucial, but translating this knowledge into actionable strategies is paramount for success in the consumer health market. The following key questions can help:

1. Are you investing enough in your relationships with health care professionals (HCPs)? Are you equipping them to be your best advocates, and being distinctive and value-adding in how you interact with them?
2. What is the best way of communicating scientific evidence to consumers?
3. How do you best address the difference in health and digital literacy that impacts access to and adoption of new products and technologies within and between urban and rural localities, countries and socioeconomic groups?
4. What monitoring and measurement will help you track the effectiveness of your trust-building initiatives?
5. How can the unique, unmet health needs and concerns of women in healthcare be met proactively?
6. What is your strategy for creating more tailored products and how will you ensure data privacy and security?

Conclusion

Our survey shows the importance of keeping a finger on the pulse of the changing behaviours of consumers. Organisations which prioritise scientific evidence and engage effectively with and empower HCPs are likely to be more successful in building and maintaining brand loyalty.  Similarly, understanding the diverse needs of different consumer segments - from the tech-savvy urban consumer to the more traditional rural consumer and acknowledging the unique role of women as primary healthcare decision-makers - is crucial for developing effective, targeted strategies. By embracing personalisation, leveraging consumers’ appetite to engage with new technologies, and demonstrating proof of efficacy, companies can cultivate lasting trust and loyalty with today's evolving consumer base. We look forward to exploring these strategies and more in future blogs on this topic.

 

By Asif Dhar, M.D., Global Consulting Services Life Sciences and Health Care leader, Deloitte Consulting LLP, Jay Bhatt, D.O., Managing Director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, Deloitte Services LP, Todd Konersmann, Principal, Deloitte Consulting LLP

In July 2025, our US colleagues published a Health Forward blog which analysed the headline findings of a Deloitte US Center for Health Solutions’ 2025 Tariffs, Pricing, and Taxes Survey. Their survey of 120 global life sciences and healthcare executives revealed a significant awareness, but lack of action, regarding the global impact of tariffs and pricing policies. While approximately 60 per cent of executives anticipated at least some impact on their businesses, and a substantial majority have engaged in strategic scenario planning, far fewer have implemented operational changes. Given the global interest of the life sciences industry in this complex and evolving landscape, we wanted to bring their findings to the attention of our readers.

About 60% of life sciences and health care leaders expect tariffs and/or pricing policies to have at least “some impact” on their businesses, according to the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions’ 2025 Tariffs, Pricing, and Taxes Survey. Just one of these factors could require organizations to adjust strategies, but the combination could result in profound operating challenges and transformative changes. Prioritizing both strategic and operational approaches in an integrated fashion, and with agility, could help organizations successfully navigate uncertainty.

Deloitte surveyed 120 health care and life sciences executives worldwide to determine how they are responding to a rapidly shifting business landscape. The survey data suggests that many organizations are moving from awareness to action amid uncertainty. The results, however, also reveal a possible gap in operational action: while many organizations have started scenario-planning and have implemented strategic assessments, only a small percentage appears to be ahead of the curve. Those organizations have already started to enact meaningful and integrated changes at the strategic and operational levels. Operational decisions can have a profound impact on strategy and scenario planning. The survey was conducted in late June 2025, prior to the enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which was signed into law on July 4.

Life sciences may be on the cusp of a pivotal moment

As the global regulatory environment grows more complex, some life sciences organizations could be entering a pivotal moment. About two-thirds of surveyed life sciences leaders said they expect current or anticipated tariffs, and/or pricing policies to have a moderate-to-major impact on their long-term commercial planning. The survey data also suggests a disconnect between strategic and operational initiatives.

Strategically, many life sciences and health care organizations appear to have started scenario planning. But some organizations might need to prioritize strengthening operational capabilities in a more robust manner. The companies that are best positioned to thrive in an uncertain environment will likely be those that are able to adapt, restructure themselves, and integrate new capabilities. Those organizations will most likely structure themselves as hyper-adaptive, rapid-learning systems.

Among US-based life sciences and health care companies, Deloitte’s survey found that:

• 73% of respondents have implemented scenario-planning strategies to help their organizations remain agile and prepared.
• 64% have taken action to secure their supply chains to ensure resilience during unanticipated global disruptions.
• 13% in the US, and 10% globally, have altered their organizational structures, suggesting that most leaders are focusing on operational and strategic adjustments rather than wholesale restructuring.

Four key findings and what they could mean for life sciences

Leaders of life sciences companies can enhance their organization’s adaptability and agility by aligning their strategies with operations across their business. Here is a closer look at some of our survey findings, and their potential implications:

1. 64% of life sciences executives said current or anticipated policies are already influencing their long-term commercial planning.

What it could mean: Commercial functions may no longer be passively monitoring regulatory shifts. Many executives may be actively modeling business scenarios, particularly around pricing and market access. US-based companies are about 20% more likely than their European peers to be running active scenario models, according to the survey data.

2. More than 60% of companies report minor or no impact on research & development (R&D) investment from evolving policies, suggesting that many may be maintaining their current funding levels; 63% are adjusting R&D strategies like clinical-trial geographies or API sourcing.

What it could mean: Innovation might not be slowing down; it might be shifting in shape. Respondents may be selectively rebalancing portfolios and geographies, especially in early-stage development and supply sourcing.

3. 17% of respondents plan to move manufacturing to the US in response to tariffs or regulatory changes. Among those respondents, 62% expect new facilities to be operational within five years.

What it could mean: Some life sciences firms appear to be making investments in US-based production. Companies that are moving are likely using build/buy/re-purpose strategies to create more flexible production capacity.

4. Beyond products, 50% of respondents said they are evaluating how evolving policies could impact services such as clinical-trial locations, digital-health offerings, and patient-support programs.

