weak etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
weak etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster

26 Ekim 2016 Çarşamba

GSK sales rise despite weak pound and Brexit uncertainty

GlaxoSmithKline has reported better than expected quarterly results thanks to strong sales of its flu vaccine and a weaker pound.


The UK’s largest drug company has emerged as a big beneficiary from sterling’s 18% decline since the Brexit vote. GSK generates 96% of its sales overseas but makes many products in the UK, including Sensodyne and Aquafresh toothpastes, at its Maidenhead factory.


Sales rose by 23% to reach £7.5bn in the third quarter. At constant exchange rates, sales were up 8% and earnings rose 12%. Analysts had forecast sales of £7.3bn, according to Thomson Reuters estimates.


Another area where GSK could benefit is “parallel trade,” which involves the shipment of drugs from low-cost countries such as Greece and Spain to countries such as Britain and Germany, where prices are higher.


The outgoing chief executive, Sir Andrew Witty, who will hand over to the company’s consumer healthcare chief Emma Walmsley at the end of March, said parallel trade could “cease in entirety,” depending on the terms of Britain’s exit from the EU.



Emma Walmsley


Emma Walmsley will succeed Sir Andrew Witty at the helm of GlaxoSmithKline in March. Photograph: AFP/Getty

There had been a decline in parallel trade since the referendum, he said, and “if the pound remains suppressed or at these new lower levels, you would expect to see less import, more export”.


GSK’s vaccine sales exceeded City expectations in the third quarter, in particular flu vaccines, while new HIV and lung medicines also sold well, offsetting declining demand for ageing blockbuster drugs such as Advair for asthma.


Witty said the vaccine business had “never been healthier,” despite the company’s decision to withdraw its cervical cancer vaccine Cervarix from the US market. Shingrix, a new shingles vaccine which is seen as a potential blockbuster with annual sales of more than $ 1bn, has been filed for approval in the US and is due to be filed in the EU before the end of the year.


Witty said after Walmsley’s appointment a month ago, the “feedback from the overwhelming majority of shareholders has been positive and constructive”. “That is the right response, given Emma’s tremendous credentials for this role and her personal passion for GSK,” he said.


Walmsley will be the most powerful woman in the global drugs industry and one of seven female FTSE 100 chief executives. However, her appointment came as a disappointment to some investors who had hoped for the arrival of an outsider to push through a spin-off of the consumer healthcare arm.


Witty said GSK was on track to achieve core earnings growth of 11-12% at constant exchange rates this year, marking a turnaround after several years of poor performance and a bribery scandal in China.


He said the company saw no need to make any contingency plans around immigration after the Brexit vote. EU nationals account for 14% of GSK’s UK based workforce. Witty was optimistic that “ultimately there are going to be some pragmatic decisions made” that would ensure companies were able to attract global talent.



GSK sales rise despite weak pound and Brexit uncertainty

17 Ağustos 2016 Çarşamba

"Weak" strategy on childhood obesity is wasted opportunity, say experts

Medical experts and campaigners have criticised the government’s childhood obesity strategy as weak and embarrassing, and accused policymakers of throwing away the best chance to tackle the culture of unhealthy eating that is crippling the NHS.


The government’s measures, centred on the sugar tax announced by George Osborne in March, rely on voluntary action by the food and drink industry and are shorn of any restrictions on junk food marketing and advertising.


The industry, which has lobbied hard against regulation for months, has undertaken to reduce by 20% the amount of sugar in products such as cereals, desserts, yoghurts and sweets. The strategy document makes clear that manufacturers that reduce sugar in their products will escape the sugar tax, which is not due to come in for two years.


The money accrued by the levy on sugary drinks will go to fund breakfast clubs and sport. Schools will be asked to give pupils an extra 30 minutes a day of physical activity, and parents and carers will be encouraged to get their children moving for a further 30 minutes.


Citing the triumphs of Team GB at the Olympics and the example of St Ninians primary school in Stirling where children walk or run a mile every morning, the public health minister, Nicola Blackwood, said: “Initiatives like this will make a huge difference to children’s health and fitness and we hope our new measures on school sport will help to create future Team GB Olympians.”


But the strategy contains neither of the two measures that Public Health England (PHE) said would have the most impact on the childhood obesity epidemic.


A third of children leaving primary school are overweight or obese and at risk of a lifetime of health problems including diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Asked to investigate the issue and make recommendations on what should be done, PHE backed a sugar tax and reductions in sugar content of foods but prioritised two other measures:


  • Banning price-cutting promotions of junk food in supermarkets, such as multipacks and buy one get one free, as well as promotion of unhealthy food to children in restaurants, cafes and takeaways.

