With one of the fastest-aging populations in the world, Europe will never be this young again. By 2050, one in three Europeans will be 65 or older, an age when Alzheimer’s disease risk starts doubling every five years. While breakthrough treatments are changing the trajectory of Alzheimer’s disease in other parts of the world, Europe is lagging in access and investment, cutting many people off from care options that could improve their lives. A global shift toward early intervention is showing what is possible, with patients starting to be diagnosed in time for treatment to have an impact.[1], [2] Detecting the disease early is like diagnosing cancer at stage one rather than stage four. It can make a profound difference for patients and families in the moments that matter most. Timely treatment can provide more independence, connection and time to make informed choices. > Detecting the disease early is like diagnosing cancer at stage one rather than > stage four. It can make a profound difference for patients and families in the > moments that matter most. Worldwide, 23 regulators have approved disease modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease, signaling growing confidence in these medicines. Four of the world’s largest economies also provide reimbursement so that cost is not a barrier. Yet in much of Europe, people living with the disease remain unable to access these innovations. Some countries have authorized treatments but failed to provide a reimbursement pathway, creating a two-tiered healthcare system where wealthier patients can afford treatment while others are left behind. Recent developments in the UK offer a cautiously encouraging signal. The appeal process through the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has acknowledged that the full value of innovation, including the impact on unpaid carers and the broader burden on informal carers, must be part of the conversation. This is a welcome recognition that systems need to evolve. Health technology assessment frameworks were largely designed to measure short-term, direct healthcare costs for acute interventions. They recognize clinical benefit in narrow terms, and overlook the wider impact that early intervention delivers across health and social care systems:[3] fewer years in residential and nursing home care and a reduced burden on unpaid carers. Such considerations matter enormously to patients and families, yet their voice often remains unheard in the decision-making of many European countries. The cost of this miscalculation compounds. Families are denied treatments that exist today, and future generations inherit health systems ill-equipped for the challenge ahead. Delay is already costing families and health systems When systems delay action, the burden doesn’t disappear. It shifts to families and it costs people good days with their loved ones. Dementia carries the highest global burden of disability, stealing more total years of quality life and independence than any other disease. Its economic toll is staggering, costing Europe 40 percent more than all cancers combined. The vast majority of those costs fall on families and social care. This also increases sharply as the disease progresses, going up by approximately €25,000 more per year as it moves from mild to severe.[4] Slowing disease progression eases the burden on millions of family members who      put aside their own careers and well-being to look after loved ones as unpaid carers.[5]      Yet the 90 percent of dementia costs that fall outside direct healthcare are routinely excluded from value assessments. 4 Including them would fundamentally change the equation. New medicines to treat Alzheimer’s disease have achieved efficacy and safety profiles on par with leading cancer and multiple sclerosis treatments, yet they face more skepticism. 4 Part of the problem is that diseases long considered untreatable suffer from underinvestment in care pathways. When treatments finally arrive, it is families who bear the consequences of health systems that are slow to adapt. This is where leaders can act. When assessing whether these treatments are worth paying for, policymakers must consider the full economic picture, one that captures the long-term value that early intervention delivers, not just short-term direct costs. Science is moving. Europe can lead or fall behind. At a time when European leaders are debating competitiveness, biotech leadership and fiscal sustainability, Alzheimer’s disease is not just a health issue. It is a test