Mikkel Kristiansen, CEO of VentriJect, reflects on the Life Sciences Sector Plan published by the UK Government earlier this year.
On 16 July, the UK government published its Life Sciences Sector Plan. Having read it, I find myself sighing rather than getting excited.
It talks a lot about innovation, creating better health outcomes, facilitating faster clinical trials and creating a more attractive environment for FDI.
Sounds great, right?
But readers will be forgiven for thinking we’ve heard all this before – the Life Sciences Industrial Strategy in 2017; the Life Sciences Sector Deals in 2017/8; the Life Sciences Vision in 2021; the MedTech Strategy in 2023; and now the Sector Plan in 2025 (which follows the Modern Industrial Strategy!) all regurgitate the same kinds of themes. These aren’t unique to the UK.
Innovator passport and HDRS
What matters to me as CEO is how we can get our innovative technology to help as many people as possible. Ease of market access and the speed of adoption are top of my list as I prioritise our international growth and identify where we will focus our expansion.
The Sector Plan argues for patients to get rapid access to the most clinically and cost-effective new technologies. The introduction of an ‘Innovator Passport’ is a good idea, but where is the detail about how SMEs like mine will be able to overcome the need for strong local connections that are time consuming and difficult for international entrants to build without a strong in-market team?
Other CEOs I speak to look at the NHS with mixed feelings – it’s a huge national provider that could (in theory) put new medical technology into the hands of millions of patients. But this potential is undermined by its notoriously slow and patchy approach to technology adoption. Over the last decade many companies have become more wary about bold messages coming out of government and instead look to what is happening on the ground to make decisions.
Another aspect of the Plan that has received a lot of attention is the creation of a Health Data Research Service (HDRS). This is interesting for us because we are a data-based company – our device produces a VO2 max readout that helps clinicians to accurately determine cardiorespiratory health, which is a powerful indicator for mortality and many other diseases.
The data we could provide, when combined with other diagnostic, genomic and clinical data, would provide clinicians with a complete and holistic picture of an individual’s health and help the NHS to tailor and personalise care. Again, the Plan talks about the value of data but doesn’t set out detail as to how it will overcome the predictable privacy and security objections that could hamper the practical use of this data.
UK in context
Denmark’s ‘Strategy for Life Science towards 2030’ provides more granular detail, has clear objectives and is action-driven. The Danish government are putting in place support to double exports by 2030, which we have already benefited from in a tangible way through a state-sponsored market visit to California last year and to Texas in a few weeks’ time.
The small, but highly effective ecosystem in Denmark means it makes sense for us to be based here for raising investment and technology development – for example, the number of venture investments in life science companies per million inhabitants between 2021-3 was 56 in Denmark vs only 41 in the UK.
However, given the small domestic market, Danish companies do have to consider international expansion early-on if they are to grow, which means reviewing and evaluating other national sector plans too.
In Germany, the new government is establishing a federal ministry for digitalization and government modernization. This promises to strengthen the use of telemedicine, making its regulatory framework increasingly favourable for MedTech companies, particularly in the data and AI space.
A very different proposition is the United States – a market we are currently exploring. While its fragmented, privatised health system can be difficult to navigate, the sheer size of the opportunity, the speed of adoption, and the deep pools of capital make it an ideal market for many health tech companies. US healthcare providers are often more responsive to market forces than to federal policy, which, for a fast-moving SME, can be a significant advantage.
Although we export to the UK, being based in Denmark gives me the space to see this Plan within the wider international context. The UK has a strong reputation for research and innovation, but it doesn’t match some of the other markets in terms of how much commercial potential we see in the short term.
To attract businesses like VentriJect to do more business and to invest, a lot hinges on the promise of more responsive NHS adoption. If I see rapid action to attract and spread innovation, I will be the first to talk about the success of this Sector Plan. But until then, many globally minded startups will be asking themselves one question. Where can we see our innovation getting to patients quickly?
The UK is not yet a convincing answer.