What it could mean: Traditional tax and tariff planning are likely to be focused narrowly on physical goods. But services, including digital health, data analytics, and support programs, might need to be reevaluated using a regulatory lens.

Consider an integrated approach

Deloitte’s survey responses indicate that life sciences executives might benefit from an integrated approach that addresses the confluence of tax/tariff/pricing policy and the potential impact on their business.

According to survey results, many life sciences organizations have:

• Engaged in high-level scenario planning around supply chain, tax, and corporate structure.
• Identified category-level priorities.
• Acknowledged the need for action.

But a smaller number of companies have:

• Fully executed changes to tax, enterprise resource planning, customs, and legal structures.
• Stood up parallel organizational models to reflect multiple potential futures.
• Built systems to continuously learn, adapt, and evolve operationally in response to shifting data.

Most decisions are interdependent

Most decisions made at the corporate level are interdependent. Movement in one area typically affects all other areas. It can be difficult for life sciences and health care organizations to improve one area without impacting the others (see chart below). The most effective strategies tend to be those that are regularly updated as new information surfaces and as changes ripple through the ecosystem.

The quantum corporation

In simple terms, quantum physics describes how the universe works at the smallest scale and illustrates that the building-blocks of reality don't always behave as expected.ⁱ This concept could be applied to the business universe where changes might not affect an organization as expected. For example, a quantum corporation:

• Operates in parallel states of readiness.
• Builds infrastructure to act on divergent outcomes, rather than just planning for them.
• Accepts that there isn’t a linear path to successful outcomes.

To operate like a quantum corporation, executives should look for ways to become hyper-adaptable. Hyper-adaptability is generally characterized by:

• Rapid intake of external information
• Distributed processing across business units
• Fast aggregation of local insights
• Real-time feedback loops that drive operating decisions
• Continuous updating of both strategic and tactical plans

This involves a shift in organizational design—away from experience-based hierarchy—to learning-based, responsive networks. This is not just contingency planning; it is parallel execution at scale, enabling optionality in real-time.

Rapid learning systems could be an important missing link. This is where the health care and life sciences sectors have a historical advantage—at least in theory. The Institutes of Medicine’s (IOM) “Rapid Learning Health System” model has long argued for this kind of agility. ⁱⁱ However, our survey data indicates life science companies might be a long way from achieving it:

• Most organizations appear to lack the infrastructure for true continuous learning.
• There seems to be too much wait-and-see behavior when it comes to responding to new or changing regulations.
• The execution gap on high-priority transformation can be profound.

We appear to be entering an age of exponential complexity, not linear disruption. Organizations that thrive will likely be those that are:

• Strategically ambidextrous
• Operationally parallelized
• Culturally hyper-adaptive

Conclusion

The global economic system, overall, is adjusting to new and evolving trade and pricing norms. For life sciences and health care organizations, preparing for the future involves building the agility and resilience needed to thrive amid ongoing change. By taking proactive steps today, industry leaders can help position their organizations for success, no matter what tomorrow brings.

Acknowledgement: Thanks to Jessica Overman for her efforts in supporting the survey analysis, content development, project management, and marketing efforts.

 

________________________________________________

i What Is quantum physics?, California Institute of Technology

ii Rapid-learning system for cancer care, Journal of Clinical Oncology, June 28, 2010

By Emily May, Manager, and Karen Taylor, Director, Deloitte Centre for Health Solutions

The UK Life Sciences Sector Plan (LSSP), launched in July 2025 as part of the government's 10-year Industrial Strategy, sets an ambitious vision: to make the UK a global life sciences leader by 2035.¹  This necessitates addressing the sector's current challenges - difficulties in commercialisation, slow clinical trial set-up and approvals, and limited access to capital, while building on its strengths and projected growth. The LSSP outlines a three-pillar strategy encompassing world-class R&D, a supportive business environment, and NHS-driven health innovation, all underpinned by robust oversight and accountability to ensure the UK achieves its ambitious goals and transforms groundbreaking discoveries into life-saving treatments and economic prosperity. This week’s blog sets the scene for a series of deeper dives, by exploring the detail of the plan, outlining the government's strategy for success and exploring the potential future of the UK life sciences industry if its ambitious goals are achieved.

About the LSSP

The UK government’s 10-year Industrial Strategy is a plan to increase business investment and grow the industries of the future in the UK, prioritising seven sectors, including life sciences.²

The LSSP envisions a future where, by 2035, the UK is a global leader in life sciences, harnessing world-leading science and genomics capabilities with market-leading regulatory and clinical research infrastructure and a data-driven ecosystem focused on prevention. The plan aims to support entrepreneurs, foster NHS innovation adoption, and drive economic growth and improved health outcomes. The ambitious targets are to be Europe’s leading life sciences economy by 2030 and the third largest globally (behind only the US and China) by 2035. Success depends on effective collaboration, oversight and accountability for delivery and progress, and addressing sector barriers.

Why is the life sciences sector deemed a priority sector?

The UK life sciences sector, a source of life-saving treatments, creates jobs, drives investment and powers innovation across the economy. Indeed, the UK boasts a strong history of innovation, with many globally used medicines and technologies originating in the UK, and recent successes like pioneering COVID-19 vaccine deployment and CRISPR technology approval. However, projected growth of £41 billion (165 per cent) by 2035, is threatened by challenges in commercialising and adopting discoveries, slower clinical trial approval times compared to competitors, and limited access to institutional capital for scaling. Consequently, it has struggled to capture and scale economic benefits. Intense global competition for investment necessitates comprehensive reform to overcome these obstacles and realise the sector's full economic and health potential.

