Is Ozempic the miracle fix for Britain's labour market woes? This morning Health Secretary Wes Streeting has announced a £280 million investment into the UK from US pharmaceutical giant Lilly, which will include the first 'real-world trial' to give weight-loss jabs to people out of work. The news coincides with the publication of the latest labour market overview by the Office for National Statistics, showing the number of people out of work due to long-term sickness is still at a near-record high: 2.75 million in the three months to August.
As Streeting highlights in the Daily Telegraph today, obesity is creating both a strain on the health service and on the economy. As costs rise for the NHS to treat obesity-related illness, the additional revenue that might help pay for such treatments is being lost due to so many working-age people being out of a job. This trial will be an experiment in whether that vicious circle can come to an end: the paper reports that up to 3,000 clinically obese NHS patients will be part of a five-year study to see whether receiving weight loss jabs leads to a return to work.
It's an interesting idea - and it's not the first time it has been considered within the health department. The previous government also considered the benefits that weight loss jabs might have for the health not just of the individual, but of the economy. The tricky part was finding the money to finance such an initiative, at a time when there was (and still is) so little headroom for additional spending. But securing this private investment - Lilly was one of the companies at the investment summit yesterday, making positive noises about the direction of the government - makes a trial possible. Depending on the results, the cost-benefit analysis might point in the direction of more Treasury funding for pricey jabs, if it leads to greater economic reward.
Ozempic may be a magic bullet for weight loss, but it's not going to be a magic fix to Britain's struggling welfare system, which has seen the return of a worklessness crisis following the pandemic. Still, news of today's trial is early indication that the government - or the health department - is increasingly serious about linking up innovation and health outcomes. Their intention seems to be to make this part of their overall 'growth' initiative - which seems to have taken the back seat to tax cuts and borrowing plans in recent weeks, as the details of the Budget at the end of the month start coming into focus.
The question now is whether the government will continue to be as pragmatic about evidenced-based policy when it comes to its health agenda. In Streeting's comment piece for the Telegraph, he notes that 'the NHS can't be expected to always pick up the tab for unhealthy lifestyles'. Wise words, which are unfortunately followed by the recommitment to ban 'junk food adverts targeted at kids' - a broad ambition that has ended, in the past, in absurd and unnecessary bans.
This is one of the many measures now linked to Labour, which is also seeing through Rishi Sunak's generational smoking ban. It is currently considering a host of other nanny state options, including extending the sugar tax, as well as banning smoking in pub gardens and outside nightclubs.
Where sugar taxes have been tried, with the aim of tackling obesity, they have failed. The data around smoking in the UK shows the young heavily rejecting cigarettes without the government stepping in to create two tiers of consumer rights. Now we have thrown into the mix a far more pragmatic policy that might actually yield some results.