FAQs - NHS Cancer Programme Innovation Open Call 4

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
Applications are open to single organisations that have a demonstratable partnership with an NHS organisation in England and an independent evaluation partner. Additional engagement with Cancer Alliances and/or Health Innovation Networks is strongly encouraged.

The Innovation Open Call is open to single organisations (contracts are executed with individual legal entities) based in the UK or EU from the private, public and third sectors. This includes companies (large corporates and small and medium enterprises), charities, universities Integrated Care Boards, and NHS Trusts.

Organisations based outside the UK or EU with innovations in remit for this call can apply as subcontractors of a lead UK/EU based organisation or via a UK or EU subsidiary.

Spread fund
Funding is available only to Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) and Cancer Alliances (through their host legal entity) based in England.

Applications must be led by an eligible organisation (ICB or Cancer Alliance), which will hold the contract. While the lead applicant must meet the eligibility criteria, proposals are expected to involve collaboration with other partners where appropriate.

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
Universities may apply; however, they must demonstrate a route to commercial and NHS spread for the proposed innovation. If it is difficult for the university to demonstrate this, they will need to ensure that hey are partnering up with other organisation that can.

Spread fund
No, this funding model is open to Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) and Cancer Alliances (through their host legal entity) based in England. Universities are not eligible to apply as lead organisations but may be included as subcontractors where their expertise is relevant to the project.

Competitions are open to any innovation, including medical devices, in vitro diagnostics, digital health solutions and AI-driven solutions, behavioural interventions, software and new models of care. All innovations must meet the entry criteria and address the challenges described in the Challenge Brief.

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
The competition is open to any market-ready innovation with evidence of safety and clinical utility from prospective use in at least one healthcare setting, that is ready for implementation and evaluation across multiple NHS sites. With reference to the individual challenges, the following requirements must be met:

Challenge 1 - Productivity;
• CE mark or equivalent regulatory approval obtained (if required for your innovation) for the cancer-related use intended within the application; and
• Evidence of safety and clinical utility from prospective use in at least one NHS site specifically for the intended cancer-related purpose described in the application

Challenge 2 – Early detection and diagnosis
• CE mark or equivalent regulatory approval obtained (if required for your innovation) for the cancer-related use intended within the application; and
• Evidence of safety and clinical utility from prospective use in at least one healthcare setting specifically for the intended cancer-related purpose described in the application

Spread fund
This funding model is open to mature innovations with proven safety and clinical utility demonstrated through an independent real-world study across multiple NHS sites and are ready for commissioning within the NHS. Applications must meet all of the following criteria:

• The innovation has been deployed in real world settings across multiple NHS sites in England

• There is published independent evidence demonstrating patient benefit and/ or system impact for the cancer-related use case proposed arising from deployment at multiple NHS sites

• There is an independently generated economic assessment for the cancer-related use case proposed, such as a budget impact, cost-benefit, or cost-effectiveness model

• The innovation is available for procurement, for example through an existing procurement framework, or another clearly defined purchasing mechanism that can be accessed by NHS organisations

• For digital innovations, demonstrable compliance with the DTAC

• For digital innovations, the technology is interoperable with relevant NHS systems (for example Picture Archiving and Communication Systems and Electronic Patient Record Systems), and/ or is actively working towards interoperability with the NHS App or Federated Data Platform

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
If the application for regulatory approval has been submitted by the application deadline, you may apply to the competition by evidencing this, but regulatory approval must be obtained and the SBRI Healthcare Programme Management Office (PMO) notified before the peer review process starts (the date will be provided once competion dates are finalised). If regulatory approval has not been obtained by the set date, the application will be rejected based on eligibility.

Spread fund
No, this funding model is intended for mature innovations that are already regulatory approved, deployed in real-world settings across multiple NHS sites in England, and available for procurement. Eligible innovations must also have:
• Published independent evidence demonstrating patient benefit and/or system impact for the proposed cancer-related use case, based on deployment across multiple NHS sites; and
• An independently produced economic assessment for the proposed use case, such as a budget impact, cost-benefit, or cost-effectiveness analysis.

If the CE marking is for a different use than the one of the proposed project the innovation would be ineligible for funding.

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
The focus of projects is real world implementation studies to gather evidence for adoption in the NHS, and not activities to gather evidence for regulatory approvals.

