Response to the information given on “Independent review into mental health conditions, ADHD and autism” as published in the Times.
Below that are previous statements from both the government and the report’s authors that directly conflict with the report’s conclusions.
September 17th 2026: Response to Times article outlining some of the content of the report.
The Times article is here. It is our understanding that this is a “leak” and not part of the government’s publishing plan for the report.
Initial Response
All statistics mentioned are sourced. Click the link to find the original source.
This proposes rationing. Removing care based not on clinical guidelines [NICE] or known positive outcomes. Replicating the worst NHS areas and practices for ADHD care instead of replicating the best [Our NHS Area research]. A decision made by political process rather than health reality.
There is no “mild” ADHD. Diagnosis requires evidence of a debilitating impact on your life [NICE]. We already have a clinically drawn line of need. This attempt to create a new line is not evidenced or warranted.
Where NHS areas have attempted to create their own line of need our Freedom of information requests show that women and girls are disproportionately screened out. The ADHD task force, NHS England, and the NICE guidelines all speak against screening because we don’t have a proven way to do it.
Without a formal diagnosis, it appears we are left to self-diagnose via social media. That is no reasonable way to run healthcare. Schools and Businesses shouldn’t be forced to rely on TikTok to know when to put in adjustments and support.
On average, a woman with ADHD will die 9 years younger than her peers. A man with ADHD will die 7 years younger than his peers. In almost any other area, those numbers would have this treated as a health emergency, but the stigma and misunderstanding around ADHD means instead we’re treated as an inconvenience and proposed to be disappeared, untreated, from the waiting lists.
We know that people with ADHD are at a much higher risk of suicide with 1 in 4 women with ADHD, and 1 in 10 men with ADHD, having tried to take their own life. The proposed policy means many with ADHD will no longer get an ADHD diagnosis or ADHD treatment. We have no doubt that this policy, if enacted, will result in loss of life.
The ADHD taskforce said the cost of undiagnosed, untreated ADHD was £17billion. Diagnosis means people turning their lives around, more people in employment and succeeding in careers. Investing in ADHD services has a high return on investment to the country. Last year the NHS spent £574 million on a single weight-loss drug because treating people gets them back to work. The same is true of ADHD, with a cheaper medication and better evidence.
Conflicting statements from the government and the authors
What the leaders of the Independent review into mental health conditions, ADHD and autism have said and published before, set against what The Times reports the review will recommend.
Every quotation below is verbatim and linked to its source. The reported recommendation is taken from The Times, 17 September 2026 (“ADHD symptoms should not lead to automatic diagnosis, says review”): people with ADHD symptoms would be “triaged”; “only those who doctors believed would benefit from a diagnosis, such as requiring medication, would be put on to waiting lists”; a Manchester pilot aims to cut those put on waiting lists “by 70 to 80 per cent”; all adults would get a face-to-face assessment “but only those with the highest clinical need who meet agreed thresholds will go on to get a full NHS diagnosis”. ADHD UK has not seen the report.
1. The review’s own interim report (31 March 2026)
The clearest conflict is between the reported recommendation and the review’s own published findings six months earlier.
| What the interim report says | Where | What it conflicts with |
|---|---|---|
| “Even with very substantial administrative growth, recorded prevalence in most age groups remains below the epidemiological benchmarks usually cited in policy and clinical guidance.” … “continued underdiagnosis across the life course, especially in older adults.” | Section 7, "Recorded prevalence is still low relative to epidemiological benchmarks", paragraph 3 | A recommendation to reduce the number of people diagnosed, in a population the review says is under-diagnosed. |
| “routine data is not yet available in sufficient quality to determine whether the severity or functional impairment of diagnosed cases has changed over time. Without this, the core interpretive question remains unresolved.” | Section 7, "The major unresolved issue: severity and impairment", paragraph 1 | A “highest clinical need” threshold built on severity data the review says does not exist. |
| “This is important because it complicates any straightforward account of ‘overdiagnosis’.” | Section 7, "Recorded prevalence is still low relative to epidemiological benchmarks", paragraph 3 | A pilot targeting a 70 to 80 per cent reduction in the number of people put on waiting lists. |
| “It is important to emphasise that this approach is not intended to restrict access to support.” | Section 16, Conclusion, paragraph 14 | Withholding a diagnosis from people assessed and found to meet the criteria restricts access to treatment, because ADHD medication requires a diagnosis. |
| “The policy challenge is therefore not only to increase capacity, important though that is.” | Section 11, "A system under multiple, interacting pressures", paragraph 2 | No capacity plan or new funding has been reported alongside the triage model. |
| “delays in recognition may contribute to prolonged disengagement” and a long-term NEET young person “may generate lifetime public finance costs of £56,000 to £100,000 and wider economic costs approaching £200,000 to £300,000”. | Section 5, "Mental health, neurodevelopmental conditions and participation in education and employment", paragraph 6 | A recommendation that delays or denies recognition for the majority of those referred. |
2. Professor Peter Fonagy, chair
Head of UCL Division of Psychology and Language Sciences; NHS England National Clinical Advisor on Children and Young People’s Mental Health; Chief Executive of the Anna Freud Centre until 2024.