Three interconnected pillars of LSSP

The Government’s plan is for life sciences to support the repair and transformation of both the nation’s economy as part of the Industrial Strategy, and the nation’s health in alignment with the commitments set out in the 10 Year Health Plan.³ It will receive over £2 billion in government funding, supplemented by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) contributions. The plan is built on three interconnected pillars:

1. Enabling world class R&D: This pillar focuses on boosting investment in discovery science, improving translational research, and streamlining commercial clinical trials. Actions include:

• continuing investment in discovery science, which accounted for 17 per cent of all UK business R&D in 2023, and ensuring the UK remains at the forefront of early-stage research to foster innovation and create new companies, including a 10-year funding allocation for the Laboratory of Molecular Biology
• establishing pre-clinical translational infrastructure, including a models hub and up to three integrated networks to reduce fragmentation, with at least £30 million of government funding
• publishing a strategy by the end of 2025 to reduce and ultimately eliminate animal testing
• improving the speed and capacity to deliver commercial trials and research, including reducing the time to set up commercial interventional clinical trials to under 150 days by March 2026,
• enhancing UKRI and NIHR support for biotech and medtech SMEs, including a new R&D innovation catalyst and improved digital connectivity to increase the speed and scale of real-world evaluation of AI to progress beyond pilot stages
• expanding and enhancing consented health research datasets and genomic infrastructure through the development of a new health data research service which increases access to health data, and by investing up to £354 million in Our Future Health, £20 million in UK Biobank, £650 million in Genomics England and implementing the NHS Genomic Medicine service.2.

2. Making the UK an outstanding place to start, grow, scale, and invest: This pillar aims to create a robust business environment that attracts investment and access to finance and skills. Actions include:

• providing £4 billion of Industrial Strategy Growth Capital, crowding in £12 billion of private sector capital and publishing British Business Bank’s VC investment return data to attract global investment
• developing dedicated export support for SMEs, utilising UK export finance (£80 billion in finance capacity) and global trade networks
• building a training and skills system that delivers a diverse and highly skilled life sciences workforce, maximising the use of existing programmes, and promoting UK strengths to attract exceptional international talent (supported by the global talent taskforce and visa system)
• delivering the £520 million Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund (LSIMF), and investing at scale in manufacturing innovation
• continuing to refine the implementation of the NHS Net Zero Roadmap, building on initiatives like the Sustainable Medicines Manufacturing Innovation Programme and ensuring support for companies (especially SMEs) to supply the NHS while meeting net-zero targets
• landing at least one major strategic partnership per year, establishing a dedicated service to support 10-20 high-potential UK companies, and empowering the Health Innovation Network to drive innovation and investment.

3. Driving health innovation and NHS reform: This pillar focuses on ensuring rapid patient access to the most clinically and cost-effective technologies and enabling shifts from sickness to prevention, hospital to community, and analogue to digital. Actions include:

• reducing unwanted barriers to market entry by increasing funding and support for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) including supporting digital transformation, reforming medical device regulations, utilising international reliance routes, developing an AI regulatory framework, improving AI integration in drug discovery and modernising patient information systems
• streamlining market entry through enhanced MHRA and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) coordination including establishing a single, integrated scientific advice service, improved alignment of decisions and guidance and delivering sustainable innovation pathways for products that meet unmet patient needs
• streamlining NICE appraisals and pricing agreements, rolling out confidential commercial pricing models in primary care, introducing a single national formulary, driving uptake of new biosimilars and introducing low-friction procurement mechanisms for MedTech (including the Rules Based Pathway and Innovator Passport), and a HealthStore for digital health apps
• establishing regional health innovation zones to foster large-scale experimentation and implementation of innovative solutions, and deliver on the ambitions of the Government’s Healthcare Goals programme (supporting R&D and adoption of new medicines and technologies addressing addiction, cancer, dementia, mental health and obesity)

How can success be achieved?

This LSSP aims to avoid past failures (namely “warm words without concrete action or hinted at difficult trade-offs without confronting them”) by setting out specific, measurable commitments, each with a named Senior Responsible Officer and annual transparent updates to track progress. A strengthened Life Sciences Council, co-chaired by government and industry, will monitor progress and alignment with the Industrial Strategy.  The government commits to extensive collaboration with industry, the NHS, devolved governments, and academia to achieve the plan's goals, harnessing Life Sciences clusters across the UK to drive inclusive and sustainable economic growth.

The potential future for UK life sciences

Should the aims of the LSSP be achieved, by 2035, the UK will have united the strengths of science, capital, industry and the NHS, and harnessed its leading science and genomics capabilities to be a global leader in Life Sciences. This will be evidenced by UK Life Sciences businesses raising a greater volume of scale-up capital than anywhere else in Europe, the UK being among the top three fastest in Europe for patient access to medicines and MedTech, and through faster licensing and registration, reduced health technology assessment timelines and costs, and widespread NHS adoption. This is a new model of partnership between science and society, government and industry and economic and health policy. We will follow the progress of this strategy and the steps towards achieving this vision and share them in future blogs.

 

 

_____________________________________________________

1 Life Sciences Sector Plan - GOV.UK

2 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/the-uks-modern-industrial-strategy-2025

3 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6888a0b1a11f859994409147/fit-for-the-future-10-year-health-plan-for-england.pdf

By Elizabeth Hampson, Life Science and Health Innovation Partner, Nicole Advani, Health Strategy Senior Manager, Deloitte

Every two years, the Deloitte Health Institute runs an employee health survey in the UK. Our 2023 survey revealed that the gap in women respondent’s out of pocket expenditure on their healthcare, compared to mens, extrapolated to the working population, was £1.5 billion. The findings suggested that working women have more limited options in tackling their health needs and feel they have no option but to fund these needs from out-of-pocket spending.¹ This blog explores the differences in spending in 2023 of UK respondents from a white background and those from ethnic minority backgrounds. Overall, we found that employees in the UK from ethnic minority backgrounds spend 40 per cent more out-of-pocket than those from white backgrounds. The full results of our survey analysis can be found here.

