On Monday 19 January, 2026, the UK government announced its plans to accelerate the national transition towards non-pharmacological treatments (NPTs) and social prescribing. However, social enterprise ME Foggy Dog has raised concerns about the lack of oversight regarding patient safety in this shift. While these community-based interventions are being presented as a “personalised care” solution, the organization cautions that the decision is primarily motivated by cost-saving measures rather than clinical safety data.
The UK has experienced a significant increase in cases of M.E. (Myalgic Encephalomyelitis), Long Covid, and other post-viral conditions since 2020. In response, the 2026 policy direction heavily favors “low-cost” alternatives to biomedical research and pharmaceutical interventions. However, ME Foggy Dog argues that this financial strategy ignores the biological reality of energy-limiting conditions. “NPTs are being implemented on a national scale because they are inexpensive, not because they have been proven safe for the M.E. community,” says Sally Callow, Founder of ME Foggy Dog. “While biomedical research and specialist care require significant investment, directing patients towards community activities without clinical safeguards is a false economy that risks long-term health deterioration.”
Despite the rapid rollout of social prescribing, there is still no mandatory training for link workers or community providers regarding Post-Exertional Malaise (PEM), the core symptom that makes many physical or mental activities potentially harmful for M.E. patients. Furthermore, there is no national system in place to centrally record harms caused by non-medical interventions, despite patients reporting setbacks through PALS and individual NHS clinics. This lack of data was highlighted during the 2021 NICE guideline review and remains unaddressed in 2026.
Through their Shake It Up campaign, ME Foggy Dog is calling for the following actions:
1. National transparency: The urgent creation of a national harm-reporting system to track the impact of NPTs.
2. Evidence-based policy: An end to ill-informed policymaking, ensuring that any expansion of social prescribing is informed by recorded patient outcomes.
“We are at a critical moment where policy is being developed without a safety net,” Callow emphasizes. “If the government wants to expand these programs, it must commit to tracking the consequences. We need influence, policy insight, and amplification to ensure the M.E. community is protected and not overlooked in budget-driven decisions.”
