Connect with us

International

To Health: Xalud Therapeutics Is Bringing Gene Therapy to the Masses

When the term "gene therapy" comes up, the first thing that comes to mind is often some sort of gene replacement or gene editing (either a DNA correction…

Published

on

When the term “gene therapy” comes up, the first thing that comes to mind is often some sort of gene replacement or gene editing (either a DNA correction or disruption) to treat a well-defined Mendelian genetic disorder like sickle cell disease or phenylketonuria—not some broad, genetic, complex condition like inflammation or osteoarthritis. Well, unless you are Diem Nguyen, PhD, CEO of Xalud Therapeutics in New York City.

Diem Nguyen, PhD, CEO of Xalud Therapeutics

Nguyen is driving the construction of a platform for DNA-based gene therapy that is aimed to help treat pathological inflammation by adjusting the immune system. The company’s most promising product candidate, XT-150, uses interleukin-10 (IL-10), a powerful cytokine that acts as a master regulator for multiple inflammatory pathways, to get to the root cause of inflammation and bring the immune system back to a state of homeostasis. XT-150 is a plasmid DNA gene therapy that can be injected locally. It uses IL-10v, a proprietary version of IL-10, to treat pain and inflammation caused by disease.

The company’s name comes from the blending of the Spanish word for health (“salud”) and the letter “X,” referring to IL-10 as Xalud’s primary target.

Nguyen’s ambitions are backed by 25 years of experience, including significant time spent at Pfizer as global president, Americas, Pfizer Essential Health and Global Sterile Injectables, where she was responsible for commercial businesses in the United States, Latin America, Canada, and Puerto Rico. She was also in charge of commercial development for the sterile injectables business. Nguyen led Pfizer’s efforts to buy Hospira and integrate it to make a leading business with global annual sales of $6 billion.

GEN Edge caught up with Nguyen at last month’s J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference to hear about her vision for Xalud Therapeutics and the use of non-viral DNA gene therapies for treating complex diseases.

GENE Edge: What’s the science driving Xalud?

Diem: We are actually delivering gene therapy—not for rare diseases but for large chronic indications. We like to say that it’s gene therapy for the masses! We can target such large indications and, ultimately, patients because it’s a non-viral DNA delivery. Everyone is always focused on viral gene therapy, but some challenges are being discovered as it relates to safety.

With the COVID-19 pandemic, suddenly everyone knows about mRNA. What we’ve learned through this process is that there’s a new wave of new therapies that are delivered by gene therapy. The important piece of it is the education on the distinctions between non-viral DNA, non-viral mRNA, and viral gene therapy that most people think about when they think about gene therapy. For us, non-viral DNA delivery is extremely exciting because you can re-dose without worrying about safety because you’re not considering genome integration.

DNA manufacturing is extremely efficient. We’re not talking about significant costs like in AAV manufacturing. We’re not talking about the instability of mRNA that drives more expenses as well as challenges in distribution and storage. Double-stranded DNA is a very stable entity. As a result, the manufacturing efficiency is much higher than with either of the two methods I just described.

I know I’m trying to highlight a lot of the benefits associated with DNA delivery. I’m not saying that one is better than the other. I think everybody has to think about what problem they’re trying to solve and what delivery mechanism will be best to provide a solution.

GEN Edge: Why did you select IL-10 as Xalud’s gene therapy target?

Diem: I like cytokines! If you ask me what to put in a system when you need continuous blocking, our approach wouldn’t be the right disease model. But if you’re looking for just the right enhancement for hormones or cytokines, it’s actually a beautiful way to deliver.

IL-10 is exciting because it’s such a potent cytokine, and this cytokine sits all the way at the top regarding the biological signaling pathways for several inflammatory pathways, like TNF-α and Interferon-γ. Guess which cytokine sits above that? It’s IL-10. So when you think about drug discovery, you’re thinking about targets for inflammation.

Many people have been very focused on some of these downstream targets. Our biology is filled with redundant pathways. If you solve for one pathway, another pathway starts firing—that’s the challenge associated with inflammation. If you stop TNF-α, then suddenly something else compensates for it.

We have the ability to influence multiple pathways because IL-10 sits upstream. The nice thing about IL-10 is that, particularly for osteoarthritis of the knee that we’re working through, it’s not an anesthetic. We’re not blocking pain. We’re not blocking something that’s already firing in your body. What we’re doing is expressing IL-10 and letting it work as an anti-inflammatory by reducing pro-inflammatory mediators. The key is the restoration of this imbalance in your body.