of whether Europe can adapt its systems to demographic reality, or allow the gap between scientific progress and patient access to widen further. European policymakers should give people this choice to know and act early. That begins with two priorities: enabling access to innovative diagnostics and treatments within a stronger system of care, and modernizing value assessment so it captures the full benefit of innovation, accounting for long-term savings across health and social care, not just short-term direct costs. > Alzheimer’s disease is not just a health issue. It is a test of whether Europe > can adapt its systems to demographic reality, or allow the gap between > scientific progress and patient access to widen further. By expanding diagnosis and access to innovation, Europe can help more people age with dignity, while reinforcing its position as a destination for research, clinical trials      and long-term investment. Europeans deserve the choice that science now makes possible. If leaders recognize the need for change, the time to act on it is now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Eckhardt, J. “Breakthroughs Changing The Diagnosis And Treatment Of Alzheimer’s” Forbes (2025) Breakthroughs Changing The Diagnosis And Treatment Of Alzheimer’s (Accessed March 15, 2026) [2] Beasley, B. “I Caught My Alzheimer’s at 57, Early Enough to Intervene.” The Wall Street Journal (2026). https://www.wsj.com/opinion/i-caught-my-alzheimers-at-57-early-enough-to-intervene-15072207 (Accessed March 15, 2026) [3] EFPIA. “Taking Action Together to Ensure a Brighter Today and Tomorrow for People with Alzheimer’s Disease.” Position Paper. https://www.efpia.eu/media/412735/taking-action-together-to-ensure-a-better-today-and-tomorrow-for-people-with-alzheimer-s-disease.pdf [4] Frisoni GB, Aho E, Brayne C, et al. “Alzheimer’s disease outlook: controversies and future directions.” The Lancet, Vol. 406, No. 10510, pp. 1424–1442 (September 2025). [5] Abi-Saleh N, So D, Molenkamp V. “Addressing the Impact of Alzheimer’s Disease on Care Capacity in the Netherlands: Implications for Health Technology Assessment.” Poster presentation, ISPOR Europe 2025. https://www.ispor.org/heor-resources/presentations-database/presentation-cti/ispor-europe-2025/poster-session-1-2/addressing-the-impact-of-alzheimer-s-disease-on-care-capacity-in-the-netherlands-implications-for-health-technology-assessment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Eli Lilly & Company. * The entity ultimately controlling the sponsor is Eli Lilly & Company. * This article calls on European policymakers to reform health technology assessment and reimbursement systems to improve access to Alzheimer’s diagnostics and treatments, explicitly aiming to influence public health policy in Europe. More information here.

An employee at French nuclear fuel company Orano has died from meningitis, French health authorities said Friday, adding that there is seemingly “no link” with the ongoing outbreak in the U.K. The Normandy Regional Health Agency said it received a report of a case of invasive meningococcal disease in La Hague, Normandy, on Thursday, and that the death was announced on Friday. Authorities are currently identifying at-risk contacts, who will be offered antibiotics “as soon as possible.” The employee worked at Orano, the health authority said. “Around 50 potential contact cases have been identified and contacted by their managers in order to receive a specific preventive antibiotic treatment,” Orano told POLITICO. The patient died at Cherbourg hospital. Cherbourg is a key port for ferries to and from the U.K. The health authority said “no link can be established with the meningitis epidemic currently underway in the United Kingdom.” The U.K. is grappling with an ongoing outbreak of meningitis in the southeast county of Kent, linked to a local nightclub. As of Friday, 29 people have fallen ill and two people have died, the U.K. Health Security Agency said. Health Secretary Wes Streeting described the outbreak as “unprecedented.” Health officials have rolled out preventive antibiotics and vaccination to those who attended the nightclub between March 5-7, to close contacts of cases and to local university and school students. France reported one case to the U.K. last weekend in someone who had also visited the university then travelled to France. The French health ministry told POLITICO the patient was “stable,” that close contacts had been alerted and offered antibiotics, and that no further cases had been reported.