We found that survey respondents employed in the UK who were from an ethnic minority background, spent on average, £101 a year more from out-of-pocket than those from a white background (£355 per year vs £254 per year respectively) – see Figure 1. If this additional spend was applied to the number of working people from an ethnic minority background in the UK (some 10.57 million people) the total additional out of pocket spend on health could be as much as additional £1.07 billion a year.

This additional out-of-pocket spend by employees from an ethnic minority background for both men and women varied between the different health categories:

• for medical diagnostics and wearables, 2.6x higher
• for general health care (e.g. dental, private GP, physio and pain), 1.3x higher
• for mental health support and private counselling, 1.2x higher
• for long covid treatment, 4.3x higher, but from a very low base
• fertility, menopause and menstrual health has no noticeable difference.

Gender disparities

When we looked at the survey responses on spending by gender there were some interesting differences (see Figure 2). While respondents spent most on the ‘general health care’ category, and least on ‘private long covid treatment’ category, men from ethnic minority backgrounds spent noticeably more on general healthcare than men from a white background and more than all women. Meanwhile, women from an ethnic background spent more on diagnostics, private counselling, long covid and women’s health problems than women from a white background.

A recent report by the King’s Fund found that women from ethnic minority groups experienced inequalities in health, and in access to, and experience of, health care services. Moreover, the King’s Fund research identified that “risks to health and health inequalities in women from ethnic minority groups started early and were apparent across the life course”. Their specific health needs were often not fully recognised or addressed by health care services’. Moreover, the findings were not homogenous with patterns of health, and the determinants of health, differing significantly between and within ethnic groups.²

Similarly, a report by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists found that three years on from the 2022 Women’s Health Strategy for England and its promise to reset the dial on women’s health; there had been some green shoots of progress, such as new investment in women’s health hubs and progress in research. However, almost 580,000 women were still waiting for gynaecology care in England with persistent inequalities across the system.³

These reports and other research into health inequalities together with our survey findings suggest that access to and use of NHS services could partly explain our survey findings with different healthcare needs and societal expectations also playing a role. However, it also suggests the need for a deeper analysis of ethnic differences in out-of-pocket spending.

Socio-economic status

When we looked at socio-economic status and out-of-pocket expenditure (see Figure 3) we found that people in a higher socio-economic group spent more overall; but those from an ethnic minority background spent the most (£474 vs £358) with the highest expenditure on general healthcare (again the reasons for this need further research albeit some of the difference could reflect their spend on their dependents, given the 50 per cent more spent on menopause and fertility etc.). They also spent almost double on diagnostics and wearables, and nine times more on long covid treatment (albeit from a small base).

Of the individuals in the lower socio-economic group, those from an ethnic minority background spent only slightly more out-of-pocket than those from a white background (£202 vs £192) but all much lower than those in the higher socio-economic group. While general healthcare is the highest category of spend for both groups; ethnic minority employees with a lower socio-economic status spent more on general healthcare, private long covid treatment, and women’s health issues, and less on counselling and medical diagnostics. This suggests when money is tight, out-of-pocket spending is directed more towards treatment than preventing future ill health. This spending pattern risks widening health inequalities in the future.

Availability of women’s health benefits on employment decisions

We looked at the extent to which the availability of women’s health benefits was a key factor in employment decisions of men and women from a white and ethnic minority background. Figure 4 shows that both men and women from an ethnic minority background are more likely to consider the availability of health benefits when making employment decisions and had greater awareness health benefits that were on offer. This could potentially reflect the fact that people from an ethnic minority background may be more reliant on healthcare support offered by their employer due to potential difficulties accessing public health services.

These data suggest there is a requirement for employers to consider the specific needs of diverse employee groups when designing and communicating benefits packages. However, a literature review of health and wellbeing interventions in the workplace and the extent to which the needs of ethnic minorities are considered in the design of benefits, show that while diversity, equality and inclusion (DE&I) are deemed important, there is very little research reporting the perceptions and attitudes of ethnic minorities, making it difficult to determine how best to do this. The review concluded that a client-centred approach using methods such as co-design were key to enabling interventions to be designed and adapted in a way that was culturally sensitive and inclusive for the whole workforce.⁴

Addressing ethnicity-based disparities in health requires a collaborative and multi-sectoral approach that involves action at the individual, community, institutional, and policy levels. By working together, stakeholders can help create a system that promotes equitable access to high-quality care for all individuals (see Figure 5).

Conclusion

Our analysis revealed wide disparities in out-of-pocket healthcare spending between ethnic minority and white employees in the UK, with ethnic minority employees spending considerably more across most categories, particularly on general healthcare. This suggests that neither the NHS nor current workplace benefits adequately meet their needs. These disparities are further amplified by socioeconomic status and gender, with women from ethnic minority and lower socio-economic backgrounds exhibiting spending patterns focused more on treatment than prevention, potentially exacerbating health inequalities. The identified gap in research highlights that employers, healthcare providers and insurers stakeholders would benefit from a more rigorous assessment of the issues raised.

 

 

___________________________________________________

1 The Women’s Health Cost Gap in the UK

2 The Health Of Women From Ethnic Minority Groups In England | The King's Fund

3 A Work in Progress: evaluating the Women’s Health Strategy | RCOG

4 Attitudes to and perceptions of workplace health promotion amongst employees from ethnic minorities in the UK: A scoping review - PMC

By Emily May, Research Manager, and Karen Taylor, Director, Deloitte UK Centre for Health Solutions

Pharmaceutical (pharma) companies' current commercial models, while generally successful, are not agile or efficient enough to respond to today’s rapidly evolving market forces and technological advancements. Our prediction on the End-to-end transformation of pharma’s commercial activities, published in October 2024, envisaged that by 2030, pharma's commercial model would be fully digitalised, AI-powered, customer-centric, and highly efficient, resulting in enhanced productivity and customer experience. More recently, the US Deloitte Center for Health Solutions’ June 2025 report, Navigating the future of pharma's commercial model,  based on a survey of biopharma leaders, explored the industry’s readiness for change over the next five years. This blog draws on both publications to provide insights into how we expect biopharma’s commercial model to change and how companies can sustain their success through to 2030.

