Medical technology in the UK: industry profile

The UK has a large and diverse medical technology (MedTech) industry which forms part of the wider life sciences economy. Its products include medical devices, diagnostics and digital technologies and are used by millions of patients every day, ranging from single-use items such as syringes to complex hospital equipment.

Official statistics from the Office for Life Sciences (OLS) show that, in 2023/24, the UK had 4,360 MedTech companies employing 196,000 people and generating £48.0bn in turnover. This represents around one-third of total UK life sciences turnover (£146.9bn), although MedTech is the largest subsector in terms of employment (55%) and the number of companies (60%). Whilst the latest OLS dataset is not directly comparable with earlier releases, MedTech turnover increased by an average of 6% a year between 2018/19 and 2021/22, according to the Government’s Life Sciences Sector Plan.

Figures from MedTech Europe show the UK is the third-largest MedTech market in Europe by sales, representing 11.9% of the European medical device market. The European market is the second largest in the world after the US and has been growing at an average of 6.0% per year over the past decade.

After a period of growth between 2013 and 2019, the value of UK MedTech exports has plateaued, with increased international competition, post-Brexit uncertainties and regulatory changes cited as factors for this. In 2024, the UK ranked twelfth globally with an export value of £10.0 billion. The value of imports was £15.4 billion, lower than a spike seen in 2020 but remaining higher than import values pre-Covid.

A major strength of the sector is its strong R&D base. It benefits from the UK’s well-developed research infrastructure for health, with a high proportion of MedTech firms originating as university spin-outs.

Advances such as AI, quantum sensing and robotics are driving innovation within the sector and new approaches to prevention, diagnosis and precision medicine. With pressures on the NHS continuing to increase, advanced medical technologies are seen as key by the Government in delivering its 10 Year Health Plan. MedTech is also central to the Government’s Modern Industrial Strategy and has been designated a ‘frontier’ industry within the Life Sciences Sector Plan with high growth potential.

As well as opportunities, the sector faces a number of longstanding challenges including regulatory and procurement barriers. Limited access to finance, growing sustainability demands and rising costs are also significant issues. These are explored in more detail below.

The UK MedTech sector includes core companies that design and manufacture a wide range of products. It also encompasses specialist research and manufacturing contractors, as well as suppliers of consumables, reagents and other inputs used in R&D facilities. This latter group made up just under a third of all medical technology companies in 2021/2 according to figures from OLS.

The sector includes large multinationals but is dominated by SMEs, over 4,100 compared to around 200 larger firms in 2023/4 as shown by figures from OLS. Despite making up the majority of companies, SMEs accounted for a smaller fraction of the medical technology turnover generated in (£22.5bn compared to £25.5bn non-SME).

Whilst larger businesses are typically involved in both R&D and manufacturing, research from KPMG shows that many SMEs face difficulties in turning R&D outputs into commercial products. As a result, they often choose either to license their intellectual property to a larger company or to sell the technology outright.

The Golden Triangle, encompassing London, Oxford, and Cambridge is a prominent hub for research and development in the field of life sciences due to the number of leading univerisites and research institutes. Whilst the South East region has the highest employment and turnover within the MedTech sector, there are also significant UK-wide regional clusters.

MedTech covers regulated products that are designed to diagnose, prevent, monitor, manage or treat a medical condition. The term is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘HealthTech’. Whilst there is overlap, HealthTech is usually broader in focus and includes technologies such as consumer health apps, symptom-tracking tools and telemedicine services that are not necessarily regulated.

The following four product categories are included in the UK Government's definition of MedTech:

• General medical devices – including syringes, dressings, heart valves, ECG monitors, CT scanners, surgical robots, dialysis machines and associated software.
• Active Implantable Medical Devices (AIMDs) - powered implants or partial implants, for example implantable cardiac pacemakers, implantable nerve stimulators, cochlear implants and implantable active monitoring devices
• In vitro diagnostic devices (IVDs) - equipment or systems used for non-invasive tests to examine specimins, including all instruments, software, reagents and calibrators.
• Digital health & software – for example standalone software, decision support and mobile apps.

All medical devices in the UK, including software, are regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and must be registered before being sold in the country. They are classified into four risk-based categories, each requiring different levels of evaluation for the necessary regulatory approval.

OLS statistics previously identified the largest core MedTech product segments by turnover and employment. For 2021, digital health, single-use technology and assistive technology were the top 3 core segments by employment, whilst single-use technology, IVDs and digital health were the top 3 by turnover. Each of these top 3 segments represented about 32% of core MedTech employment/turnover in 2021.