LONDON — A deadly outbreak of meningitis in the United Kingdom linked to a nightclub in England’s southeast has killed two people with new cases being reported daily. Health officials are rolling out preventive antibiotics to those who attended the nightclub earlier this month, to close contacts of cases and to local university students. The latter are also being offered a vaccine. But as U.K. health officials move to contain the outbreak, it has added to proliferating cases of meningitis across Europe — and has exposed patchy access to vaccines to prevent the disease. Since 2021 Europe has seen increasing rates of invasive meningococcal disease, which is caused by a bacterial infection. The majority of cases have been linked to the same “group B” family of bacteria that caused the outbreak in England.  POLITICO looked into how prepared EU countries are for a similar outbreak. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE UK? From March 13-18 some 27 cases of invasive meningococcal disease were identified in the southeast of England, the U.K. Health Security Agency said Thursday. Nine have been confirmed as Neisseria meningitidis group B.  At least 10 people who caught the illness had attended a nightclub in Canterbury from March 5-7. Most are students from the University of Kent in Canterbury or are upper-year students from local secondary schools.  The illnesses have been severe with rapid deterioration. Two young people have died: an 18-year-old high school student and a 21-year-old university student. Health Secretary Wes Streeting described the cases as “an unprecedented outbreak.” France reported one case to the U.K. in someone who had also visited the university then travelled to France, Streeting told parliament on Tuesday. “The patient has been hospitalized and is in stable condition,” a health ministry spokesperson told POLITICO, adding that close contacts had been alerted and offered antibiotics, and that no further cases had been reported. HOW IS THE UK RESPONDING? Health officials have set up four centers in and near Canterbury for students and those who attended the nightclub to receive preventive antibiotics. Family doctors in the region have been advised to offer treatment to anyone who visited the nightclub. “This is the main intervention that will help protect people and halt the spread of the outbreak,” said Trish Mannes from the U.K. Health Security Agency. In addition, “as a further precaution,” 5,000 university students are being contacted and offered a vaccine to protect against meningitis group B, Mannes said.  Nearby hospitals and schools have been told how to spot symptoms, how to prevent infection and respond.    A student receives an injection at the University of Kent campus in Canterbury, U.K. on March 19, 2026. | Gareth Fuller/PA Images via Getty Images HAVE CASES BEEN RISING ELSEWHERE? Since 2021, cases of invasive meningococcal disease in Europe have been rising. In 2023 there were 1,895 confirmed cases, including 200 deaths in the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Group B remains the major cause of the disease, accounting for 57 percent of cases with known type, and was the dominant group in all ages under 65 years. “Its notification rate has been increasing since 2021,” a European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control report said. France, Germany and Spain accounted for 57 percent of all confirmed cases, while Belgium, the Netherlands and Lithuania reported the second highest notification rate. Group Y infections were the second-most reported (20 percent of cases with known serogroup) and the most reported in those over 65. Group W infections were the third-most reported overall (15 percent of cases with known serogroup). Around 20 percent of young people carry the MenB bacteria in their noses and throats; the disease happens when the bacteria enter the bloodstream and when a person’s immune system is low. It causes a high fever, headache, vomiting and drowsiness, and can lead to inflammation of the brain and sepsis. It has a mortality rate of around 10 percent. Those that survive are at risk of lifelong disability due to the amputations or brain damage caused by the infection. WHO CAN GET THE VACCINE? GlaxoSmithKline’s MenB vaccine Bexsero was approved in Europe (including the U.K.) in 2013 and was rolled out as routine vaccination in the U.K. to infants in 2015. Infants are most at risk due to their lack of immunity. There are over 100 different strains of MenB; the vaccine covers between 75 percent and 80 percent of them, said Adam Finn, professor emeritus of pediatrics at the University of Bristol. “The level of protection after 2 doses is very high and lasts for some years at least,” he added. Infections also arise in adolescents, but the U.K. hasn’t offered MenB vaccinations in older children since it was launched.  In Europe, 12 countries routinely offer the vaccine to infants for free —  the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal and Spain. Croatia and Poland offer it to children and adults with compromised immune systems. Austria recommends the vaccine in infants but doesn’t fund it. Meanwhile, 12 countries — Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden — don’t offer the vaccine at all. Seventeen EU countries offer vaccination against meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y and W. British Health Secretary Wes Streeting arrives in Downing Street in London for a Cabinet meeting on Jan. 17, 2026. | Zeynep Demir/Anadolu via Getty Images WHY ISN’T VACCINATION UNIVERSAL?  