However, applicants can consider including regulatory work packages to meet new or emerging regulatory requirements if these would strengthen their case for adoption and spread.

Spread fund
No, this funding model is aimed at supporting the spreading of innovations that are already market ready.

Yes, however if the background IP does not lie with your organisation, please ensure that you have appropriate rights of use of the necessary IP for the project and beyond. You will also need to consider ownership of the foreground IP generated during the project and how this may impact future commercialisation. Appropriate reassurance should be included in the application and will be requested during due diligence.

Applicants with other sources of funding are eligible to apply to SBRI Healthcare, provided the activities that would be funded by SBRI Healthcare are not already supported by another funding stream. Applicants must articulate how the SBRI Healthcare bid would be distinct from existing studies and what additional evidence would be collected to support the development, implementation and/or adoption of the proposed innovation.

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
Yes, registered charities are eligible to enter SBRI Healthcare competitions via their trading company limited by guarantee. All organisations must demonstrate a route to commercial and NHS spread route to market for their innovation.

Spread fund
No, this funding model is open to Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) and Cancer Alliances (through their host legal entity) based in England. Charities are not eligible to apply as lead organisations but may be included as subcontractors where their expertise is relevant to the project.

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
Applications are accepted from the UK and any country in the European Union. However, please be aware that projects must show a clear health benefit to the UK and England in particular. Legal entities from all other countries may be project partners, but cannot be the lead organisation. If you have any specific questions on the eligibility of your organisation, please email [email protected]

Spread fund
No, this funding model is open to Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) and Cancer Alliances (through their host legal entity) based in England. Organisations based outside England are not eligible to apply as lead organisations but may be included as subcontractors where their expertise is relevant to the project.

In principle this is possible, as long as the applicant can demonstrate that the subcontractors have the appropriate expertise, represent value for money and describe how their services will contribute to the health and wealth of the UK.

Yes. Please ensure the feedback provided in the outcome letter(s) is taken into consideration when you prepare the new proposal.

Please note that the NHS Cancer Programme Innovation Open Call does not have a formal resubmission process and any subsequent application would be treated as a new submission which may receive comments from different reviewers and be considered by a Panel consisting of different members.

Yes. Organisations that have previously received SBRI Healthcare funding are eligible to apply, provided the proposed application meets the eligibility requirements of this competition.

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
Eligibility is assessed at the level of the intended cancer-related use case, rather than simply the underlying technology. Therefore, evidence generated for one cancer pathway, indication or clinical use does not automatically mean that a different cancer-related use case is ineligible. Applicants should clearly explain how the proposed use case differs from previous evaluations and why further implementation and evaluation activity is required.

If the proposed use cases are genuinely distinct and meet the eligibility requirements of the relevant funding model an innovation may be considered under different funding streams. However, submitting multiple applications does not increase the chances of success. Applicants should select the funding stream that best aligns with the maturity of the innovation and the objectives of the proposed project. The programme would not fund duplicative activity for the same cancer-related use case.

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
Yes, provided the innovation can still be legally placed on the market and used for its intended purpose. Where regulatory approval is required, applicants must demonstrate that their innovation meets the applicable regulatory requirements for its intended cancer-related use. In some circumstances, devices certified under the IVDD may continue to be placed on the market under transitional arrangements. Applicants should provide evidence of their current regulatory status as part of their application. Additionally, to be eligible the innovation needs to have evidence of safety and clinical utility from prospective use.

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
Yes, FDA approval may support an application, particularly where it has been obtained for the intended cancer-related use. Applicants should provide evidence of their current regulatory status as part of their application. Additionally, to be eligible the innovation needs to have evidence of safety and clinical utility from prospective use.

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
No. Applicants must already have any required regulatory approvals and supporting prospective evidence for the intended use proposed within the project. The competition is not intended to fund the generation of initial evidence for a new, unapproved delivery pathway.

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
For software that is not classified as a Software as a Medical Device (SaMD), regulatory approval may not be required. However, applicants must still meet all other relevant entry requirements, including providing evidence of safety and clinical utility for the intended cancer-related use. Digital technologies should also be able to demonstrate compliance with the Digital Technology Assessment Criteria (DTAC) and, where relevant, interoperability with NHS systems.

Innovation Spread fund
Yes. This is very much in keeping with the ethos of the Spread Fund, which is intended to support the adoption and embedding of proven innovations across multiple sites within a Cancer Alliance. The fund recognises that scaling successful innovations often requires investment in implementation and change management, not just the technology itself.