End-to-end transformation of pharma’s commercial activities ⁱ

Our prediction envisages that, by 2030, pharma's commercial operations will have undergone a complete digital transformation, leveraging AI, data cloud providers and customer relationship management (CRM) providers, to streamline processes and shift from a product-centric to a customer-centric approach. Personalised marketing and support will have improved customer experiences, and reduced costs. Pharma companies will have adopted innovative pricing models, outsourced non-core functions, and be prioritising AI-powered pharmacovigilance (PV)and patient support programmes (PSPs) to ensure medication safety, equitable access, and better health outcomes.

By 2030, we envisage that this customer-centric approach will include innovative marketing and value-based pricing strategies; data-driven, insightful, highly personalised campaigns; and reimbursement aligned to improved patient outcomes. AI will be crucial for enhancing pharmacovigilance and patient support programs, enabling proactive risk mitigation, improved medication adherence, and increased patient safety.

While our prediction presents a mostly optimistic vision of the future commercial model, the reality, as identified by the US Center’s report, is a significant gap between perceived current capabilities and the need for transformation. Its November 2024 survey of 100 biopharma leaders and interviews with 12 leaders, across the various commercial sub functions, found that although 69 per cent of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their commercial organisation met today’s business needs, 56 per cent acknowledged the need for significant change or even full transformation of their entire commercial function. Moreover, only 30 per cent considered that their commercial function was well prepared to respond to future trends.

The five elements of transformation needed to sustain the future success of pharma’s commercial function through to 2030 ⁱⁱ

Merging insights from our predictions 2030 LSHC report with the findings from the US Center’s future of commercial survey and report, we have highlighted the following transformation requirements that will be needed.

1. Elevate engagement with an integrated customer model

Healthcare professionals (HCPs) remain a key customer group for pharma; however, several studies indicate their growing dissatisfied with pharma companies, citing difficulties staying updated with medical knowledge, scepticism about the scientific validity of pharma communications and content fatigue. Simultaneously, HCPs influence on treatment decisions is waning, prompting pharma to shift attention towards C-suite executives and population health decision-makers who drive formulary and purchasing decisions. However, disconnected interactions between pharma companies’ various customer-facing teams and decision makers at customer organisations have led to fragmented messaging and suboptimal customer experiences. A fully integrated field model is therefore needed to deliver coordinated, personalised, data-driven interactions, with HCPs and decision-makers. This requires data integration (using AI to help create a 360-degree customer view), organisational change and behavioural shifts, to improve pharma’s understanding of buyer needs, customer relationships and engagement.

2. Meet empowered consumers’ needs with innovative models

Consumers increasingly expect convenience, cost-effectiveness and control over their health, but experience difficulties in accessing care (including diagnoses and treatment) and high out-of-pocket costs. Consequently, consumers are increasingly bypassing traditional healthcare, seeking alternative services and providers, or adopting do-it-yourself approaches. In the US pharma companies are adopting direct-to-patient (DTP) models to streamline access to treatments, expedite consultations, simplify insurance processes, and improve therapy adherence. The long-term strategic value of DTP models lying in enhanced patient engagement and consented use of high-quality data for improved segmentation, care coordination, and service delivery.

Elsewhere, as identified our predictions that Consumers are becoming the CEOs of their own health and engaging with alternative providers and models of care such as  pharmacists’ prescribing are becoming a crucial way of accessing care.^{iii, iv} Pharma companies will therefore need strategies for engaging with these alternative providers, balancing innovation including new PSPs and PV, with agile regulatory compliance (such as robust data privacy measures and proactive risk management) seen as critical enabler of the future commercial model.

3. Deliver greater holistic value through an expanded ecosystem role

The traditional prescription-based, HCP-focused commercial model is no longer meeting the needs of patients. Innovative and more complex therapies are increasing the challenges faced by patients and HCPs including navigating care pathways, improving health literacy and managing treatment costs. Over the next three to five years, innovative screening programmes, AI-driven diagnostics and investment in care coordination could address gaps in healthcare delivery. Moreover, innovative financing models (supplemental risk pools, new insurance products, risk-sharing agreements and patient financing options) can create mutually beneficial collaborations among employers, payers, and financial service companies, while addressing the increasing cost burdens faced by patients, employers, and payers. This provides an opportunity for pharma to play a greater role in orchestrating the healthcare ecosystem.

4. Rewire commercial operations for greater efficiency

The proliferation of healthcare data presents opportunities for pharma’s commercial organisations, but managing and utilising this data effectively is complex, time-consuming and expensive. Moreover, AI offers transformative potential, including tailoring marketing messages, creating engaging and informative content and delivering personalised messaging to HCPs and patients. However, unlocking value requires a shift in mindset (potentially generating up to $7 billion USD over five years for a large company, with 25-35 per cent of that in commercial functions).^v The prize is multi-faceted, with AI technologies (such as AI-powered CRMs and real-world data) improving the coordination of product launches, establishing proof of value to support reimbursement, streamlining medical, legal and regulatory compliance, and improving patient engagement.