Each EU country takes advice from their independent immunization committees, which recommend which vaccines to offer citizens. “National epidemiology — based on surveillance data — and cost effectiveness considerations determine these decisions,” Beate Kampmann, professor of pediatric infectious diseases and immunology and professor of global health, told POLITICO. That means vaccine schedules in EU countries “differ as a result.” “MenB meningitis is a rare disease and the vaccine is expensive,” Brendan Wren, professor of microbial pathogenesis at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said of the U.K. position. “Although given to young children who are the most vulnerable to MenB, it is not freely available to the whole population.”  In light of the ongoing outbreak, however, Streeting told parliament that the country’s vaccination committee was reviewing whether to expand eligibility for the MenB jab. In 2019, Belgium’s immunization experts decided not to offer the vaccine to infants or adolescents, citing the low incidence of the disease, the need to administer three shots, and the fact the vaccine “is not very cost-effective.” The Netherlands said in 2022 that its Health Council wasn’t recommending the MenB vaccine “due to the relatively small burden of disease, the side effects of the vaccine and need for several doses, as well as cost.” But the council is now reviewing its position again, with a decision expected in the next quarter, a ministry spokesperson told POLITICO. COULD THE EU BUY VACCINES? The EU can procure vaccines for groups of countries, with the Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority acting as a negotiator with drugmakers in such cases.  This could be an option for vaccines like Bexsero, should there be interest. “The Netherlands had a positive experience with the EU role in the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines and is open to discussing a role for the EU in other joint procurement procedures,” the Dutch health ministry said. Meanwhile, the vaccine is available for private purchase in most EU countries, but supplies in the U.K. are limited.  The EU can procure vaccines for groups of countries. | Alicia Windzio/picture alliance via Getty Images “Pharmacies are being inundated by requests from concerned patients for MenB vaccination, which the vast majority of our members across the country have no stock currently available to fulfil,” said Olivier Picard, chair of the National Pharmacy Association. COULD THE OUTBREAK SPREAD TO EUROPE? That’s unlikely since it’s not as easily transmitted among people. “This outbreak is caused by a bacterial infection and by its nature it is a lot less infectious compared to Influenza, Measles or SARCOV-2,” said Bharat Pankhania, senior clinical lecturer at the University of Exeter Medical School. “These bacterial infections require close contact and it is a heavy droplet aerosol spread, thus not very infectious and you need to be in close prolonged contact with a case, a family member, or a kissing contact,” he said, adding there is no need for restrictions on movement. In Belgium, the health ministry said it is convening its scientific risk-assessment group “to evaluate the situation for our citizens and country.” Meanwhile, ECDC issued a statement Wednesday evening saying the risk to the general population in Europe from the British outbreak was “very low.” “Outbreaks of meningitis caused by Neisseria meningitidis typically occur in small clusters around cases or in places where many people gather. Although some secondary cases can occur among close contacts of cases, the disease does not spread in the community like, for example, a respiratory virus,” the disease agency said. Claudia Chiappa contributed to this article. Update: This article has been updated with UKHSA data issued March 19.

LONDON — Scottish lawmakers on Tuesday evening rejected a bill allowing terminally ill adults to access assisted dying. Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) opposed Liberal Democrat Liam McArthur’s legislation which would have given terminally ill adults with fewer than six months to live assistance to end their lives. The bill fell by 69 votes to 57, with Scottish Health Secretary Neil Gray abstaining. MSPs previously backed the initial principles of the bill and allowed it to progress through the parliament last May by 70 votes to 56. First Minister John Swinney, Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes, Scottish Labour Leader Anas Sarwar and Scottish Tory Leader Russell Findlay all rejected the bill, although Findlay voted in favor last May. Former Scottish First Ministers Humza Yousaf and Nicola Sturgeon also opposed the bill. McArthur told reporters he was “devastated” by the result as the current system “has been failing dying Scots for too long.”  But he told ITV News the vote against appeared “inevitable” as “the closer you get to that final vote, the enormity, the significance of what MSPs will be asked to do weighs more and more heavily.” A dozen MSPs from the Conservatives, Labour and SNP switched sides between the two votes to reject the bill. As a matter of conscience, parliamentarians were given a free vote and did not have to follow a whip. It marks the third time the Scottish parliament has rejected assisted dying since 1999, though previous bills fell at the first hurdle by far higher margins. McArthur predicted the issue would return to Holyrood after the May election “for so long as dying Scots continue to suffer as a result of the lack of choice and safety afforded to them by the current law,” which prohibits assisted dying. The vote followed an evening of impassioned debate, with supporters and opponents offering emotional personal testimonies. Both sides praised McArthur’s handling of the bill and agreed on the need for improved palliative care. The Scottish government, which retained a neutral position on the bill, said it “remains committed to ensuring that everyone in Scotland who needs it can access well-coordinated, compassionate and high-quality palliative and end of life care.”