Innovation Spread Fund
No. Innovations that are already fully implemented and delivering value are expected to be funded by local commissioners.

Productivity means managing demand or improving capacity on cancer care pathways to support the NHS in meeting all Cancer Waiting Time standards by March 2029. Further details can be found on page 5 of the Challenge Brief.

Innovations that have demonstrated releasing workforce capacity on a cancer pathway in at least one NHS site are eligible.

Innovations targeting vague or non-specific symptoms are eligible, provided they meet the entry requirements of the chosen funding model. The evidence for the innovation should relate to one of the two challenge areas. For example, for the earlier detection challenge, evidence that the innovation helps to detect any cancer at an earlier stage should be presented. For the 'productivity' challenge, as examples, evidence should be presented that the innovation reduces demand on the USC pathways by reducing innapropriate referrals or releases capacity on USC pathways by having a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis, thereby reducing the need for multiple clinic visits across different specialties

If the innovation is able to demonstrate productivity gains to support meeting Cancer Waiting Times Standards (for example efficiencies in treatment planning leading to more 'time to care') it would be eligible for this competition.

Prehabilitation innovations may be eligible where they can demonstrate a clear impact on the "productivity" challenge area to enable Cancer Waiting Times Standards to be met. As an example, evidence could be presented that digital-first prehabilitation frees up capacity so more patients can be treated and therefore waiting times for treatment are reduced.

Innovations that make acute oncology events safer may be eligible if they can demonstrate a clear impact on one of the competition challenges. For example, innovations that reduce acute oncology demand, release capacity, improve pathway efficiency, and enable faster treatment may be in scope. Applications focused solely on clinical outcomes without a clear impact on earlier diagnosis or cancer pathway productivity in order for the cancer waiting times standards to be met would be less aligned with the aims of the competition.

PSFU technologies may be eligible if they can demonstrate a clear impact on cancer pathway productivity, for example by releasing clinical capacity, improving patient management, reducing administrative burden, or supporting more efficient follow-up pathways so that the treatment-related Cancer Waiting Times standards can be met. As with all applications, the innovation must meet the entry criteria for the relevant funding model.

Innovations targeting rare cancers are eligible for this competition. We recognise that conventional measures such as stage at diagnosis may not be appropriate for all cancer types. Applicants should therefore propose outcome measures that are clinically meaningful and relevant to the intended use of their innovation and demonstrate impact against the chosen challenge area.

No. The competition does not fund treatments or the development of new treatment indications.

No, this competition is not intended to fund early-stage research, biomarker development, proof-of-concept studies or the generation of initial clinical evidence. The competition is designed to support the implementation and evaluation, or spread, of sufficiently mature innovations rather than the development of new biomarkers or the validation of new clinical hypotheses.

Supporting discharge into the community is not, in itself, an eligibility criterion. However, innovations that enable earlier discharge while demonstrating measurable improvements in cancer pathway productivity, capacity, patient management and improvement in meeting the Cancer Waiting Times standards may be eligible. Applicants should clearly articulate how the innovation contributes to the objectives of the chosen challenge area.

Innovation Spread Fund
Innovations with a positive NICE appraisal are excluded from the spread fund, as national reimbursement and support are expected. However, they may apply to the real world implementation and evaluation fund to generate further evidence.

Innovations that improve productivity across cancer care pathways in order that the Cancer Waiting Times stndards can be met are eligible for this competition. This may include innovations that release treatment capacity, improve pathway efficiency, support more effective patient management, or enable more patients to be treated in a timely manner. However, the competition does not fund treatments themselves. Applicants should demonstrate how their innovation improves the delivery of care, rather than focusing on the therapeutic intervention. Projects that can clearly show an impact on pathway productivity or capacity are likely to be more closely aligned with the aims of the competition.

The competition is not specifically focused on survivorship. However, survivorship innovations may be eligible if they can demonstrate a clear impact on cancer pathway productivity, capacity, patient management or service efficiency. Applications focused primarily on survivorship outcomes, without a clear link to one of the competition's two challenge areas (productivity and earlier diagnosis), are unlikely to be eligible.