In the UK, MedTech companies typically have a single dominant customer in the NHS.

The NHS spends an estimated £10bn per year on MedTech. Within NHS MedTech spend, the largest five product types by share of spend in 2021 were implants and prosthesis (17%), surgical equipment (16%), laboratory equipment (11%), sterile procedure packs (11%) and IV equipment (9%). The vast majority of its MedTech spend is in secondary care, but there is also significant spend, roughly £1 billion per year, in community care, including primary care.

The NHS Supply Chain handles around half of NHS trust procurement spend. Other channels for suppliers include Government contracts and tenders, working with NHS regional procurement hubs, national framework agreements such as those run by the Crown Commercial Service and selling direct to integrated care systems, trusts or primary care organisations. Special national programmes such as the MedTech funding mandate also occasionally provide alternative central routes.

The private healthcare sector represents an additional customer segment, though its overall expenditure is considerably smaller than that of the NHS. According to LaingBuisson, the UK private acute healthcare market was valued at approximately £13.8 billion in 2024, supported by continued strength in revenues from private medical insurance.

The regulatory landscape for MedTech has changed significantly since Brexit. The UKCA (UK Conformity Assessed) marking system has replaced the EU's CE mark as the route to market in Great Britain, increasing regulatory cost and complexity for medical device manufacturers, particularly those operating across multiple markets who must navigate divergent regulatory pathways. At the same time, more complex EU regulations have been introduced for MedTech and IVD, adding to the regulatory burden for manufacturers accessing the European market. Navigating the regulatory system can be particularly difficult for SMEs, who often lack in-house regulatory expertise and report difficulties in obtaining guidance.

Timelines for full UKCA adoption have shifted repeatedly, creating uncertainty and complicating long-term planning. These issues have been compounded by resource constraints at the MHRA and limited capacity among UK-approved bodies, contributing to approval delays and regulatory bottlenecks. According to one industry source, average UKCA approval times are currently between 24 and 30 months. A survey by the Association of British HealthTech Industries (ABHI) in 2025 found that more than 40% of companies are prioritising approvals in other markets ahead of the UK, with regulatory uncertainty having a detrimental impact on UK investment. An increasing number of manufacturers are instead focusing on US certification, with concerns the UK risks becoming a secondary market for innovative medical technologies.

In July 2025, the MHRA announced proposals to introduce international reliance routes to address some of the barriers arising from regulatory divergence. Under these plans, certain devices approved by trusted regulators in Australia, Canada and the United States would be eligible for a streamlined route to the UK market, an initiative welcomed by the sector. However, with reliance routes not expected to be fully operational until 2027, a key decision for manufacturers in 2026 according to Nelson Advisors is whether to invest in the existing UKCA process or wait for the streamlined international route, risking a delay in market entry.

The MHRA has also proposed removing the requirement for a physical UKCA mark in favour of unique device identification, alongside potential indefinite recognition of CE-marked medical devices. Whilst these measures would reduce regulatory burden, post-market compliance obligations have increased under the strengthened Post-Market Surveillance regime introduced in June 2025.

Supporting the MHRA to become a faster and more agile regulator is a core objective of the Life Sciences Sector Plan. The Plan also proposes a new innovation-friendly domestic route to UKCA certification, alongside reforms to speed up the regulation of AI and software as a medical device. According to ABHI, slow regulatory processes continue to hinder progress in digital and AI-driven innovation in the UK, with other nations such as the US doing more to promote AI innovation and adoption.

Overall, whilst the current regulatory environment remains challenging, Government policy signals a shift towards a more modern and supportive framework, with the potential to improve market access and strengthen the UK’s attractiveness for innovative MedTech products.

Even when regulatory approval has been secured, MedTech companies continue to face a slow and fragmented route to market. A major challenge is securing adoption within the NHS. In research by Imperial College, the NHS procurement process was frequently cited as the main reason why manufacturers choose to avoid the UK market.

Procurement remains highly decentralised, with Integrated Care Boards (ICBs), individual trusts and procurement hubs applying varying criteria with duplicated evaluation processes. NHS systems are often bureaucratic and resource-intensive, with slow decision-making that is poorly aligned to firms’ innovation cycles. According to ABHI, almost one in three companies surveyed chose not to bid for an NHS tender in 2024 due to unworkable procurement requirements. Whilst larger companies tend to have the resources and relationships needed to engage with national procurement organisations, the Health Tech Alliance highlights that SMEs are often left without a clear route to market.

