play_circle_filled In progress

Health Health

Implement the recommendations of the Accelerated Access Review

Last updated: 01:12pm 16 May 2019

…we will implement the recommendations of the Accelerated Access Review to make sure that patients get new drugs and treatments faster while the NHS gets best value for money and remains at the forefront of innovation.

Conservative Party Manifesto 2017, p.67

Our verdict

In 2014, the then government commissioned the Accelerated Access Review (AAR), to identify how to fast-track patients’ access to innovative drugs, devices and diagnostics, streamlining the development of new treatments. The AAR’s recommendations were published in 2016, and comprise accelerated pathways for innovative products, improved scanning, incentives for innovation and coordinating national bodies. Current medical innovations are providing hundreds of patients with surgeries for cerebral palsy and pancreatitis, new drugs for haemophilia and stroke-reducing heath implants.

With this policy, the government promised to implement the recommendations of the AAR to speed up advancements in healthcare whilst ensuring value for money.

In November 2017, the government issued a statement detailing how it would implement the recommendations of the AAR. The plans included introducing an Accelerated Access Collaborative (AAC), providing £86 million of funding to support innovators and the health service, and improving the commercial capacity and capability of NHS England. The AAC held its first meeting in January 2018, and it is currently working towards introducing accelerated pathways for innovative treatments.

With the AAC operational, it is fair to say that this policy is ‘in progress’. It will be updated to ‘done’ when there is evidence of significant progress towards implementing all the recommendations of the review. We’ll be monitoring developments so follow this policy to stay up to date.

Read more – accelerate your access to the facts!

There's always room for debate

We’re serious about providing clear, up-to-date, non-partisan information. We focus on being consistent and fair in how we reach our verdicts, and always explain our reasoning. But there is always room for debate. So if you see it differently, we’d love you to tell us why. Or even better, submit an edit.