The focus is on innovations that improve early diagnosis and treatment pathways to support cancer waiting time standards. Innovations that reduce treatment burden, improve patient experience or reduce acute oncology demand may be considered, with priority given to those demonstrating impact on productivity and diagnostic timelines.

No, innovations focused primarily on managing treatment side effects without improving capacity or accelerating diagnosis and treatment are out of scope.

Innovation Spread Fund
Innovations are expected to be listed on a procurement framework to be eligible. Applicants should ensure they are procurement ready and registered on dynamic purchasing systems to support adoption.

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
To be eligible, proposals are expected to have upon application:

• A partnership in place with at least one NHS organisation in England, if they are not already led by one
• A partnership with an independent evaluation partner to ensure the evaluation design is robust

In addition, applicants are expected to engage with appropriate suppliers to cover the expertise required for the successful delivery of the project. Working with Cancer Alliances and Health Innovation Networks is not mandatory, but encouraged for this fundng model. All participants in the application (lead applicants and collaborators/subcontractors) need to have approved accounts on the application portal so that they can be added to the application form. Please ensure you leave enough time for this.

Spread fund
To be eligible, proposals must include a partnership comprising the following as a minimum. Senior signatories are required from each organisation type to confirm their endorsement of the application:

• One or more ICBs as the strategic commissioners for their local population
• Multiple deployment sites
• One or more Cancer Alliances
• A technology vendor, where applicable

For contracting purposes, all organisations involved in the project other than the lead applicant will be treated as subcontractors, irrespective of their role in delivery. The lead applicant organisation and deployment sites must be based in England. Other subcontractors may be based in the UK or internationally, where appropriate.

It is not an eligibility criterion to partner with one of the Health Innovation Networks (HINs); however, it is strongly encouraged that you do. The HINs are uniquely positioned to support the development of health innovation and, by partnering with them, you can tap into their knowledge, expertise and networks to support the spread and adoption of your technology. Any organisation based in the UK (including Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales) can access the Health Innovation Network - please consult their webpage thehealthinnovationnetwork.co.uk

The Health Innovation Network website has further information on support offered and how to get in contact thehealthinnovationnetwork.co.uk. You can also set up an account with the NHS Innovation Service where you will be put in touch with appropriate organisation to provide support.

Contracts will be awarded to individual organisations. However, applicants may identify components of the work which they wish to subcontract and may also employ specialist consultants or advisers if they believe this will increase the likelihood of project success.

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
Involvement of Cancer Alliances is not mandatory, but strongly encouraged. The Cancer Alliances have cancer expertise and will be able to facilitate links to NHS Trusts and expert clinicians within their area. Please note that every NHS Trust in England is associated with a Cancer Alliance. As each Cancer Alliance has their own priorities, applicants are encouraged to investigate and determine the Cancer Alliance that is best positioned to support the proposed innovation. A list of Cancer Alliance websites and contacts is available here: https://www.england.nhs.uk/cancer/cancer-alliances-improving-care-locally/.

Spread fund
Yes, it is mandatory to include one or more Cancer Alliances when applying for this funding model. Cancer Alliances can act as lead applicants or collaboratros.

The number of applications permitted depends on the funding model.

Real World Implementation and Evaluation Fund: Cancer Alliances may support or be named in multiple applications to the Real World Implementation and Evaluation Fund. Applicants are encouraged to engage with relevant Cancer Alliances, but there is no limit on the number of applications in which a Cancer Alliance may participate under this funding stream.

Innovation Spread Fund: A maximum of one application per Cancer Alliance region is permitted. Cancer Alliances should therefore prioritise the proposal with the strongest strategic fit and greatest potential impact. Joint applications involving multiple Cancer Alliances are permitted; however, each participating Cancer Alliance may only be named in one Innovation Spread Fund application.

Collaboration across multiple Cancer Alliances may strengthen an application where it supports wider implementation, increases the potential scale of impact, and demonstrates a clear route to adoption across a larger population. However, applications will not be assessed on the number of participating Cancer Alliances alone. Applicants should ensure that any partnerships are meaningful, deliverable and supported by a clear implementation plan, governance arrangements and evidence of local commitment. The emphasis will be on the potential impact, quality and feasibility of the proposed project, rather than the number of organisations involved.

