The Provider Selection Regime (PSR) is a statutory scheme governing the award of contracts for health care-related services in England. Suppliers should take note of the relatively low cost, informality, and apparent success of challenges to the Independent Patient Choice and Procurement Panel ("the Panel") to date. The PSR's process requirements are much lighter than those under the Procurement Act 2023 ("PA 2023"), which continue to apply to the purchase by UK public health care bodies of non-health care goods, works, and services.

The Panel was established to review representations made by suppliers and advise authorities. Although not bound to follow Panel decisions, any departure by an authority would be exceptional, and likely form grounds for judicial review. The costs of appealing to the Panel are far lower than issuing a claim in the High Court under the PA 2023.

In many cases, the PSR imposes a "standstill period" during which suppliers are entitled to ask authorities for any information of which the authority is required to keep records. The record-keeping obligations imposed on authorities are broad, and include, for example, "the reasons for decisions made under these Regulations."

In nine of the 21 Panel decisions published to date, the Panel found breaches relating to record-keeping. In many complaints, authorities have simply been unable to produce the information requested, which has led the Panel to recommend that the authority return to an earlier step, or restart its procurement process. Practically, this can have a significant impact on delivery of time-sensitive patient health care services.

This trend makes clear that cogent and detailed reasoning must be recorded by authorities for all key decisions made under the PSR. The Panel has also drawn a negative inference from an authority's inability to produce records. For example, in a June 2025 decision, the Panel stated that "in the absence of any record of [the authority's] assessment of whether there are any material differences in the character of the new and existing contracts, the panel cannot be assured that it was reasonable for [the authority] to conclude that the considerable change threshold was not met."

Key takeaways include:

• When challenging, suppliers should include substantive information requests, particularly where an authority does not appear to have properly considered its obligations or followed the correct process.
• If considering judicial review, suppliers should bear in mind that the Administrative Court is unlikely to supplant a substantive decision made by the Panel, but may interrogate process failures.