Inflammation is always a balance of anti-inflammatory and pro-inflammatory factors. Pro-inflammatory is good because it alerts you to a problem so you can correct it, but in a healthy body, it is resolved by increased anti-inflammatory mediators, and you live in this normal, healthy stasis state. Interleukin-10 encourages getting back to that balance. I think that’s why we are seeing a long duration of benefit from a therapeutic perspective. Equally important, we are seeing a safety profile that is in a class of its own, when you think about treatments for osteoarthritis in the knee.

GEN Edge: How are you targeting IL-10?

Diem: IL-10 has not been druggable yet, and it’s largely driven by the concept of protein delivery. The protein delivery is adequate, but IL-10s have a short half-life. And you can only do a systemic infusion. So you can only imagine how much IL-10 you’d have to give a patient to show therapeutic benefit with such a short half-life.

Now you solve a bit of that with the fact that you have plasmid DNA that’s endocytosed and continuously expressed in local areas of sites of inflammation. We solved those pieces with the delivery mechanism. The second aspect is that we have a proprietary IL-10 that has shown an extension of benefit in animal models.

We’ve solved two problems here. The first is ensuring you have enough IL-10 that’s not getting eliminated from an activity perspective. Second, this variant has been shown to have a durational benefit.

The transgene and our formulation for delivery to encourage endocytosis of the vector are proprietary, and we have not seen antibody formation associated with our transgene. That’s why it’s so exciting to think about chronic diseases like osteoarthritis and several inflammatory diseases where it’s not a one-and-done. People will suffer from several of these symptoms for the rest of their lives. You want to be able to provide not only a solution but a sustainable solution for patients.

GEN Edge: Where is Xalud placing its chips for the future?

Diem: I have three value creation horizons in mind. Maximizing potential across multiple therapeutic areas is the first step in creating value. IL-10 plays a role in so many disease areas. In some ways, the world is our oyster, especially when it comes to musculoskeletal diseases. So, we’re going after osteoarthritis for the knee and Facet Syndrome for the hip and shoulder. Those are abundant.

The company was founded with the goal of addressing neuropathic pain and the CNS. We’ve published on IL-10 in multiple sclerosis (MS) and its ability to actually slow down the progression in terms of several MS biomarkers, weight, and survival. What’s most exciting to me is that I’m going after ALS. We have shown amazing data on the dose-dependent benefits of neurofilament light chain and other neurogenerative biomarkers. We are looking at astroglial and neuronal health. Most importantly, in our treatment groups of mice, from a survival perspective, it’s astounding.

The therapeutic areas I just outlined are really big therapeutic areas. That could keep any biotech company busy.

But one of my experiences is running large businesses at Pfizer, so I always want more! We’re pursuing a DNA delivery platform. So our thought process here is that we can deliver locally, and we’ve demonstrated that we can deliver across interarticular, intrathecal, and intravital spaces. We’ve also been able to demonstrate reduced inflammation in uveitis as well. I’d like to move on to skin and psoriasis.

One of the areas that we’re looking at is with our vector, where we’re providing chemical linkers that can allow you to attach ligands. That is, it can be administered systemically but with a more targeted tissue targeting approach. By enhancing our platform, I can go after not only IL-10 but many different transgene targets in oncology or any therapeutic area that I think would be amenable to this type of delivery mechanism.

I want to go into another generation of vectors where the promoter senses the environment. For example, with homeostasis, you may see more proinflammatory cytokines coming up, which would trigger a promoter to express the anti-inflammatory gene.

GEN Edge: How is 2023 going to look for Xalud? 

Diem: Xalud is extremely excited about where the industry is moving from a nucleic acid perspective. We are extremely excited about the fact that we’ve been able to solve a drug target that’s so important for many large indications.

I would say that the biotech market needs to continue to fund good science. I understand that there has been some volatility, which has caused people to be hesitant about investing, but I believe that we as an industry need to get back to taking risks and investing in some great scientists because there is still a lot of momentum.

We are such a lucky company to have an abundance of opportunities, but I don’t have the scale or resources to take advantage of all of them. I want to be able to maximize my ability to establish partnerships. Everyone has a certain niche where they would want to be able to consider collaboration. I hope to be able to customize it accordingly.

GEN Edge: How has your experience at Pfizer influenced how you approach Xalud?