We strongly advise that you get in touch with your local Health Innovation Network to build partnerships and get advice. We also recommend that you register your innovation with the NHS Innovation Service, acting as a front door to the NHS for healthcare innovations, the service can help to match you with relevant organisations to provide tailored support. The NIHR Industry Team can help you identify clinical sites and partners, as well as facilitating access to data, patient recruitment, and providing research delivery support.

Initial contact for signposting and advice & guidance is likely free of charge. This is often a scoping exercise to understand the innovation and which gaps may need addressing. The Network provides a suite of additional and more in-depth support assisting applicants with independent evalution, value proposition, implementation studies, health econmics, patient and public involvement and engagement, addressing health inequalities, and net zero activities to name a few.

If an innovator decides to engage further with one of the Health Innovation Networks, the charges are usually agreed on a case-by-case basis. These would be acceptable project costs, however a detailed quote is required. Please consult their webpage https://thehealthinnovationnetwork.co.uk/.

The independent evaluation partner must be able to provide a robust and impartial assessment of the implementation and outcomes of the project and must have no financial interest in the innovation being evaluated. The partner does not need to be a specific type of organisation, nor do they need to be based in the UK. However, applicants should ensure that the organisation has appropriate expertise in areas such as health technology assessment, implementation science, health economics, service evaluation, or real-world evidence generation. Independent evaluation partners are often academic institutions, Health Innovation Networks, or other organisations with established evaluation expertise. Applicants should clearly demonstrate that their proposed evaluation partner has the skills, experience and independence required to undertake the evaluation.

No. All funded implementation and deployment activity must take place within NHS settings in England.

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
New NHS partnerships are welcome. An innovation does not need to already be deployed within the NHS organisations participating in the proposed project. However, applicants must meet the published entry criteria, including evidence of safety and clinical utility from prospective use for the intended cancer-related purpose. For the Productivity challenge, this evidence must have been generated from at least one NHS site.

Innovation Spread Fund
The lead applicant should be the organisation best placed to support implementation, commissioning and the long-term sustainability of the proposed spread activity. Where an innovation is already deployed within one ICB and the objective is to expand adoption into a new area, it may be more appropriate for the receiving ICB or the associated Cancer Alliance to act as the lead applicant. This reflects the aim of the Innovation Spread Fund, which is to support adoption in new localities and engage key decision-makers early to inform future commissioning decisions and long-term sustainability.

Innovation Spread Fund
The competition does not prescribe a specific team or job title that must lead an application. The lead should be the individual or team best placed to drive implementation, support commissioning decisions and ensure long-term sustainability of the proposed project. Depending on local structures, this may include cancer programme teams, transformation teams, commissioning teams, strategy teams, or other teams with responsibility for service redesign, innovation adoption or cancer pathway improvement. Applicants should ensure that the proposal has appropriate senior sponsorship and involves the organisations and stakeholders needed to support successful implementation and transition to business-as-usual delivery.

Innovation Spread Fund
The role of ICBs as strategic commissioners has been widely recognised in documents like the 10 Year Health Plan and Strategic Commissioning Framework 2025. ICBs are expected to play a role in applications to the Innovation Spread Fund, which aim to provide a path to sustainable local commissioning across an entire ICB population.
Applications should demonstrate alignment with local ICB priorities and include appropriate commissioner involvement to support the transition to business-as-usual funding and commissioning. However, the competition does not prescribe a single procurement or commissioning model for all innovations, and applicants should propose the governance, implementation and funding arrangements that are most appropriate for the innovation and the local healthcare system.

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
Challenge 1 - Productivity;
Not all evidence needs to be generated in the UK. However, to be eligible for this competition, the innovation must demonstrate safety and clinical utility through prospective use in at least one NHS site for the intended cancer-related purpose described in the application.

Challenge 2 – Early detection and diagnosis
Clinical evidence can be derived from anywhere in the world, and evidence generated outside the UK could be considered appropriate, provided there is clear evidence that it is applicable to the chosen NHS care pathway in the UK. Irrespective of where the evidence was derived, applicants should ensure that innovations are suitable for, or could be adapted for, the NHS or the relevant care provider in the UK.

Spread fund
Yes, innovations applying for this funding should have real wolrd evidence in the NHS. To be eligible for funding innovations need to:
• Have published independent evidence demonstrating patient benefit and/ or system impact for the cancer-related use case proposed arising from deployment at multiple NHS sites
• There is an independently generated economic assessment for the cancer-related use case proposed, such as a budget impact, cost-benefit, or cost-effectiveness model

While the programme appreciates that innovations may require different levels of PPIE during development, it is expected that the organisation has involved patients/members of the public during the research and development phase. PPIE is one of the assessment criteria and will be reviewed by a Panel of experts, including PPIE members.