However, 76 per cent of respondents to the US Center survey said they were struggling with siloed and outdated data infrastructures, with regulatory compliance and change management presenting considerable hurdles. The challenge, however, is not the technology but organisational readiness and the ability to trust and act on AI-generated insights. Mitigating risks requires human-in-the-loop controls and reimagining how work is structured, decisions are made, and responsibilities assigned.  This requires a focus on developing the data analysis, AI and digital engagement skills of frontline teams, thereby empowering them to make decisions more quickly without the need for management review. Realising AI’s full value in the commercial function requires proactive HR planning, including job redesign, talent strategies, and organisational restructuring; investments in data, technology, and training; and creating a culture of trust, adaptability, and forward-thinking leadership

5. Increase financial agility to achieve greater ROI

The commercial organisations siloed sub-functions have resulted in fragmented investments that optimise each sub-function’s return-on-investment (ROI) but not overall enterprise value. This approach lacks cohesive, enterprise-wide financial visibility. Improving ROI, requires a cross-functional mindset that evaluates opportunities and performance, embeds financial agility and adopts new performance measurement approaches. Improving an understanding of profitability drivers necessitates companies to reassess traditional departmental goals, incentives and reporting structures, to foster cross-functional collaboration and performance measurement.  It also requires the introduction of data-driven incentive structures and new integrated data platforms and advanced analytics can provide a unified view of investments and outcomes.

Conclusion

The pharma industry is on the cusp of a transformative shift that redefines customer engagement, operational models, and its role in the broader healthcare ecosystem. Over the next five years the future commercial model will likely feature solution-oriented customer interactions, strategic AI integration, and enhanced agility and efficiency. While envisioning this future is relatively easy, achieving it will be challenging. However, the potential benefits, including financial value for pharma companies and their customers, are substantial.

There is a consensus across the pharma industry that the commercial function needs to embrace end-to-end digital transformation, but the key question that remains is not ‘whether to change’, but ‘how quickly and extensively’.  Proactive anticipation and preparation for the required changes, including addressing the actionable insights identified under each of the five elements, will be crucial to pharma’s transformation of their commercial functions. The insights in our prediction 2030 report, and navigating the future of commercial report, provide a prescription to help ensure the future success of the pharma commercial model over the next five years.

 

________________________________________________

i End-to-end transformation of pharma's commercial activities

ii Future of pharma's commercial model | Deloitte Insights

iii Consumers are the CEOs of their own health

iv The rise of a dynamic consumer health market

v Generative AI to Reshape the Future of Life Sciences | Deloitte US

By Elizabeth Hampson, Life Sciences and Health Innovation Partner, and Karen Taylor, Director of the Centre for Health Solutions, Deloitte

For more than a decade the NHS has faced mounting pressure from an increasing disease burden, including mental health disorders, lifestyle-related issues, obesity, vaccine-preventable diseases, and chronic conditions like heart disease and cancers. Deloitte’s recently published report, ‘The shift to prevention: A new ecosystem of health promotion and protection’ outlines a transformative vision for the future of the NHS, that involves shifting from a reactive, treatment-focused model to a proactive and preventative approach. Developed in partnership with Google and The Royal Society, the report envisions a future centred on a new prevention ecosystem, focused on interventions that extend health lifespan and prevent prolonged period of illness before they occur. Our blog explores the bold paradigm shift that is needed, the transformational potential of new innovations and the need to scale up the foundational preventative strategies that are currently under-utilised or inefficiently implemented.

What needs to change to improve the focus on prevention?

Reducing the disease burden of the UK population will require a paradigm shift in the NHS’s health strategy. This includes improving people’s understanding of their own health through enhanced health education, advanced screening, digital technologies (including AI, wearables) and support from digital health navigators. The hyper-personalised insights created should then be used to empower individuals to manage their own health. This will also require increased focus and spending on preventative interventions, leveraging partners outside of the health system, and significant investment in the NHS data and technology infrastructure. ‘Prevention’ broadly encompasses strategies that delay or mitigate illness and disability, maximising the number of years lived in good health.

By 2035, the goal is to create a human-centred health promotion and protection system driven by advancements in genomics, health education, and a digital infrastructure powered by AI to provide hyper-personalised health insights for everyone, at every life stage. This will deliver benefits such as longer healthy life expectancy, reduced health inequalities, delayed entry into the healthcare system, a more resilient and productive workforce; which in turn will help boost economic growth and innovation leading to a healthier and wealthier economy.

Achieving the vision for a healthier future

To achieve this transformative vision for a healthier population will require the NHS to collaborate with and utilise the skills of stakeholders across different sectors, including retail, educators, private sector innovators, employers and wider government; together with an increased focus and spending on preventative interventions and place-based care.  It will also require shared access to data, AI and technology, changes to policy and law, and to provide information and incentives that help people make healthy choices. Critical enablers include empowered communities, aligned incentives and dedicated budgets and foundational data and trusted technology. Three crucial preventative interventions are:

1. Empowering individuals through health education: equipping individuals with the knowledge, skills, tools and incentives to make informed choices and adopt healthy lifestyles through accessible and engaging health information and improved health and digital literacy.
2. Harnessing the power of advanced screening: leveraging advancements in comprehensive health screening across the life course (early years, school, and workplace health checks), as well as clinical examinations, biochemical tests, radiological imaging, and genomics to understand individual's predisposition to disease and tailor health strategies accordingly.
3. Building a robust digital infrastructure: leveraging the power of technology including AI, wearable health trackers, and connected digital platforms to provide personalised health insights, support self-management, and enable proactive interventions, while building public trust in technology and enabling people to control access to their data.

Data-driven and personalised approach across the life course

This vision prioritises longer, healthier lifespans, not just disease avoidance, by implementing preventative, earlier, interventions across an individual’s entire lifespan:

• In utero to age 5: optimising early development through expanded newborn checks, optional genomic testing (contingent on ethical guidelines), and comprehensive parental support programmes, to lay the foundations for healthy healthier life expectancy.
• School and education: integrating comprehensive health education and digital literacy into the national curriculum to equip children and young adults with the knowledge and skills to empower them to make healthier choices; and training staff to deliver engaging health education and promote mental health awareness.
• Workplace and family: integrating health and work through smart workspaces that monitor employees physical and mental well-being, while providing community solutions for those outside traditional workplaces.
• Midlife and retirement: managing age-related health risks by prioritising targeted screening for chronic conditions, implementing programmes to delay disease onset, and providing support for healthy ageing.
• Older community and social care: providing tailored support using connected digital care technologies for remote monitoring and enabling independent living; and improving access to community resources, high-quality social care services and targeted health protection for vulnerable older adults.

The focus and spend on health protection will need to increase. Moreover, to achieve a technology enabled future state there are several fundamentals to get right, and interventions that need to be scaled, see Figure 1.

Figure 1. Fundamentals to get right, areas to go further faster, and ones to design for the future

Source: Deloitte, Google and The Royal Society, 2025

Decentralising preventative care through a collaborative ecosystem

The success of this approach relies on a shift towards decentralised, convenient healthcare integrated into daily life. Key stakeholders, beyond the NHS, include:

• Empowered individuals: Making informed choices and controlling their well-being through personalised information, convenient digital tools, and support networks.
• Non-profit organisations: Building trust and reaching underserved communities.
• Education sector: Integrating health education into the curriculum, building trust and empowering individuals to leverage increasing health knowledge.
• Retail and community providers: Offering accessible health services and being proactive on certain risk factors.
• Health innovators: Developing cutting-edge solutions, integrating prevention within existing treatment business models.
• Employers and insurers: Promoting and investing in employee well-being, supporting the actions of the NHS through employee education and benefits.
• Central and local government: Shaping the health environment through policy and investment.

Critical enablers to reap the rewards

Transitioning to a new ecosystem for health promotion and protection requires a multifaceted approach encompassing several key enablers. Success hinges on a collaborative effort from all sectors of society, embracing technological advancements, fostering collaboration, and empowering individuals to take control of their health, see Figure 2.

Figure 2. Key enablers powering the future of health promotion and protection

Source: Deloitte, Google and The Royal Society, 2025

While data and technology are enablers, they also underpin the entire vision. Integrating technology for preventative healthcare, encompasses improved awareness, early risk detection, proactive intervention, and continuous monitoring. Individuals will benefit from an AI-powered ‘clinician in their pocket’, accessing and managing diverse health data to actively manage their well-being and navigate the healthcare system. Wearables will provide continuous data, including objective and subjective metrics, analysed by AI to track progress, improve adherence and enable adjustments and timely responses. User-controlled, data sharing will foster trust and encourage data sharing. Healthcare professionals will use AI to enhance screening and diagnosis, while the NHS app can serve as a central hub for personalised insights and proactive interventions. Realising this vision requires the health system to safeguard data privacy, ensure ethical data use and establish robust governance to safeguard data privacy.

Conclusion

Deloitte’s vision for a new ecosystem of health promotion and protection is unashamedly ambitious. The NHS 10-Year Plan rightly prioritises prevention, acknowledging the concerning 28 per cent decline in preventative spending over the last decade. This reduction, coupled with rising out-of-pocket spend on prevention (2.7 times more in 10 years), exacerbates health inequalities. The plan includes a focus on the social determinants of health - food, exercise, housing, and employment – which is a much needed and welcome step. While the NHS 10-Year Health Plan sets ambitious goals for prevention, the time for action is now. Our report provides suggestions on who to involve and how to translate these intentions into tangible improvements in preventative healthcare and address the widening health inequalities. The next step needs to be a focus on how to collectively drive progress.

Success hinges on a collaborative effort from all stakeholders, including the NHS, government, private sector, employers, communities, and individuals. By embracing technology, empowering individuals, and addressing social determinants of health, the UK can create a more sustainable, equitable, and effective healthcare system for the future. Realising this vision will require the paradigm shift we refer to in our report, raising critical questions for public and private sector architects of the health system to consider.

 

By Hanno Ronte, Partner, Deloitte MCS Limited

Geopolitical uncertainty and different regional approaches to drug approval and reimbursement regulations are challenging the traditional model of developing and commercialising global products. While most pharma companies currently operate with separate US and international commercial arms, supported by global functions, the differences of how regions approve and pay for medicines is only growing. In this blog, Hanno Ronte, partner at Deloitte with extensive experience shaping pharma strategies and a deep understanding of global market dynamics, explores how pharma execs can balance global coordination with regional responsiveness to navigate this evolving landscape. The blog examines the forces driving this change, its impact on business models and how to build resilience across key functions.

The regionalisation landscape of drug launches

The traditional pharma business model, predicated on global product development and marketing, may be under pressure. Geopolitical tensions, diverging regulatory landscapes, and persistent cost pressures are creating unexpected challenges and business volatility. About one-third of life sciences execs interviewed for our Global Life Sciences Outlook expressed concern about potential changes to US regulations in 2025, while 37 per cent were apprehensive about global regulatory changes and geopolitical uncertainties. Protectionist policies, tariffs and trade wars are incentivising local manufacturing, while variations in regulatory requirements for clinical trials and drug approvals are creating distinct regional markets with differences in clinical trial designs, the level of evidence needed for approval, and the types of endpoints considered. Consequently, less than half (48 per cent) of novel active substances (NASs) launched 2014-2022 were approved by the three major markets of US, EU and Japan.¹ Notably, nine per cent of NASs were only approved by the US, see Figure 1.²

Figure 1. NASs approved by the US, EU and/or Japan from 2014-2022

Source: IQVIA Institute, Oct 2024

Additionally, the number of NASs receiving EMA approval within two years of FDA approval has been decreasing over the past 10 years, see Figure 2. This illustrates the increasing complexity of navigating multiple regulatory environments.³

Figure 2. EMA approvals from 2014-2022 following an FDA approval

Source: IQVIA Institute, Oct 2024

Note: *The 2-year look forward for the FDA 2022 column in the chart is incomplete as approval data goes through 2024 August.