  • Restricting advertising of unhealthy food high in salt, fat and sugar to children through family TV programmes such as Britain’s Got Talent and The X Factor, as well as on social media and websites.

Neither appears in the strategy.


Campaigners likened the strategy to the responsibility deal brought in by Labour and continued throughout David Cameron’s premiership, which was widely condemned as a failure. Food and drink companies were encouraged to pledge to make their food healthier by cutting salt, fat and sugar. There has been little in the way of monitoring, but health groups believe the deal has not significantly contributed to improving the nation’s diet.


“After the farce of the responsibility deal where Andrew Lansley made the food industry responsible for policing themselves, it is sad to see that this is just another imitation of the same responsibility deal take two,” said Prof Graham MacGregor, chairman of Action on Sugar and Consensus Action on Salt and Health.


“It is an insulting response to the UK crisis in type-2 diabetes, both in children and adults. This will bankrupt the NHS unless something radical is done.”


Action on Sugar called on the prime minister to rescue the childhood obesity strategy. “Theresa May launched her prime minister campaign by saying that she wanted to tackle health inequalities, obesity being a major factor in this,” said Jenny Rosborough, the group’s campaign manager and a registered nutritionist. “The UK should lead the world in tackling obesity and type-2 diabetes and this is an embarrassing and inexcusable waste of a fantastic opportunity to put the nation’s health first.”


Although the childhood obesity strategy was a flagship initiative of Cameron’s and originally the work of staff in Downing Street, May has chosen not to launch it. It has been published by the Department of Health while she is on holiday in Switzerland.


The Children’s Food Campaign, a member of the Obesity Health Alliance, which includes charities and health organisations such as the royal colleges, fought hard for tough action on cut-price junk food and a ban on TV adverts for unhealthy food before 9pm, when viewing by children tends to drop off.


“Price promotions were one of the big issues that Public Health England majored on,” said Malcolm Clark of the campaign. “It looks like the government is failing to listen to its own public health experts.


“Industry likes to paint us as nanny-statists, but PHE is not a campaigning organisation. They have done a very thorough literature review of peer-reviewed evidence and come up with a recommendation on that.”


Sir Harpal Kumar, Cancer Research UK’s chief executive, said: “While encouraging more exercise in schools is to be welcomed, the evidence is compelling that we also need restrictions on the marketing and promotion of unhealthy foods. We need stronger action to protect children from junk food advertising if we want to make a difference. So for the government to ignore these aspects is inexcusable.


“The government had a chance to protect the next generation from diseases like cancer and reduce the crippling burden of obesity on the NHS. We need the game-changing strategy it promised a year ago. As it stands, our children will witness a rising tide of ill-health from obesity well into the future.”


The strategy document nods to the thinking underlying the focus on voluntary measures and physical activity. It aims to “significantly reduce” childhood obesity within 10 years, it says. “We are confident that our approach will reduce childhood obesity while respecting consumer choice, economic realities and, ultimately, our need to eat.”


The president of the Royal College of Physicians, Prof Jane Dacre, said: “I am disappointed that after such a long wait for the childhood obesity strategy, the government has published a downgraded plan.”


The British Medical Association described the strategy as weak. “Given the UK has the highest level of obesity in western Europe, with one in three children overweight or obese by the time they leave primary school, the government should be doing everything in its power to tackle this problem. Instead it has rowed back on its promises by announcing what looks like a weak plan rather than the robust strategy it promised,” said Prof Parveen Kumar, the BMA board of science chair.


“Although the government proposes targets for food companies to reduce the level of sugar in their products, the fact that these are voluntary and not backed up by regulation, renders them pointless. Targets are also needed to reduce levels of saturated fat and salt in products – these must be backed up by regulation.


“Poor diet has become a feature of our children’s lives, with junk food more readily available, and food manufacturers bombarding children with their marketing every day for food and drinks that are extremely bad for their health. It is incredibly disappointing that the government appears to have failed to include plans for tighter controls on marketing and promotion.”


The British Soft Drinks Association, meanwhile, said it was unhappy that the sugary drinks levy was going ahead. “Given the economic uncertainty our country now faces, we’re disappointed the government wishes to proceed with a measure which analysis suggests will cause thousands of job losses and yet fail to have a meaningful impact on levels of obesity,” said Gavin Partington, its director general.