The Government has acknowledged NHS procurement as a critical bottleneck and, through the Life Sciences Sector Plan, has committed to streamlining the process. Reforms include ‘low-friction’ access to the NHS through a Rules Based Pathway, enabling technologies that meet predefined criteria to progress more predictably to adoption, and an NHS Innovator Passport, designed to reduce repeated local assessments across the health service for innovative technologies.

These procurement reforms sit alongside other efforts to streamline the transition from regulatory approval to NHS adoption. The Life Sciences Sector Plan seeks to improve coordination between the MHRA and NICE, which assesses the clinical and cost effectiveness of medical technologies to inform NHS decision-making. Initiatives include a single, integrated scientific advice service and closer alignment between regulatory approvals and NICE guidance. The Government also plans to build on the Innovative Devices Access Pathway (ILAP), supporting earlier, more joined-up engagement between MHRA, NICE and the NHS for innovative technologies.

The UK’s approach to funding and valuing HealthTech can also discourage companies from prioritising the UK for commercialisation, with industry leaders such as J&J highlighting the NHS’s focus on unit price and in-year savings. From 2026, NHS England will move towards value-based procurement, shifting the emphasis to the overall value and outcomes of medical technologies. Whilst this transition will challenge some suppliers, it presents opportunities for MedTech firms able to demonstrate measurable impact beyond price alone. The removal of deficit support funding from April 2026 means NHS trusts and ICBs will prioritise technologies that provide immediate and measurable return on investment, also changing the criteria for market success for MedTech firms.

In summary, the UK MedTech route to market looks set to become more coordinated, with clearer and faster pathways for innovative technologies in particular. At the same time, there will be greater expectations on companies to demonstrate real-world value and measurable outcomes within the NHS.

The UK’s ageing population and rising prevalence of chronic disease are increasing demand for MedTech. According to The Health Foundation, one in four people is projected to be over 65 by 2040, whilst 9.1 million people in England are expected to be living with major illness, 2.5 million more than in 2019. This will place even greater pressure on an already stretched health service.

MedTech is central to the Government’s 10 Year Health Plan in delivering an NHS fit for the future. Much of the projected growth in illness is in conditions managed primarily in primary care and community settings, and so a central pillar of the plan is shifting care out of hospitals and into the community through the development of Neighbourhood Health Centres. This creates significant opportunities for MedTech companies, particularly in diagnostics, self-management tools and home-based therapies. Demand is likely to grow for digital and AI-enabled technologies such as portable diagnostics and remote monitoring technologies (see also section below).

A shift from sickness to prevention is also at the heart of the plan. This will create demand for diagnostics, genomics and precision medicine tools that can accelerate early detection of disease. In particular, the Government plans to create a new genomics population health service by the end of the decade which, alongside other emerging diagnostic tools, will enable early identification and intervention for individuals at high risk of developing common diseases.

From a clinical perspective, ABHI sees strong potential for the sector to contribute to chronic and long-term conditions including diabetes, obesity, cardiometabolic diseases and orthopaedic related conditions. These put significant pressure on the health system in terms of volume and cost, with MedTech innovations well placed to scale effective solutions.

However, these opportunities are not without challenge. Many health sector bodies have questioned the plan’s feasibility in practice, noting a lack of implementation detail, uncertainty over funding and the risk that long-term ambitions for reform may prove difficult to deliver at scale. Whilst the opportunities for MedTech companies are significant, the Government’s ability to deliver on its commitments will be key.

Technology is rapidly transforming the world of healthcare. Key trends include AI-enabled diagnostics and wearable-based remote monitoring, reflecting a shift towards digital, personalised and data-driven healthcare.

A shift from analogue to digital systems forms another key pillar of the Government’s 10 Year Health Plan. A significant expansion of digitally enabled care is planned, including the scaling of virtual wards, greater integration of wearable technologies, expanded diagnostic capacity and the embedding of AI-enabled tools across clinical pathways, creating clear demand for MedTech. The planned evolution of the NHS App into a 'single front door' for patient interaction by 2028 with a Single Patient Record to integrate data from validated wearables, also creates huge opportunities for firms with interoperable digital health tools. Firms with strong digital and data capabilities will be well placed, with Grant Thornton anticipating increased M&A activity as firms seek to acquire technologies and strengthen innovation capacity.