There should be continued PPIE as part of the project, to ensure that patients and members of the public are involved and can provide feedback that will support the refinement of the innovation during the implementation stage, and this should be clearly described in the application.

Yes, we recognise the importance of innovations designed for the community environment in addressing health challenges, and would welcome applications for these innovations provided they address the challenges described in the Competition-specific Challenge Brief and meet the entry criteria of that Competition.

Research, Innovation and Development Advisory Committees (RIDAC, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nhs-population-screening-data-requests-and-research) act as a support and advisory body within the three cancer screening programmes (breast, bowel, and cervical). They will help researchers and innovators with proposals for evaluation by assessing the potential impact of the proposed project to ensure participant benefit and safety, clinical service continuity, minimal service/workforce burden, that it is technically possible within the current IT systems and whether the data request is necessary, proportionate, and legal.

RIDAC does not provide approval for projects but will provide a set of recommendations to ensure the project aligns with the priorities of the screening programmes. All projects relating to breast, bowel and/or cervical screening programmes will need to consult the RIDAC process and obtain a letter of recommendation before beginning the project.

The RIDAC team in the NHS England Vaccination and Screening Directorate is the point of contact and will help applicants through the required RIDAC application process. 

A letter of recommendation from RIDAC does not need to be in place before applying. However, applications that can impact screening programmes will need to factor in their timelines the requirement for RIDAC recommendation prior to the implementation start date. Applicants are encouraged to contact the team early in their planning so that specific, constructive advice can be given to help refine the proposal and pre-empt the committee’s queries. You can contact the RIDAC team at [email protected].

Applicants must provide evidence that is relevant to the specific cancer-related use proposed in their application. Evidence generated in a different disease areas, patient populations, pathways or use cases may be supportive, but on their own would not be sufficient to meet the entry requirements. The competition is intended to support the implementation, evaluation and spread of sufficiently mature innovations, rather than early-stage development, repurposing or proof-of-concept work for a new use case. Applicants should therefore ensure that they can demonstrate the required level of evidence, and any relevant regulatory approvals, for the intended cancer-related use at the point of application.

Applicants should review the entry point criteria for the two funding modes as set out in the challenge brief, for example evidence of safety and clinical utility from prospective use in at least one healthcare site is required for the Real Wolrd Implementation and Evaluation fund. Applicants should provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the innovation is ready for the proposed stage of implementation. The assessment panel will consider whether the evidence gives confidence in the safety, clinical utility and maturity of the innovation for the intended cancer-related use.

There is no minimum required sample size. However, applicants should work with their chosen evaluation partner to ensure that the number of patients and participating sites is sufficient to support a robust evaluation and generate meaningful evidence of the innovation's impact. The evaluation should be adequately powered to answer the key evaluation questions of the project.

No, for the Real World Implementation and Evaluation Fund, applicants must already have evidence of safety and clinical utility from prospective use for the intended cancer-related purpose described in the application from at least one healthcare site. Evidence generated solely through a proof-of-concept study in a Trusted Research Environment (TRE) would not, on its own, meet this entry requirement.

If the innovation has already been implemented elsewhere and you are seeking to adopt it for your local population, this may be appropriate for the Innovation Spread Fund, provided the innovation meets the relevant eligibility criteria and there is a clear case for wider adoption and implementation.

For the Real World Implementation and Evaluation Fund, applicants should be able to demonstrate how the project will generate new implementation and real-world evidence for the proposed use case. The programme is not intended to fund procurement alone, and projects that simply purchase and deploy an existing solution without plans for implementation studies and evidence generation would not be eligible.

Innovation Spread Fund
Yes. Unpublished health economic evidence can be included in an application as long as the model has been generated or validated by an independent organisation. Applicants should provide robust and clearly referenced evidence to support their case, and should ensure that any health economic analysis is relevant to the intended cancer-related use case. Published evidence is likely to provide the assessment panel with greater confidence in the findings. Applicants will be asked to provide a copy of their health economic evidence as part of the application process.