He said manufacturers were already cutting the sugar content of their drinks.


Ian Wright, director general of industry body the Food and Drink Federation, said:
“The proposed tax on soft drinks is a disappointing diversion from effective measures to tackle obesity. Soft drink companies are already making great progress to reduce sugars from their products, having achieved a 16% reduction between 2012 and 2016.


“However the target set for sugars reduction in the plan is flawed. It focuses too strongly on the role of this single nutrient, when obesity is caused by excess calories from any nutrient. Moreover the target is unlikely to be technically practical across all the selected food categories.


Reformulation is difficult and costly: there are different challenges for each product; recipe change can only proceed at a pace dictated by consumers. We will of course do everything we can in the next six months to work towards a practicable reformulation solution while continuing to urge the government to adopt a ‘whole diet’ approach.”



"Weak" strategy on childhood obesity is wasted opportunity, say experts

9 Mayıs 2014 Cuma

Far better Care Fund strategies are weak but integration is the essential to quality

.

The Far better Care Fund is below scrutiny. Photograph: Martin Godwin




The Better Care Fund is under scrutiny, and with it, nearby government’s function in the health and care technique.


Until finally a number of weeks in the past, integration was observed as the ideal hope for enhancing care good quality although coping with rising demand in an age of austerity. Now that belief is faltering.


In March a research by York University of 38 schemes close to the globe pooling overall health and social care resources – including 13 in England – identified none had secured a sustained reduction in hospital use.


Last week, NHS England chief executive Simon Stevens, making clear his scepticism more than the very likely impact of schemes to be funded from up coming year by the Better Care Fund, advised the well being decide on committee: “There are all types of techniques of performing [integration] which do not function.”


Now the Guardian has unveiled Cabinet Office issues that the £3.8bn programme is delivering scant proof that it will minimize hospital admissions – a important aim.


Under the coalition the Cabinet Office has become heavily concerned in scrutinising large policy initiatives. A report by its Implementation Unit has questioned the top quality and evidence base of the programs submitted to the fund by overall health and wellbeing boards.


The roots of the Implementation Unit can be traced back to Labour’s strong prime minister’s delivery unit and it has a related function – pushing departments to translate policy into delivery, with a distinct focus on revolutionary ideas.


It is component of the Implementation Group, which has wide-ranging responsibilities for driving public support and Whitehall reform. Its executive director is Will Cavendish, who as a former director of overall health and wellbeing at the Department of Health is aware of how tough it is to flip integration strategies into outcomes.


It is hardly surprising that the original local strategies for the Better Care Fund are weak. The fund was announced final June, and charged two bodies which had only existed for weeks – clinical commissioning groups and well being and wellbeing boards – with overseeing preparations.


With the NHS and local government frantically making an attempt to get the new wellness structure to operate, it is hardly surprising that they have not been universally profitable in drafting watertight proposals for performing one thing councils and the well being service have not accomplished in 65 many years – coordinating their perform.


Health and wellbeing boards signed off the programs. Almost all committed a critical error – they failed to involve their hospitals sufficiently in drawing them up. This is an understandable error, given that the legislation establishing the boards skews them heavily in the direction of overseeing the commissioning side of the NHS, and does not determine hospital trusts as compulsory members. It is taking boards time to realise they should disregard this and embrace the trusts as full partners.


But the injury has been accomplished. With hospitals feeling they are being stripped of badly needed money to pay for an untested scheme from which they felt excluded, NHS self-confidence in the Much better Care Fund has all but collapsed.


The integration strategies have also exposed regional government’s weakness when it comes to supplying robust proof to justify policy (though ministers are hardly in a place to lecture on this). When attempting to win over a health service which is heavily dependent on data and evidence, the paucity of convincing numbers has left the Better Care Fund plans hunting unconvincing.


The fund is totemic of the new partnership among local government and the NHS. No matter how difficult, it is essential that councils make it a good results, and show the worth of the leadership and accountability that they can deliver to the well being support.


There is nonetheless time to make it function. The schemes run from April 2015, so there is a year to deal with weaknesses and involve trusts. Councils should be observed to be tough in testing assumptions, as well as gathering data on what works and jettisoning rapidly what doesn’t. This is a massive check of councils’ credibility.


• Want your say? E mail sarah.marsh@theguardian.com to recommend contributions to the network.


Not currently a member? Join us now for much more comment, examination and the newest occupation options in local government.




Far better Care Fund strategies are weak but integration is the essential to quality