Wes Streeting’s resignation as Health Secretary raises bigger questions than just ‘who comes next?’.
Questions like what does this means for health innovation in the UK?
To be clear, I don’t think UK healthtech innovation is unhealthy. Far from it.Some of the conversations I’ve had recently with founders and CEOs have been incredibly positive – brilliant companies are growing, exporting, raising investment, building evidence and finding committed partners inside the system.
There’s energy in the sector; ambition, and resilience.
But the environment around adoption faces continual upheaval and shifting complexity.
For those who already understand the system, have strong clinical advocates, know how to work with trusts, ICBs, Health Innovation Networks, accelerators, procurement frameworks and regional partners, there are routes through.
But for many innovators – particularly those in the early stages, trying to scale, the landscape can still feel frustratingly hard to navigate.
Where’s the front door? Who owns the agenda? Which priorities matter now? Which messages will land? Which national signals have longevity, and which will disappear with the next restructure?
This is where all this constant political and organisational churn really matters.
Just as innovators were getting used to working with NHS Digital to develop ideas and explore adoption routes, NHSX arrived. Then NHSX was folded back into the system. Then NHS Digital was merged into NHS England. Then NHS England itself was abolished…
Alongside all that structural churn, we’ve had this revolving door of health secretaries. Seven since 2018. Five between 2021 and 2024 alone.
Each arrives with a diagnosis. The NHS is “broken”. The system needs reform. The old way has failed. A new plan and an all-new structure is needed.
Often, there’s truth in what they’re saying: some major changes are needed.
But constantly starting again is not the same as reform.
For the country’s brilliant health tech innovators, the churn does not stop progress altogether. They’re too resilient for that. Good companies still find ways through. Good people inside the NHS still champion better ideas. Innovation networks and regional partners still do important work helping innovators access support, evidence, funding and connections.
But resilience should not be mistaken for a well-functioning system.
Too much of their energy continues to be spent on interpreting the system, finding the right route in, adapting to shifting language, and repositioning around priorities that may change again before adoption can happen at scale.Health innovation is hard enough already!
Innovators already have to prove value, build evidence, earn clinical trust, navigate procurement, integrate with existing systems, meet regulatory expectations and demonstrate real-world impact. In the UK, they have to do all that in one of the largest and most complex health systems in the world.
So when the national structure, strategy and language keep changing, it adds friction to a process that already has more than enough to deal with.
What health tech innovation needs now is not another grand reset.It needs continuity. Clear priorities. Consistent language. Stable adoption routes. And political leadership with the humility to build on what is already working, rather than always needing to make its own mark.
We absolutely need change in healthcare in the UK.But change at this scale does not happen through constant reinvention.It happens when the system is given enough clarity, confidence and time to deliver.
The UK is not short of health innovation.It’s short of consistent strategy, priorities and routes to adoption.
Innovators will keep finding ways through – that’s what they do.But politicians who are quick to take credit for the great things produced by our healthcare system and healthtech innovators should reflect on the fact that they often do so despite shifting political sands and its impact on the system, not because of it.