World Health Organization officials are preparing for a nuclear catastrophe if the U.S.-Israel war with Iran escalates further. U.N. staff are monitoring the fallout of U.S-Israeli attacks on Iran’s atomic sites and remain “vigilant” for any type of nuclear threat, Hanan Balkhy, WHO regional director for the eastern Mediterranean, told POLITICO. “The worst-case scenario is a nuclear incident, and that’s something that worries us the most,” Balkhy said. “As much as we prepare, there’s nothing that can prevent the harm that will come … the region’s way — and globally if this eventually happens — and the consequences are going to last for decades.” Staff are prepared for a nuclear incident in its “broader sense,” including an attack on a nuclear facility or the use of a weapon, Balkhy said. “We are thinking about it, and we’re just really hoping that it does not happen.” U.S. President Donald Trump has vowed to “eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime,” though he has provided no evidence that Tehran was developing a nuclear weapon. Last June, the U.S. in coordination with Israel targeted nuclear infrastructure throughout Iran. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran confirmed that attacks took place at its Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz sites. The U.S. and Israel have continued to target nuclear sites since they launched their new offensive on Feb. 28. U.S. President Donald Trump is seen during the his departure the White House en route Hebron, Kentucky on March 11, 2026, in Washington DC. | Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images Israel and the United Arab Emirates also have nuclear facilities within range of Iran’s missiles, though there are no reports of these being targeted. Israel is itself widely believed to have a significant arsenal of nuclear weapons. To date there have been no reported signs of radioactive contamination anywhere in the region. But if a nuclear incident did expose people to dangerous levels of radiation, it would risk causing significant immediate trauma to their lungs and skin, and heighten the danger of developing cancer and mental health problems, Balkhy explained. The 1986 nuclear accident at the Soviet nuclear plant in Chernobyl, Ukraine officially caused around 30 deaths in the first few months, and later contributed to a surge in thyroid cancers, numbering in the thousands, and to high anxiety among the local population over the following decades. “I think those who read the history of previous incidents, whether intentional or accidental, are very aware of what we’re talking about,” Balkhy said. An estimated 110,000 to 210,000 people died from the U.S. nuclear attacks on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. As the war continues, some senior figures have begun to speculate on the use of nuclear warheads. David Sacks, Trump’s AI adviser, said he worried about “Israel escalating the war by contemplating using a nuclear weapon.” Trump rubbished the suggestion, telling reporters: “Israel wouldn’t do that.” The WHO is refreshing its staff on how to respond in the event of a nuclear incident, including providing advice to officials on the public health risks and what measures people should take to protect themselves.  Smoke rises after airstrikes in Tehran, Iran on March 13, 2026. | Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images Balkhy also warned there could be significant health impacts, such as respiratory illness, from the attacks on Iranian oil facilities earlier this month that have covered Tehran in smoke. ATTACKS ON HEALTH SYSTEMS Meanwhile, the WHO has continued to decry attacks on health infrastructure in the region. The WHO has so far recorded 46 attacks on health workers in Iran and Lebanon, with 38 killed, since the war began on Feb. 28. Israel killed 14 health workers in Lebanon in two strikes on March 13, including an attack on the Bourj Qalaouiyeh primary health care center in the south of the country. In a follow-up statement to POLITICO, Balkhy called the attacks “tragic and unacceptable,” adding that health workers must be protected under international law “at all times.” Health workers and United Nations officials have previously accused Israel of systematically destroying Gaza’s health system. Israel has denied that charge, typically stating the attacks are justified on military grounds or, such as in the case of a deadly double-tap strike on Nasser Hospital last year, a “tragic mishap.” By mid-2025, 94 percent of Gaza’s hospitals had been damaged or destroyed, according to the WHO. Kuwait reported on March 17 that two paramedics were injured when shrapnel from an Iranian attack fell on a medical center. A view of tents as Lebanese families who were forced to leave their homes due to Israeli attacks, took shelter in a school building in the Dahieh district of the capital Beirut, Lebanon, on March 15, 2026. | Houssam Shbaro/Anadolu via Getty Images Health ministries in Iran and Lebanon reported 1,444 and 886 civilian deaths, respectively, as of March 17. Lebanon says 107 children have died from the latest bombardment. The United Nations estimates that between 600,000 and 1 million Iranian households have been temporarily displaced, while there are 946,000 self-registered displaced individuals in Lebanon, according to figures