Diem: I am so blessed to have been able to work at Pfizer for about 10 years. I’ve had a huge amount of ability to meet some really great talent. With our management team, it’s Pfizer-heavy. Pfizer’s drug development experience lends itself to the uniqueness of Xalud. The leaders I brought in have seen it, been there, and done it. In that regard, we’re really thinking about how we’re building out our drug development programs.

It’s just been such a joy to think about the industry and the willingness of so many great leaders to lean in for a little biotech tech company. I’m very proud of our organization and how efficient and thoughtful we are in terms of our efforts to bring medicines to patients.

 

 

 

 

The post To Health: Xalud Therapeutics Is Bringing Gene Therapy to the Masses appeared first on GEN - Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

The millions of people not looking for work in the UK may be prioritising education, health and freedom

Economic inactivity is not always the worst option.

Published

on

By

Taking time out. pathdoc/Shutterstock

Around one in five British people of working age (16-64) are now outside the labour market. Neither in work nor looking for work, they are officially labelled as “economically inactive”.

Some of those 9.2 million people are in education, with many students not active in the labour market because they are studying full-time. Others are older workers who have chosen to take early retirement.

But that still leaves a large number who are not part of the labour market because they are unable to work. And one key driver of economic inactivity in recent years has been illness.

This increase in economic inactivity – which has grown since before the pandemic – is not just harming the economy, but also indicative of a deeper health crisis.

For those suffering ill health, there are real constraints on access to work. People with health-limiting conditions cannot just slot into jobs that are available. They need help to address the illnesses they have, and to re-engage with work through organisations offering supportive and healthy work environments.

And for other groups, such as stay-at-home parents, businesses need to offer flexible work arrangements and subsidised childcare to support the transition from economic inactivity into work.

The government has a role to play too. Most obviously, it could increase investment in the NHS. Rising levels of poor health are linked to years of under-investment in the health sector and economic inactivity will not be tackled without more funding.

Carrots and sticks

For the time being though, the UK government appears to prefer an approach which mixes carrots and sticks. In the March 2024 budget, for example, the chancellor cut national insurance by 2p as a way of “making work pay”.

But it is unclear whether small tax changes like this will have any effect on attracting the economically inactive back into work.

Jeremy Hunt also extended free childcare. But again, questions remain over whether this is sufficient to remove barriers to work for those with parental responsibilities. The high cost and lack of availability of childcare remain key weaknesses in the UK economy.

The benefit system meanwhile has been designed to push people into work. Benefits in the UK remain relatively ungenerous and hard to access compared with other rich countries. But labour shortages won’t be solved by simply forcing the economically inactive into work, because not all of them are ready or able to comply.

It is also worth noting that work itself may be a cause of bad health. The notion of “bad work” – work that does not pay enough and is unrewarding in other ways – can lead to economic inactivity.

There is also evidence that as work has become more intensive over recent decades, for some people, work itself has become a health risk.

The pandemic showed us how certain groups of workers (including so-called “essential workers”) suffered more ill health due to their greater exposure to COVID. But there are broader trends towards lower quality work that predate the pandemic, and these trends suggest improving job quality is an important step towards tackling the underlying causes of economic inactivity.

Freedom

Another big section of the economically active population who cannot be ignored are those who have retired early and deliberately left the labour market behind. These are people who want and value – and crucially, can afford – a life without work.

Here, the effects of the pandemic can be seen again. During those years of lockdowns, furlough and remote working, many of us reassessed our relationship with our jobs. Changed attitudes towards work among some (mostly older) workers can explain why they are no longer in the labour market and why they may be unresponsive to job offers of any kind.

Sign on railings supporting NHS staff during pandemic.
COVID made many people reassess their priorities. Alex Yeung/Shutterstock

And maybe it is from this viewpoint that we should ultimately be looking at economic inactivity – that it is actually a sign of progress. That it represents a move towards freedom from the drudgery of work and the ability of some people to live as they wish.

There are utopian visions of the future, for example, which suggest that individual and collective freedom could be dramatically increased by paying people a universal basic income.

In the meantime, for plenty of working age people, economic inactivity is a direct result of ill health and sickness. So it may be that the levels of economic inactivity right now merely show how far we are from being a society which actually supports its citizens’ wellbeing.