| What he said | When and where | The conflict |
|---|---|---|
| “Children and young people are being failed because the system generally only kicks into gear when they reach crisis point. For many, that can mean months or even years of struggle.” | Anna Freud manifesto launch, 17 April 2024 | A pathway that diagnoses only those “at risk of self-harm or unable to work” makes crisis the entry ticket. He has called that failure. |
| Anna Freud, under his leadership, asked the next government to “double the budget currently spent on prevention”. | Same, 17 April 2024 | His own ask was new money. No new funding has been reported alongside the triage model. |
| “That does not mean abandoning diagnosis. For many people, it remains essential – for understanding, for treatment, for access to support.” | Signed article, May 2026 (first published in The Times, 1 April 2026) | If diagnosis is essential for treatment and access to support, withholding it from people who meet the criteria denies both. |
| “When support is tied tightly to diagnostic labels, demand for diagnosis will rise. When early, accessible help is limited, difficulties escalate.” | Same, May 2026 | His own model says the fix is more early help. The Times reports fewer diagnoses and unspecified “holistic” support, with no new funding. |
| “This review will only be worthwhile if it is built on solid ground.” | DHSC launch release, 4 December 2025 | The interim report’s prevalence baseline is ICD-10 hyperkinetic disorder, last measured in 2017, which the report itself says “may therefore understate the prevalence of ADHD”. |
3. Professor Sir Simon Wessely, vice-chair
| What he said or published | When and where | The conflict |
|---|---|---|
| “Every time we have a mental health awareness week my spirits sink.” “We don’t need people to be more aware. We can’t deal with the ones who already are aware.” | Interview, The BMJ, 21 September 2017 (BMJ 2017;358:j4305) Also available here |
Here is an audience who have become more aware. Instead of looking to raise the service to meet them, he is looking to reduce it. |
| Independent Review of the Mental Health Act (2018), his four principles: choice and autonomy; least restriction; therapeutic benefit; the person as an individual. | Modernising the Mental Health Act, final report (GOV.UK) | A threshold that removes the choice of assessment, adds restriction, withholds therapeutic benefit and sorts people by score rather than as individuals fails all four. |
4. Professor Gillian Baird, vice-chair
| What she did or wrote | When and where | The conflict |
|---|---|---|
| Chaired the NICE Guideline Development Groups for the national autism guidelines CG128 (2011) and CG170 (2013). CG128 recommendation 1.5.1: “Start the autism diagnostic assessment within 3 months of the referral to the autism team.” | NICE CG128 recommendations NICE CG170, Guideline Development Group membership |
She chaired the group that set England’s only national maximum wait for a neurodevelopmental diagnostic assessment. The reported ADHD model has no maximum wait for the slower stream, and no diagnosis for most. |
| NICE Quality Standard QS51, statement 1, giving the reason: “It is important that the assessment is conducted as soon as possible so that appropriate health and social care interventions, advice and support can be offered.” | NICE QS51, quality statement 1 | NICE’s own logic, under her chairmanship: support follows assessment. The reported model offers support instead of it. |
5. The Department of Health and Social Care and its own terms
| What was said | When and where | The conflict |
|---|---|---|
| Wes Streeting, then Secretary of State: “We must look at this through a strictly clinical lens… That’s the only way we can ensure everyone gets timely access to accurate diagnosis and effective support.” The review will “help bring down waiting lists”. | DHSC press release, 4 December 2025 | The published success test was timely diagnosis for everyone. The reported leak came with a Department for Work and Pensions quote and no comment from the Department of Health. |
| Downing Street, asked whether the Government still believes there is an overdiagnosis of mental health problems: “no”. | ITV News, 4 December 2025 | Yet the reported pilot targets a 70 to 80 per cent cut in the number of people put on ADHD waiting lists. |
| Terms of reference: “The review team will also consult other relevant reviews and taskforces, including reports by the independent ADHD Taskforce, to ensure its conclusions and recommendations are aligned.” | Terms of reference (GOV.UK) Independent ADHD Taskforce, Part 2 (NHS England) |
The Taskforce: “There is no robust research evidence on what is most helpful for those on ADHD waiting lists including triage methods”; rating scales “should not be used on their own for triage to exclude people from services”; and “urgently reduce ADHD wait times and require the same standards for these wait times as those for physical health”. |
| NHS England, advice to commissioners: “Forms of stratification or clinical triage that are untested or lack an evidence base are likely to present risks, including potential harm to patients.” | NHS England, 6 October 2025 | The Department’s own delivery body has already warned against what the Department’s review is reported to recommend. |
Prepared by ADHD UK. Press: press@adhduk.co.uk | 07401 122 343.