Scaling digital innovations within the NHS is currently challenging however, with around 90% of AI tools remaining confined to pilot phases according to Nelson Advisers. Complex procurement and local governance processes, alongside fragmented and outdated IT infrastructure, create significant barriers. As BCG also point out, inconsistent data-sharing and limited data integration across organisations hinder its use for insight generation, with gaps in NHS workforce capacity and digital skills further constraining the deployment of new technologies.

Other challenges for the MedTech sector as it expands into data-driven healthcare and AI-enabled applications include developing the skills for future growth. The use of AI brings risks for MedTech firms too, including concerns over safety, reliability, bias, data privacy and security. The MHRA’s new framework for Software and AI as a Medical Device (SaMD/AIaMD) due to be implemented by mid-2026, will increase regulatory clarity in this area. Building on the 'AI Airlock' regulatory sandbox, it aims to enable the safe adoption of AI in the UK.

In summary, Government reforms are creating substantial opportunities for digitally enabled MedTech, although some within the sector have expressed concerns over whether there will be enough investment and committment to turn the Government’s digital plans into a reality. Challenges also include workforce issues, safety concerns and persistent NHS structural barriers.

Developing new MedTech products is a long, high-risk and resource-intensive process, with delays between invention and first revenue creating cash-flow pressures for start-ups. Public funding from bodies such as Innovate UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) provide important support for MedTech firms. Research from Imperial College suggests, however, that grant funding remains insufficient and application processes overly complex, with concerns that funding is disproportionately concentrated in the South East.

Government support also includes a range of tax incentives aimed at encouraging innovation and investment. This includes R&D tax relief, although a KPMG survey indicates the system can be complex to navigate for some MedTech firms. The Patent Box regime allows companies to apply a reduced rate of corporation tax to profits derived from patented inventions, although awareness of the scheme remains relatively low, particularly among SMEs. The Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme (SEIS) and Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) also support early-stage businesses by providing tax reliefs to investors, helping firms attract funding.

Private investment activity within the UK MedTech sector is strong according to Beauhurst, with 708 fundraisings worth £4.89 billion recorded in 2024. Its figures show UK MedTech companies raised £34.2 billion across 6,821 equity fundraisings since 2005. More than 80% of deals were directed at seed and venture-stage businesses, indicating strong investor appetite for early-stage MedTech innovation. KPMG’s survey suggests limited private market interest in funding R&D activities within the UK sector generally, however, the absence of guaranteed reimbursement for products acting as a deterrent to private investment.

A particular challenge is the lack of funding in the UK for MedTech companies attempting to scale-up and grow. With support falling away as products move towards clinical research and manufacturing, CPI notes that many UK SMEs are forced to seek funding overseas where it is more easily available. This challenge is compounded by a broader decline in Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into the UK life sciences sector. In 2017 FDI in the life sciences was the second highest globally, but the UK had fallen to eighth place by 2023. MedTech manufacturing has been particularly impacted by rising fuel, labour and freight costs, with these pressures also constraining manufacturing investment in the UK according to ABHI.

The government has recognised these challenges in the Life Sciences Sector Plan, which proposes enhanced grant support for MedTech. This includes manufacturing, with up to £520 million through the Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund. This could create new opportunities for companies to scale and expand their manufacturing capabilities, as well as improving the UK’s attractiveness as a destination for MedTech investment.

In England, the NHS accounts for around 4% of national greenhouse gas emissions, with over 60% of its carbon footprint arising from the supply chain and around 10% directly linked to medical equipment. The NHS Net Zero Supplier Roadmap requires suppliers to align with the NHS’s net zero ambitions by 2045, with interim requirements around emissions reporting, carbon reduction planning and, over time, more detailed product-level data.

For many businesses, especially SMEs, implementation of the roadmap is proving challenging. According to ABHI, sustainability-related costs have risen in the past year for more than 55% of companies surveyed, while a lack of resources and specialist expertise remains a significant barrier, particularly in relation to Scope 3 reporting and lifecycle assessments.

Alongside emissions, waste is another major issue. The NHS Clinical Waste Strategy reports that the NHS produces around 156,000 tonnes of clinical waste each year in the UK, with single-use devices such as syringes, catheters and endoscopes making a substantial contribution. In response, the NHS Design for Life Roadmap aims to move healthcare away from avoidable single-use products towards a more circular model by 2045, prioritising reuse, remanufacture, recycling and lower-waste product design.