provided to POLITICO by the WHO. The Israeli Ministry of Health does not include casualties in its daily updates on the war. As of March 8, the government said 13 people had been killed. The fragile health system in Lebanon, which was already under severe pressure before the latest attacks from Israel, is struggling to deal with the large numbers of displaced. “You’re talking about access to good food, clean water, the disruption of medical care provision, whether it’s childhood immunizations, whether it’s access to their medications, the dialysis patients, the cancer patients, it will have a huge toll on the people of Lebanon,” Balkhy said. An ambulance belonging to the Islamic Health Organisation seen outside Jabal Amel Hospital after an Israeli airstrike in Tyre, Lebanon on March 17, 2026. | Sally Hayden/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images The conflict is also exacerbating a Palestinian health crisis, with heavy restrictions on the amount of aid entering Gaza, Balkhy said. The WHO has reported critical shortages of medicines and medical supplies in Gaza, despite Israel saying there is enough aid entering the territory to meet humanitarian needs. The Palestinian Ministry of Health, meanwhile, says there are zero stocks of 46 percent of essential medicines. The scale of destruction in Gaza was so overwhelming, Balkhy said, that it would take “billions of dollars” and “decades to re-establish a dignified environment for these people to live in.”

Dr. Daniel Steiners This is not an obituary for Germany’s economic standing. It is an invitation to shift perspective: away from the language of crisis and toward a clearer view of our opportunities — and toward the confidence that we have more capacity to shape our future than the mood indicators might suggest. For years, Germany seemed to be traveling along a self-evident path of success: growth, prosperity, the title of export champion. But that framework is beginning to fray. Other countries are catching up. Parts of our industrial base appear vulnerable to the pressures of transformation. And global dependencies are turning into strategic vulnerabilities. In short, the German model of success is under strain. Yet a glance at Europe’s economic history suggests that moments like these can also contain enormous potential — if strategic thinking and decisive action come together. One example, which I find particularly striking, takes us back to 1900. At the time, André and Édouard Michelin were producing tires in a relatively small market, when the automobile itself was still a niche product. They could have focused simply on improving their product. Instead, they thought bigger; not in silos, but in systems. With the Michelin Guide, they created incentives and orientation for greater mobility: workshop directories, road maps, and recommendations for hotels and restaurants made travel more predictable and attractive. What began as a service booklet for motorists gradually evolved into an entire ecosystem — and eventually into a globally recognized benchmark for quality. > In times of change, those who recognize connections and are willing to shape > them strategically can transform uncertainty into lasting strength. What makes this example remarkable is that the real innovation did not lie in the tire itself or merely even a clever marketing idea to boost sales. It lay in something more fundamental: connected thinking and ecosystem thinking. The decision to see mobility as a broad space for value creation. It was the courage to break out of silos, to recognize strategic connections, to deepen value chains — and to help define the standards of an emerging market. That is precisely the lesson that remains relevant today, including for policymakers. In times of change, those who recognize connections and are willing to shape them strategically can transform uncertainty into lasting strength. Germany’s industrial health economy is still too often viewed in public debate in narrowly sectoral terms — primarily through the lens of health care provision and costs. Strategically, however, it has long been an industrial ecosystem that spans research, development, manufacturing, digital innovation, exports and highly skilled employment. Just as Michelin helped shape the ecosystem of mobility, Germany can think of health as a comprehensive domain of value creation. The industrial health economy: cost driver or engine of growth? Yes, medicines cost money. In 2024, Germany’s statutory health insurance system spent around €55 billion on pharmaceuticals. But much of that increase reflects medical progress and the need for appropriate care in an aging society with changing disease patterns. Innovative therapies benefit both patients and the health system. They can improve quality and length of life while shifting treatment from hospitals into outpatient care or even into patients’ homes. They raise efficiency in the system, reduce downstream costs and support workforce participation. > In short, the industrial health economy is not merely part of our health care > system. It is a key industry, underpinning economic strength, prosperity and > the financing of our social security systems. Despite public perception, pharmaceutical spending has remained remarkably stable for years, accounting for roughly 12 percent of total