David Spencer has received funding from the ESRC.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Illegal Immigrants Leave US Hospitals With Billions In Unpaid Bills

Illegal Immigrants Leave US Hospitals With Billions In Unpaid Bills

By Autumn Spredemann of The Epoch Times

Tens of thousands of illegal…

Published

on

Illegal Immigrants Leave US Hospitals With Billions In Unpaid Bills

By Autumn Spredemann of The Epoch Times

Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants are flooding into U.S. hospitals for treatment and leaving billions in uncompensated health care costs in their wake.

The House Committee on Homeland Security recently released a report illustrating that from the estimated $451 billion in annual costs stemming from the U.S. border crisis, a significant portion is going to health care for illegal immigrants.

With the majority of the illegal immigrant population lacking any kind of medical insurance, hospitals and government welfare programs such as Medicaid are feeling the weight of these unanticipated costs.

Apprehensions of illegal immigrants at the U.S. border have jumped 48 percent since the record in fiscal year 2021 and nearly tripled since fiscal year 2019, according to Customs and Border Protection data.

Last year broke a new record high for illegal border crossings, surpassing more than 3.2 million apprehensions.

And with that sea of humanity comes the need for health care and, in most cases, the inability to pay for it.

In January, CEO of Denver Health Donna Lynne told reporters that 8,000 illegal immigrants made roughly 20,000 visits to the city’s health system in 2023.

The total bill for uncompensated care costs last year to the system totaled $140 million, said Dane Roper, public information officer for Denver Health. More than $10 million of it was attributed to “care for new immigrants,” he told The Epoch Times.

Though the amount of debt assigned to illegal immigrants is a fraction of the total, uncompensated care costs in the Denver Health system have risen dramatically over the past few years.

The total uncompensated costs in 2020 came to $60 million, Mr. Roper said. In 2022, the number doubled, hitting $120 million.

He also said their city hospitals are treating issues such as “respiratory illnesses, GI [gastro-intenstinal] illnesses, dental disease, and some common chronic illnesses such as asthma and diabetes.”

“The perspective we’ve been trying to emphasize all along is that providing healthcare services for an influx of new immigrants who are unable to pay for their care is adding additional strain to an already significant uncompensated care burden,” Mr. Roper said.

He added this is why a local, state, and federal response to the needs of the new illegal immigrant population is “so important.”

Colorado is far from the only state struggling with a trail of unpaid hospital bills.

EMS medics with the Houston Fire Department transport a Mexican woman the hospital in Houston on Aug. 12, 2020. (John Moore/Getty Images)

Dr. Robert Trenschel, CEO of the Yuma Regional Medical Center situated on the Arizona–Mexico border, said on average, illegal immigrants cost up to three times more in human resources to resolve their cases and provide a safe discharge.

“Some [illegal] migrants come with minor ailments, but many of them come in with significant disease,” Dr. Trenschel said during a congressional hearing last year.

“We’ve had migrant patients on dialysis, cardiac catheterization, and in need of heart surgery. Many are very sick.”

He said many illegal immigrants who enter the country and need medical assistance end up staying in the ICU ward for 60 days or more.

A large portion of the patients are pregnant women who’ve had little to no prenatal treatment. This has resulted in an increase in babies being born that require neonatal care for 30 days or longer.

Dr. Trenschel told The Epoch Times last year that illegal immigrants were overrunning healthcare services in his town, leaving the hospital with $26 million in unpaid medical bills in just 12 months.

ER Duty to Care

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 requires that public hospitals participating in Medicare “must medically screen all persons seeking emergency care … regardless of payment method or insurance status.”

The numbers are difficult to gauge as the policy position of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is that it “will not require hospital staff to ask patients directly about their citizenship or immigration status.”

In southern California, again close to the border with Mexico, some hospitals are struggling with an influx of illegal immigrants.

American patients are enduring longer wait times for doctor appointments due to a nursing shortage in the state, two health care professionals told The Epoch Times in January.

A health care worker at a hospital in Southern California, who asked not to be named for fear of losing her job, told The Epoch Times that “the entire health care system is just being bombarded” by a steady stream of illegal immigrants.

“Our healthcare system is so overwhelmed, and then add on top of that tuberculosis, COVID-19, and other diseases from all over the world,” she said.

A Salvadorian man is aided by medical workers after cutting his leg while trying to jump on a truck in Matias Romero, Mexico, on Nov. 2, 2018. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

A newly-enacted law in California provides free healthcare for all illegal immigrants residing in the state. The law could cost taxpayers between $3 billion and $6 billion per year, according to recent estimates by state and federal lawmakers.

