Brexit and health care

Pubblicato il

Monday, 27 June 2016

Argomento

Argomento Generico

The union loses a key partner in health and scientific innovation.

With the referendum on 23 June on BREXIT, the British people decreed that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union. The referendum is, in fact, advisory in nature, but it is politically binding and, therefore, will entail formalising this popular choice through a procedural process, governed by Article 50 of the EU treaties, which could last for about two years.
One must, however, begin to ask oneself a number of questions about the consequences of such an important decision, which is bound to affect the future of the European Union.
The media's immediate focus has been on the financial markets and the economic effects, but important consequences will also be felt in the field of pharmaceutical activities and more generally on the welfare systems that ensure people's health in the European context.
Let us begin with an institutional problem concerning the reallocation of the EMA headquarters (European Medicines Agency).
The EMA is the European Union agency that has been centrally managing the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines developed by pharmaceutical companies for human use in the EU since 1995. Since its creation, this agency, which serves a market of around 500 million consumers, has been based in London. Following BREXIT, its relocation will be considered and there are already numerous applications from cities that would like to host it. Among the first to apply was the Swedish capital, Stockholm, which believes it has all the credentials because, as Anders Blanck, director general of Lif (Läkemedelsindustriföreningen, the Swedish equivalent of Farmindustria) points out, the Scandinavian country has the highest number of scientific studies deposited in the EU.ahead of France, Germany, Spain, Holland and the UK itself'. Sweden is also home to the prestigious Karolinska Institutet, which awards the Nobel Prizes every year.
Italy, through the words of the president of Farmindustria, Massimo Scaccabarozzi, emphasised that it has all the numbers to host the EMA: in fact, it boasts second place in the EU for pharmaceutical production (30 billion in 2015), an export of more than 70%, and growing employment in the sector (6,000 new hires in 2015). Moreover, Italy has a cutting-edge regulatory system whose credit goes to companies and institutions, including first and foremost the AIFA (Italian Medicines Agency), now internationally recognised as a best practice for the innovativeness of drug access models
Another very sensitive issue that arose, even before the referendum, concerns the impact on scientific research of Britain's exit from the Union.
Ahead of the vote on 23 June, a group of 13 Nobel Prize winners signed a letter that was published by the Daily Telegraph. Among the signatories were Prof. Peter Higgs, discoverer of the Higgs Boson, geneticist Sir Paul Nurse and Sir Martin Evans, awarded for his stem cell research.
In summary, the 13 scientists emphasised that within the EU, Britain is among the key partners in what can be considered a kind of 'scientific superpower' of the planet. Indeed, the EU hosts an enormous range of expertise, with more than a fifth of the world's researchers moving freely within its borders. It is home to many of the 'excellent' brains and most advanced facilities (many of which are located in the UK) and its funding and regulations undoubtedly positively influence science everywhere.
On the front 'British' Leaving the Union will mean the loss of funding from Brussels, the need for visas for the movement of its scientists and researchers within the Union, and certain collaborative relationships with scientific institutions located in other European countries may also be jeopardised.
Confirming these fears the Commons Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons stated that the UK had benefited 'significantly' from access to the EU research budget and that more resources would now have to be found to make up for what was lost.
Added to all this are the negative effects on the student population of the Erasmus projects that, until now, have had in British universities important partners for pre-graduate educational interchange. Similar problems will also arise for all European graduates who had found in British universities an excellent offer of Masters and PHD to complete their academic training.
Finally, let us mention a problem that fundamentally affects the staffing of specialist doctors working under contract in the British National Health Service. For years, the United Kingdom, by rigidly enforcing the closed number system in access to faculties that train for the health professions, has had fewer doctors than the National Health Service (NHS) itself needs to cover. This shortage has been remedied by drawing heavily from the pool of specialist doctors from other EU countries by hiring them on contract at many public health facilities.
What will happen now? Will some emergency regulation be adopted to prevent the negative impact of the BREXIT on the staffing of foreign doctors who to date, in large numbers, have been caring for Her Majesty's subjects?