Intellectual property rights are retained by the applicant although certain rights of usage may be applied by the funding authority including royalty-free, non-exclusive licence rights and the right to require licences to third parties, at a fair market price. Applicants are encouraged to review the standard SBRI Agreement before applying.

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
No. Costs should be calculated to reflect fair market value.

Spread fund
No. Costs should be calculated to reflect fair market value. The funding will cover only true excess costs, i.e. the genuine additional costs of implementation, above and beyond existing business as usual (BAU) service delivery.

Funding will be paid to the lead organisation, which will be responsible for distributing payments to partners and subcontractors, where applicable.

The application’s maximum budget and itemised project costs should exclude VAT. Please note that SBRI Healthcare projects are subject to VAT. If applicable, the host organisation may invoice SBRI Healthcare with 20% VAT in addition to the NET cost. It is the host organisation’s responsibility to determine if VAT is applicable.

An element of overheads may be included in project costs (usually up to 15-20% of the total costs). However, such an element must be realistic. Assessors will consider financial costs in terms of ‘value for money’ at the assessment stage. Projects requesting costs that are considered unreasonable may be rejected on these grounds.

No, SBRI Healthcare is not a research grant and follows pre-procurement rules and does not constitute state aid.

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
No match funding is required.

Spread fund
Yes. The funding will operate through an outcome-based, matched funding model between NHS England and the Integrated Care Board(s) structured as follows:

• Year 1: NHS England will fund 100% of eligible technology and implementation costs

• Year 2: Costs will be shared between NHS England and the ICB(s). Applicants can propose the split of the costs between NHS England and the ICBs, however NHS England will only cover a total of £5M in funds across Years 1 and 2

• Year 3: Costs will be met through 100% ICB funding, with no further NHSE contribution. The achievement of a defined set of outcomes by an agreed Go/No Go decision point in Year 2 will unlock full ICB funding for delivery in Year 3

We cannot give a specific number because the amount of awards will be subject to budget availability and quality of the projects.

No. There is no predefined percentage or cap for indirect costs. All costs included in an application should be reasonable, proportionate and represent fair market value. Applicants should be able to justify all costs and demonstrate that they are necessary for the successful delivery of the project. The programme does not fund profit.

The total budget is approximately £18 million across both challenge areas and funding models, with no fixed allocation. Applications will be assessed by an independent Panel based on the published assessment criteria to ensure a high quality and balanced portfolio.

Innovation Spread Fund
A go or no go decision point is expected around the midpoint or three quarters of year two to enable transition to ICB funding. Applicants should propose how funding will be split between NHS England and ICBs, including activities, timelines and outcomes that trigger this transition.

Applicants should be able to demonstrate support from the relevant ICBs and a credible route to long-term sustainability. The Innovation Spread Fund is intended to support the transition of proven innovations into business-as-usual delivery, and applications should therefore describe how ongoing funding and commissioning would be secured beyond the programme period if the innovation achieves its intended outcomes.

The Innovation Spread Fund is designed to support a phased transition from NHS England funding to local commissioning. Applicants should propose an appropriate transition plan, including how costs and responsibilities will shift over the course of the project if KPIs during Year 2 are reached. We recognise that some outcomes may only become fully measurable later in the implementation period. As such, the transition to ICB funding does not necessarily need to occur at a single point in time and may be phased, with different elements of the service transitioning at different stages. Applications should clearly describe the proposed funding model, the expected timing of key outcomes, and how these will support the move towards sustainable business-as-usual funding.

As per NHS England's Strategic Commissioning Framework (https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/PRN01836-strategic-commissioning-framework-v1.pdf) ICBs are expected to be the strategic commissioners for their populations and to drive innovation and transformation through the commissioning of technology-enabled healthcare services. There is expected to be a particular focus on incorporating the five key technology areas set out in the 10 Year Health Plan: genomics, AI, wearable technologies, robotics and joined-up data.

The Spread Fund has been designed to tackle two known barriers to the adoption of innovation: 1) the need for transformation funding to "fund the change as well as the tech" and 2) hesitance from commissioners to invest in technologies before they have seen the benefits demonstrated for their local populations. Applications to the Spread Fund must include a commitment from ICBs to sustainable local commissioning if outcomes are achieved - it is up to the applicants (including the ICB) to agree the outcomes that would demonstrate enough benefit during Year 2 to unlock further funding. This competition does not have any impact on future funding allocations for ICBs.