In New York, where the illegal immigration crisis has manifested most notably beyond the southern border, city and state officials have long been accommodating of illegal immigrants’ healthcare costs.

Since June 2014, when then-mayor Bill de Blasio set up The Task Force on Immigrant Health Care Access, New York City has worked to expand avenues for illegal immigrants to get free health care.

“New York City has a moral duty to ensure that all its residents have meaningful access to needed health care, regardless of their immigration status or ability to pay,” Mr. de Blasio stated in a 2015 report.

The report notes that in 2013, nearly 64 percent of illegal immigrants were uninsured. Since then, tens of thousands of illegal immigrants have settled in the city.

“The uninsured rate for undocumented immigrants is more than three times that of other noncitizens in New York City (20 percent) and more than six times greater than the uninsured rate for the rest of the city (10 percent),” the report states.

The report states that because healthcare providers don’t ask patients about documentation status, the task force lacks “data specific to undocumented patients.”

Some health care providers say a big part of the issue is that without a clear path to insurance or payment for non-emergency services, illegal immigrants are going to the hospital due to a lack of options.

“It’s insane, and it has been for years at this point,” Dana, a Texas emergency room nurse who asked to have her full name omitted, told The Epoch Times.

Working for a major hospital system in the greater Houston area, Dana has seen “a zillion” migrants pass through under her watch with “no end in sight.” She said many who are illegal immigrants arrive with treatable illnesses that require simple antibiotics. “Not a lot of GPs [general practitioners] will see you if you can’t pay and don’t have insurance.”

She said the “undocumented crowd” tends to arrive with a lot of the same conditions. Many find their way to Houston not long after crossing the southern border. Some of the common health issues Dana encounters include dehydration, unhealed fractures, respiratory illnesses, stomach ailments, and pregnancy-related concerns.

“This isn’t a new problem, it’s just worse now,” Dana said.

Emergency room nurses and EMTs tend to patients in hallways at the Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital in Houston on Aug. 18, 2021. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

Medicaid Factor

One of the main government healthcare resources illegal immigrants use is Medicaid.

All those who don’t qualify for regular Medicaid are eligible for Emergency Medicaid, regardless of immigration status. By doing this, the program helps pay for the cost of uncompensated care bills at qualifying hospitals.

However, some loopholes allow access to the regular Medicaid benefits. “Qualified noncitizens” who haven’t been granted legal status within five years still qualify if they’re listed as a refugee, an asylum seeker, or a Cuban or Haitian national.

Yet the lion’s share of Medicaid usage by illegal immigrants still comes through state-level benefits and emergency medical treatment.

A Congressional report highlighted data from the CMS, which showed total Medicaid costs for “emergency services for undocumented aliens” in fiscal year 2021 surpassed $7 billion, and totaled more than $5 billion in fiscal 2022.

Both years represent a significant spike from the $3 billion in fiscal 2020.

An employee working with Medicaid who asked to be referred to only as Jennifer out of concern for her job, told The Epoch Times that at a state level, it’s easy for an illegal immigrant to access the program benefits.

Jennifer said that when exceptions are sent from states to CMS for approval, “denial is actually super rare. It’s usually always approved.”

She also said it comes as no surprise that many of the states with the highest amount of Medicaid spending are sanctuary states, which tend to have policies and laws that shield illegal immigrants from federal immigration authorities.

Moreover, Jennifer said there are ways for states to get around CMS guidelines. “It’s not easy, but it can and has been done.”

The first generation of illegal immigrants who arrive to the United States tend to be healthy enough to pass any pre-screenings, but Jennifer has observed that the subsequent generations tend to be sicker and require more access to care. If a family is illegally present, they tend to use Emergency Medicaid or nothing at all.

The Epoch Times asked Medicaid Services to provide the most recent data for the total uncompensated care that hospitals have reported. The agency didn’t respond.

Continue reading over at The Epoch Times

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/15/2024 - 09:45

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Fuel poverty in England is probably 2.5 times higher than government statistics show

The top 40% most energy efficient homes aren’t counted as being in fuel poverty, no matter what their bills or income are.

Published

on

By

Julian Hochgesang|Unsplash

The cap set on how much UK energy suppliers can charge for domestic gas and electricity is set to fall by 15% from April 1 2024. Despite this, prices remain shockingly high. The average household energy bill in 2023 was £2,592 a year, dwarfing the pre-pandemic average of £1,308 in 2019.