As pressure to deliver greener healthcare increases, it also creates opportunities for firms that can deliver clinically safe and effective products with a lower environmental impact. Examples of sustainable medtech innovation include endoscopy solutions made from bioplastics and UV-based sterilisation technologies.

Circular economy approaches also provide opportunities to address wider industry pressures. Medtech supply chains, often underpinned by complex international supply chains for raw materials and components, have faced increased volatility due to global shocks, geopolitical uncertainty, rising input costs and trade tensions. By keeping products and materials in use for longer, circular approaches can strengthen supply-chain resilience and reduce exposure to scarce materials and cost pressures.

Sustainability is therefore becoming an increasingly important consideration for MedTech firms, shaping areas such as procurement, product development and long-term competitive advantage.

The size and diversity of the UK MedTech industry means that any list of notable players will not be fully representative or comprehensive. That said, some examples of noteworthy players are set out below.

• Abbott - Global medical technology company, headquartered in the US, with a substantial UK presence. With core businesses including in-vitro diagnostics and medical devices, it is a significant supplier to the NHS.
• Big Health - SME that provides digital treatments and care programs for various mental health conditions, delivered via Software as Medical Device apps.
• Baxter - American multinational healthcare company with a significant UK presence. One of the largest suppliers to the NHS, it provides over 7,500 products and services including infusion systems, renal care products and surgical solutions.
• CMR Surgical - Cambridge-based surgical robotics company behind the Versius robotic-assisted surgery system, used for minimally invasive procedures in a number of UK hospitals and rapdily gaining adoption worldwide.
• Convatec - London-headquartered global medical technology group with significant market positions in advanced wound care, ostomy care, continence care and infusion care. Listed on the FTSE 100.
• Creo Medical Group - Wales-based medical device company specialising in minimally invasive surgical endoscopy, including advanced energy instruments, which are used in UK and EU hospitals. Listed on the FTSE AIM.
• GAMA Healthcare - Hertfordshire-based infection prevention company known for Clinell disinfectant wipes and other hygiene and isolation products used widely in the NHS.
• Johnson & Johnson (J&J) - American healthcare multinational with significant presence within the UK medical technology sector in areas including surgical care, cardiovascular solutions and orthopaedics.
• Medtronic - Global medical technology company, headquartered in Ireland. Collaborates with the NHS on medtech innovation, research and digital solutions, including robotic surgery and AI development hubs.
• Oxford Nanopore Technologies - A spin-out from the University of Oxford, the company provides portable, real-time DNA/RNA sequencing devices used in genomics and infectious disease surveillance. Currently partnering with Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust to increase accurate diagnoses of respiratory infections. Listed on the FTSE 250.
• Terumo Aortic - Global medical device company headquartered in the UK, specialising in innovative solutions for treating aortic and peripheral vascular disease. One of the largest medical technology employers in the UK, with a major manufacturing presence in Glasgow.
• Thermo Fisher Scientific - US life sciences company supplying analytical instruments, laboratory equipment, reagents and diagnostic solutions worldwide. The company has a significant UK presence, operating across 26 sites with over 5000 employees.
• Smith+Nephew - Global medical technology group, headquartered in Watford, specialising in orthopaedics, endoscopy and advanced wound management products. Listed on the FTSE 100.
• Quanta - Medical technology company headquartered in Warwickshire that has developed an innovative, portable haemodialysis device designed to deliver kidney therapies across clinical and home settings.

ICAEW’s Library & Information Service can provide information on UK and Irish participants in the MedTech industry via its wide range of company information services. This includes:

• Information on company acquisitions in the sector
• Private company transaction multiples
• Company data
• Beta values for companies and the sector
• P/E ratios for companies and the sector

For more information, please contact our enquiry team on +44 (0)20 7920 8620 or at library@icaew.com to discuss your requirements.

The websites of professional bodies and other organisations in the sector are a useful source of industry overviews, contacts and statistics.

• Association of British Healthtech Industries (ABHI)
• AXREM
• BioPartner UK
• British In Vitro Diagnostics Associationa (BIVDA)
• British Healthcare Trades Association (BHTA)
• Department of Health & Social Care
• Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT)
• HealthTech Alliance (HTA)
• Health Technology Wales
• HealthTech Scotland
• Innovate UK
• Life Sciences Hub Wales
• Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)
• MedilinkUK
• MediWales
• OBN
• One Nucleus
• Proprietary Association of Great Britain (PAGB)
• Tech UK

Europe and Global

• Global Medical Technology Alliance (GMTA)
• MedTech Europe