IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/hecopl/v16y2021i3p290-307_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the potential impact on health of the UK's future relationship agreement with the EU: analysis of the negotiating positions

Author

Listed:
  • Fahy, Nick
  • Hervey, Tamara
  • Dayan, Mark
  • Flear, Mark
  • Galsworthy, Mike
  • Greer, Scott
  • Jarman, Holly
  • McKee, Martin

Abstract

While policy attention is understandably diverted to COVID-19, the end of the UK's post-Brexit ‘transition period’ remains 31 December 2020. All forms of future EU−UK relationship are worse for health than EU membership, but analysis of the negotiating texts shows some forms are better than others. The likely outcomes involve major negative effects for NHS staffing, funding for health and social care, and capital financing for the NHS; and for UK global leadership and influence. We expect minor negative effects for cross border healthcare (except in Northern Ireland); research collaboration; and data sharing, such as the Early Warning and Response System for health threats. Despite political narratives, the legal texts show that the UK seeks de facto continuity in selected key areas for pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and equipment [including personal protective equipment (PPE)], especially clinical trials, pharmacovigilance, and batch-testing. The UK will be excluded from economies of scale of EU membership, e.g. joint procurement programmes as used recently for PPE. Above all, there is a major risk of reaching an agreement with significant adverse effects for health, without meaningful oversight by or input from the UK Parliament, or other health policy stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Fahy, Nick & Hervey, Tamara & Dayan, Mark & Flear, Mark & Galsworthy, Mike & Greer, Scott & Jarman, Holly & McKee, Martin, 2021. "Assessing the potential impact on health of the UK's future relationship agreement with the EU: analysis of the negotiating positions," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 290-307, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:16:y:2021:i:3:p:290-307_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744133120000171/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:16:y:2021:i:3:p:290-307_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/hep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.