The term “fuel poverty” refers to a household’s ability to afford the energy required to maintain adequate warmth and the use of other essential appliances. Quite how it is measured varies from country to country. In England, the government uses what is known as the low income low energy efficiency (Lilee) indicator.

Since energy costs started rising sharply in 2021, UK households’ spending powers have plummeted. It would be reasonable to assume that these increasingly hostile economic conditions have caused fuel poverty rates to rise.

However, according to the Lilee fuel poverty metric, in England there have only been modest changes in fuel poverty incidence year on year. In fact, government statistics show a slight decrease in the nationwide rate, from 13.2% in 2020 to 13.0% in 2023.

Our recent study suggests that these figures are incorrect. We estimate the rate of fuel poverty in England to be around 2.5 times higher than what the government’s statistics show, because the criteria underpinning the Lilee estimation process leaves out a large number of financially vulnerable households which, in reality, are unable to afford and maintain adequate warmth.

Blocks of flats in London.
Household fuel poverty in England is calculated on the basis of the energy efficiency of the home. Igor Sporynin|Unsplash

Energy security

In 2022, we undertook an in-depth analysis of Lilee fuel poverty in Greater London. First, we combined fuel poverty, housing and employment data to provide an estimate of vulnerable homes which are omitted from Lilee statistics.

We also surveyed 2,886 residents of Greater London about their experiences of fuel poverty during the winter of 2022. We wanted to gauge energy security, which refers to a type of self-reported fuel poverty. Both parts of the study aimed to demonstrate the potential flaws of the Lilee definition.

Introduced in 2019, the Lilee metric considers a household to be “fuel poor” if it meets two criteria. First, after accounting for energy expenses, its income must fall below the poverty line (which is 60% of median income).

Second, the property must have an energy performance certificate (EPC) rating of D–G (the lowest four ratings). The government’s apparent logic for the Lilee metric is to quicken the net-zero transition of the housing sector.

In Sustainable Warmth, the policy paper that defined the Lilee approach, the government says that EPC A–C-rated homes “will not significantly benefit from energy-efficiency measures”. Hence, the focus on fuel poverty in D–G-rated properties.

Generally speaking, EPC A–C-rated homes (those with the highest three ratings) are considered energy efficient, while D–G-rated homes are deemed inefficient. The problem with how Lilee fuel poverty is measured is that the process assumes that EPC A–C-rated homes are too “energy efficient” to be considered fuel poor: the main focus of the fuel poverty assessment is a characteristic of the property, not the occupant’s financial situation.

In other words, by this metric, anyone living in an energy-efficient home cannot be considered to be in fuel poverty, no matter their financial situation. There is an obvious flaw here.

Around 40% of homes in England have an EPC rating of A–C. According to the Lilee definition, none of these homes can or ever will be classed as fuel poor. Even though energy prices are going through the roof, a single-parent household with dependent children whose only income is universal credit (or some other form of benefits) will still not be considered to be living in fuel poverty if their home is rated A-C.

The lack of protection afforded to these households against an extremely volatile energy market is highly concerning.

In our study, we estimate that 4.4% of London’s homes are rated A-C and also financially vulnerable. That is around 171,091 households, which are currently omitted by the Lilee metric but remain highly likely to be unable to afford adequate energy.

In most other European nations, what is known as the 10% indicator is used to gauge fuel poverty. This metric, which was also used in England from the 1990s until the mid 2010s, considers a home to be fuel poor if more than 10% of income is spent on energy. Here, the main focus of the fuel poverty assessment is the occupant’s financial situation, not the property.

Were such alternative fuel poverty metrics to be employed, a significant portion of those 171,091 households in London would almost certainly qualify as fuel poor.

This is confirmed by the findings of our survey. Our data shows that 28.2% of the 2,886 people who responded were “energy insecure”. This includes being unable to afford energy, making involuntary spending trade-offs between food and energy, and falling behind on energy payments.

Worryingly, we found that the rate of energy insecurity in the survey sample is around 2.5 times higher than the official rate of fuel poverty in London (11.5%), as assessed according to the Lilee metric.

It is likely that this figure can be extrapolated for the rest of England. If anything, energy insecurity may be even higher in other regions, given that Londoners tend to have higher-than-average household income.

The UK government is wrongly omitting hundreds of thousands of English households from fuel poverty statistics. Without a more accurate measure, vulnerable households will continue to be overlooked and not get the assistance they desperately need to stay warm.

Torran Semple receives funding from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) grant EP/S023305/1.

John Harvey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending