In a letter to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, Lord Vallance said the deal would be ‘funded by allocations made to DHSC at the Spending Review, where front-line services will remain protected through the record funding secured'.

Dame Chi Onwurah, chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, said: ‘This deal carries a significant cost and it's up to the Government to ensure to ensure that it delivers significant return. It's crucial that the benefits to UK patients outweigh the projected financial cost, particularly given the huge existing demands on the NHS. As the deal progresses, domestic health and life sciences policy must remain the priority – not the interests of US pharmaceutical companies.'

Speaking to the Health and Social Care Committee in December, health and social care secretary Wes Streeting said: ‘I am absolutely confident we will not cut NHS budgets to fund this.'

Streeting said if the NHS was not able to absorb the additional cost within its existing budget it would hold talks with the Treasury.

Speaking to Healthcare Management in November, Sally Gainsbiry, chief policy analyst at the Nuffield Trust, said there would be an opportunity cost for the NHS with funding that could have been spent on frontline services being spent on higher drug prices.

‘If you think of what the purpose of the NHS budget is, you would not be about to spend a £1bn or more extra on new branded medicines,' Gainsbury said. 

‘That is not where that extra money would be going. That extra money would be going towards very noble and important ambitions, included in the 10-Year Plan, such as improving access to primary care in poor areas.'

In further news, a Lord Committee report has called on the Government to treat medicine supply shortages as a national security issue.

The call followed increasing concerns about medicines shortages with 73% of pharmacy workers in 2025 stating that ongoing issues with medicines supply were putting patients at risk.