Yes. Projects will be expected to monitor and report against agreed KPIs throughout the programme. These measures will help assess implementation progress and support key decision points, including the transition from programme funding to sustainable local commissioning. Applicants should clearly describe how success will be measured and when key outcomes are expected to be achieved.

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
At the end of the project, the innovation should be embedded into practice in a number of NHS locations, there should be a high-quality independent evaluation report, and a well-defined plan for continued commissioning and/or scale-up, as appropriate. Examples of potential exit points include:

• Health economics assessment

• Innovation independently evaluated to demonstrate its impact in real-world settings

• Collation of evidence for NICE recommendation (e.g. Early Value Assessment or Health Technology Guidance)

• Completion of procurement business cases to support transition into business-as-usual via standard commissioning routes

• Inclusion on national procurement frameworks

Spread fund
By the end of the project, the innovation is expected to be embedded as BAU across the commissioning and delivery sites involved. Examples of acceptable exit points include:

• Technology commissioned by the ICB(s) across the Cancer Alliance from Year 3 onwards

• BAU service delivery established, including workforce in place

• Legacy services decommissioned, where appropriate

• Processes established for ongoing monitoring of outcomes and key performance indicators, with a clear plan for sustainable funding

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
The evaluation work package should be delivered by a qualified organisation that is independent of the lead applicant. Lead applicants cannot use internal resources to analyse evaluation data or produce the evaluation report. Instead, they are expected to partner with, and subcontract this work to, an external organisation. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the evaluation is robust, credible, objective, and free from bias.

Applications may include one or more innovations, provided there is a clear rationale and a coherent implementation and evaluation/spread plan. Applicants should demonstrate how the proposed innovation(s) work together to address the challenge area and how the contribution of the project can be evaluated/KPIs can be measured in a robust and meaningful way. Projects should be appropriately scoped, deliverable within the available timeframe and budget, and supported by the required evidence for the intended cancer-related use.

Applications may fit multiple sub-challenges; however, you may only select one challenge on the application portal so please select the most appropriate. The funding envelope is for the entire competition and funding is based on quality. There is no specific budget allocated to different challenges. Thus, there is no advantage or disadvantage to selecting a specific challenge.

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
Organisations are welcome to submit more than one application if they have multiple innovations that address the Challenge Brief and meet the entry criteria. However, there must be significant differences between the innovations submitted and consideration given towards the resources needed to deliver both projects.

Spread fund
No, the programme will accept a maximum of one application per Cancer Alliance/ICB. Applicants are advised to prioritise projects with the widest achievable footprint and potential impact for patients and the healthcare system.

ICBs that relate to more than one Cancer Alliance may choose the Cancer Alliance to partner with for the purposes of this application, based on the best strategic fit and the footprint the project can achieve. Projects delivered in partnership across multiple Cancer Alliances are permitted; however, each individual Cancer Alliance may only be named in one application.

Proposals will be reviewed and shortlisted based on the input of a pool of selected assessors with the relevant expertise.

Shortlisted applicants are invited to attend an interview with a Panel of experts and patient/public representatives.

For more information on the application and assessment process, please refer to the Invitation to Tender (to follow) and launch webinar recording (to follow).

Questions about SBRI Healthcare competitions should be sent to [email protected].

Real world implementation and evaluation fund
Please submit one application per innovation, regardless of the number of Cancer Alliances involved in the project. The host organisation may involve as many clinical sites as necessary, subject to justification and that it is realistic, in the project proposal. If you are working with more than one Cancer Alliance, please clearly state each of their roles in the application.

Spread fund
No, separate applications are not required for each Cancer Alliance.

If the project involves spreading the same innovation across multiple Cancer Alliances, applicants are encouraged to develop a single, joint application in partnership with all relevant Cancer Alliances. This approach is aligned with the aims of the Innovation Spread Fund and may enable efficiencies of scale, shared learning, and more consistent implementation.

Please note that each individual Cancer Alliance may only be included in one application for this funding model.

Applicants should develop a realistic implementation plan that takes account of known onboarding, governance and assurance requirements, including any local clinical safety, information governance and digital approval processes. The programme has a dedicated monitoring process to support projects during delivery. This is intended to enable early identification of risks, explore appropriate mitigations and, where necessary, consider whether elements of the project need to be re-scoped to ensure that the core objectives remain achievable.