Distinct regional features across US, Europe, Japan and China

The United States represents the largest and traditionally most attractive pharmaceutical market, but its complexity remains significant.⁴ Traditionally, the FDA has relied heavily on placebo-controlled trials; however, this is decreasing in some therapeutic areas such as oncology, due to ethical considerations and the availability of effective standard-of-care treatments, leading to a greater use of active comparator trials.⁵ The US drug pricing system is a complex interplay of market forces, government regulations and private insurance negotiations, often resulting in high drug prices and accessibility challenges for many Americans. Regulatory pressures on pricing (including the 340B Drug Pricing Program and the Inflation Reduction Act's impact on Medicare negotiation power and potential price caps), coupled with tariffs promoting domestic manufacturing, are creating an uncertain environment that may impact innovation by potentially reducing R&D investment and slowing drug development.^6,7

In contrast, the European Union's pharma market prioritises value-based pricing and has varied reimbursement requirements across member states. The EMA is actively working to harmonise regulatory and reimbursement processes, through the new Health Technology Regulation (HTAR) and the revision of the EU pharmaceutical legislation, but navigating the complex regulatory pathway remains a challenge.^8,9 The emphasis on cost-effectiveness, often demonstrated through active-comparator trials (especially in later development phases), means that only truly innovative medicines with clear superiority over existing treatments are likely to gain both regulatory and reimbursement approval. This approach, while aiming to ensure affordability and accessibility for European citizens, can reduce the number of products launched, particularly impacting smaller companies and those developing 'me-too' drugs.

While initially reliant on foreign expertise, China's growing scientific capabilities and manufacturing infrastructure are increasingly challenging the dominance of Western pharma companies. This rapid transformation is driven by substantial government investment, a strategic 'China for China' approach prioritising domestic drug development and production tailored to the specific needs of the Chinese population and strengthened data privacy and export related regulations.¹⁰ The level of innovation within the Chinese pharma industry is also evolving, with a growing focus on developing novel therapies and local R&D activities alongside the production of generic drugs.¹¹ There is therefore a need for intricate pricing negotiations with the government and to cultivate strong relationships within the complex mix of public and private entities in China’s healthcare system.

Japan represents a sizeable pharmaceutical market but presents unique challenges for drug developers and marketers.¹² The regulatory landscape is exceptionally stringent, demanding rigorous clinical data, lengthy review processes, and specific documentation. Except for orphan drugs and those addressing high unmet medical needs, local clinical trials are typically required. Like Europe, approvals are outcome-focused with value-based pricing and reimbursement models. Navigating the Japanese market requires a tailored approach that considers the formal, hierarchical structure of the healthcare system and the importance of building strong relationships.

Three potential futures for pharma

As a result of these diverging regional requirements, Deloitte envision three potential future scenarios:

1. The winner-takes-all global products market - only highly differentiated products that meet the most stringent and widespread global requirements will succeed. This means fewer products, but each with superior clinical evidence, highly differentiated and broad applicability.
2. Regionally tailored products - pharma companies maintain global functions (R&D, business development, M&A, supply chain), but develop and commercialise distinct products tailored to specific regional needs and regulatory environments.
3. A fully regionalised industry - pharma companies largely operate as regional entities, each with its own clinical development, supply chain and commercial strategies, optimising all processes for local markets. Global functions may be retained, but with a significantly reduced scope.

Building geopolitical resilience: a checklist for pharma executives

The implications of responding to the growing difference in regional requirements could be profound and present critical questions for pharma executives across R&D, commercial, supply chain and corporate functions.

• R&D: How is our R&D portfolio structured to balance global opportunities with regional needs? Do we need a single evidence package or tailored submissions for each region? How are we mitigating diverse pricing pressures and the impact of health technology assessments in key regions?
• Commercial: How do pricing and reimbursement strategies vary across countries? What is our optimal launch sequence considering regional variations and market access challenges? How do we adapt our go-to-market models for each region (for example sales rep focus vs. medical affairs)? What is the role of global marketing in a regionally fragmented world?
• Supply Chain: Will tariffs and ‘local made’ requirements impact our manufacturing footprint? Should we prioritise global plants, regional facilities, or a combination, to ensure supply chain resilience? How do we balance scale with national proximity?
• Corporate Functions: What are the tax implications of regionalisation and different supply chain set-ups? Where should we hold our intellectual property to optimise protection and tax efficiency? What are the implications for transfer pricing, given regional variations? Which functions should be global, regional, or local?

Conclusion

Variations across the globe in regulatory requirements, pricing, market access and competition could mean that the era of a truly global pharma product portfolio is drawing to a close. Pharma executives need to consider how they can adapt effectively, embracing both global coordination and regional responsiveness. However, fragmentation raises questions about access to innovative treatments. A thriving future hinges on the industry's ability to navigate this complex landscape and ensure patients worldwide have access to the innovative treatments they need.

____________________________________________________________________

¹ Assessing Availability of New Drugs in Europe, Japan, and the U.S. - IQVIA

² ibid.

³ ibid.

⁴ Financial Aspects and the Future of the Pharmaceutical Industry in the United States of America - PMC

⁵ Placebos and Blinding in Randomized Controlled Cancer Clinical Trials for Drug and Biological Products Guidance for Industry

⁶ 2025 Life Sciences Regulatory Outlook | Deloitte US

⁷ Biopharma’s IRA readiness: From What? To Now what? - Thoughts from the Centre | Deloitte UK

⁸ A short glimpse into the proposed revision of the EU Pharmaceutical Legislation - Thoughts from the Centre | Deloitte UK

⁹ Getting ready for the new HTA regulation in EU: what companies need to do now to be ready?

¹⁰ China LSHC Industry Survey：2024 State of Industry in China | Deloitte China

¹¹ Full-Chain Support for Innovation: Chinese Government Continues Its Supporting to the Biopharma Industries, and Implications to the Industry Companies" | Deloitte China

¹² Beyond borders | Deloitte Global