Why most UK MedTech companies stall before they scale
The UK MedTech industry is one of the world’s largest. Home to over 4,000 MedTech businesses and 138,000 jobs, the sector generates an estimated annual turnover of £27.6 billion (DHSC, 2024).
But despite spending around £10 billion a year on MedTech, adoption rates within the NHS have continued to lag behind comparable healthcare systems across Europe.
This discrepancy can be explained through structural factors specific to the NHS, including:
Complex, multi-layered procurement frameworks
A fragmented ICB landscape post-2022 Health and Care Act reforms
The absence of a single national reimbursement body
MedTech companies that fail to acknowledge and adapt to these structural realities will inevitably stall between regulatory approval and commercial adoption.
In contrast, the fastest-growing businesses factor them into decision-making from day one, actively building their commercial and communication strategies around market constraints.
In the next section, we’ll cover a crucial aspect of this approach: early evidence generation.
Building the evidence base that commissioners actually trust
Knowing that NHS commissioners look for evidence-backed products, high-growth MedTech companies approach evidence generation strategically, treating it as a commercial function rather than just a compliance exercise.
They design clinical studies to meet official regulatory standards from the outset, which allows products to move through the ICB procurement process faster than those that retrofit.
MedTech companies aiming to replicate this trajectory should build an evidence base that satisfies NICE’s Evidence Standards Framework for Digital Health Technologies.
The benefits go beyond compliance.
Recent changes to the NHS’ MedTech procurement strategy mean that commissioners are under greater pressure to invest in products that are clinically effective, cost-efficient and interoperable.
In this environment, MedTech companies that can demonstrate real-world evidence (RWE) of improved patient outcomes at minimal cost have an advantage over those that rely on randomised controlled trial data (RCT) alone.
The most effective commercial strategies involve health-economics modelling (e.g. cost-per-outcome, bed-day savings) at an early stage. This data is then proactively presented to commissioners during the first conversation, not as a response to a procurement question.
Navigating MHRA regulation as a competitive advantage.
The post-Brexit regulatory environment for medical devices is currently in a transitional stage. Crucially, UKCA accreditation is set to replace the old system for labelling market-standard products, the EU’s CE-marking scheme.
So, what’s the deadline for CE-marked devices seeking UKCA accreditation?
EU MDD-compliant devices will be accepted until June 30, 2028.
EU MDR- or IVDR-compliant devices have until June 30, 2030.
However, these deadlines are subject to change. A 2026 consultation on the indefinite acceptance of CE-marked devices has recently closed, with an official government response expected imminently.
The current regulatory landscape is confusing to navigate, and MedTech companies often perceive UKCA/CE accreditation as a roadblock, rather than an opportunity.
But securing MHRA approval doesn't have to be a long, drawn-out process.
MedTech companies that open a pre-submission conversation with MHRA during the product development phase report faster, more predictable timelines. MHRA's Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (ILAP), while primarily a medicines route, signals a regulatory culture that increasingly favours early dialogue
And MHRA regulation can actually be a competitive advantage.
As it stands, companies pursuing UKCA and CE marking simultaneously will be better placed to access both domestic and EU-export markets. This is an effective way for MedTech companies to distinguish themselves from competitors without international ambitions.
What the NHS partnership models that actually work look like
MedTech companies that secure NHS partnerships can often expedite the procurement process. But how does this actually work?
Health Innovation Networks (HINs)
Health Innovation Networks (formerly known as Academic Health Science Networks) help health professionals across ICS boundaries find, test, and implement more efficient ways to deliver care.
MedTech companies can harness these networks to pilot products in real-world settings (useful for gathering RWE) and reach new buyers.
The best way to go about this is through concerted relationship building. Companies that have at least one dedicated HIN relationship manager on their commercial team report shorter sales cycles.
The MedTech Funding Mandate (MTFM)
The MedTech Funding Mandate is an accelerated pathway that aims to get NICE-approved medical devices to patients more quickly than usual routes. The MTFM doesn’t provide funding itself, but mandates commissioners to fund MTFM-approved devices where appropriate.
To qualify for the MTFM, MedTech companies must be able to show that a product aligns with broader NHS goals, in addition to being effective, cost-saving, and affordable. This supports our earlier point emphasising the importance of proactive evidence-gathering.
MedTech companies that successfully make it onto the MTFM list enter the conversation with procurement teams from a position of strength; they’ve already had the value of their product affirmed.
But building relationships with HIN leads and securing a place on the MTFM list requires a level of pre-existing company credibility. The next section emphasises the importance of communications for building a coherent public profile.
Telling the story publicly: why narrative is now a growth lever.
Policy audiences in 2026 are more receptive to MedTech company narratives than ever before.
Government ambitions to make the UK a global hub for medical innovation, captured in the Life Sciences Vision (2021) and the NHS’ 10 Year Plan (2025), have set the stage for MedTech companies to position executive thought leaders as credible voices in the policy conversation.
In doing so, they reduce the distance between a minister’s office and a procurement decision.
But MedTech company narratives are useful for more than just influencing policy.
Reaching investors and clinical buyers no longer requires separate communications tracks. A singular, coherent, public narrative that weaves in clinical outcomes, health-system economics, and UK industrial strategy is actually more persuasive to both audiences than separate messaging.
A successful MedTech communications strategy builds credibility with the audiences that matter before a product goes to market.
Fast-growing companies tend to share a handful of habits:
They actively engage with trade publications, including the Health Service Journal, the BMJ, and Pulse. Content matters too; effective thought leadership involves placing opinion pieces, not just issuing press releases.
They develop an authoritative, clinical voice and maintain a spokesperson presence at NHS England stakeholder events. Company representatives undergo formal, tailored media training.
They build a body of published evidence in peer-reviewed journals that commissioners can refer to when making procurement decisions.
Companies that leave credibility-building to the last minute will struggle to win contracts in a highly competitive landscape. A commissioner’s internal sign-off process is easier when the company already has a public profile.
The bottom line: parallel tracks, not sequential ones
The fastest-growing MedTech companies all have one thing in common: they treat evidence, regulation, NHS relationships, and communications as parallel objectives. They engage with all four simultaneously, building credibility before a product reaches the market.
This approach isn’t exclusive to larger companies with free-flowing resources. MedTech companies operating on a tight budget are still capable of running these tracks in parallel if the strategy is set correctly from the outset.
If you’re still treating market access as a post-approval issue, 2026 is the year to rethink your MedTech company’s longer-term strategy. Ignoring the problem now only creates greater delays down the line.
To see how you measure up to competitors in 2026, check out our MedTech Index.