expenditures in the statutory health insurance system. That figure also includes generics — medicines that enter the ‘world heritage of pharmacy’ after patent protection expires and remain available at low cost. Truly innovative, patent-protected medicines account for only about seven percent of total spending. Against these costs stands an economic sector in which Germany continues to hold a leading international position. With around 1.1 million employees and value creation exceeding €190 billion, the industrial health economy is among the largest sectors of the German economy. Its high-tech products, bearing the Made in Germany label, are in demand worldwide and contribute significantly to Germany’s export surplus. In short, the industrial health economy is not merely part of our health care system. It is a key industry, underpinning economic strength, prosperity and the financing of our social security systems. Its overall balance is positive. The central question, therefore, is this: how can we unlock its untapped potential? And what would it mean for Germany if we fail to recognize these opportunities while economic and innovative capacity increasingly shifts elsewhere? Global dynamics leave little room for hesitation Governments around the world have long recognized the strategic importance of the industrial health economy — for health care, for economic growth and for national security. China is demonstrating remarkable speed in scaling and implementing biotechnology. The United States, meanwhile, illustrates how determined industrial policy can look in practice. Regulatory authorities are being modernized, approval procedures accelerated and bureaucratic barriers systematically reduced. At the same time, domestic production is being strategically strengthened. Speed and market size act as magnets for capital — especially in a sector where research is extraordinarily capital-intensive and requires long-term planning security. When innovation-friendly conditions and economic recognition of innovation meet a large, well-funded market, global shifts follow. Today roughly 50 percent of the global pharmaceutical market is located in the United States, about 23 percent in Europe — and only 4 to 5 percent in Germany. This distribution is no coincidence; it reflects differences in economic and regulatory environments. At the same time, political pressure is growing on countries that benefit from the American innovation engine without offering an equally attractive home market or recognizing the value of innovation in comparable ways. Discussions around a Most Favored Nation approach or other trade policy instruments are moving in precisely that direction — and they affect Europe and Germany directly. For Germany, the implications are clear. Those who want to attract investment must strengthen their competitiveness. Those who want to ensure reliable health care must appropriately reward new therapies. Otherwise, these global dynamics will inevitably affect both the economy and health care at home. Already today, roughly one in four medicines introduced in the United States between 2014 and 2023 is not available in Europe. The gap is even larger for gene and cell therapies. The primacy of industrial policy: from consensus to action — now Germany does not lack potential or substance. We still have a strong industrial base, a tradition of invention, outstanding universities and research institutions, and a private sector willing to invest. Political initiatives such as the coalition agreement, the High-Tech Agenda and plans for a future strategy in pharmaceuticals and medical technology provide important impulses, which I strongly welcome. > A fair market environment without artificial price caps or rigid guardrails is > the strongest magnet for private capital, long-term investment and a resilient > health system. But programs must now translate into a coherent action plan for growth. We need innovation-friendly and stable framework conditions that consider health care, economic strength and national security together — as a strategic ecosystem, not as separate silos. The value of medical innovation must also be recognized in Germany. A fair market environment without artificial price caps or rigid guardrails is the strongest magnet for private capital, long-term investment and a resilient health system. Faster approval procedures, consistent digitalization and a determined reduction of bureaucracy are essential if speed is once again to become a competitive advantage and a driver of innovation. Germany can reinvent itself, of that I am convinced. With courage, strategic determination and an ambitious push for innovation. The choice now lies with us: to set the right course and unlock the potential that is already there.

As European health systems grapple with how to deliver increasingly advanced therapies, rare disease patients in Sweden still face everyday challenges — from securing a diagnosis to accessing appropriate care. Although rights are strong on paper, families often find themselves stitching together services across a decentralized system. Ågrenska is a national competence center in Sweden working to bridge those gaps. It supports people with rare diagnoses and their families in navigating health and social services. “But there’s a limit to what one organization can do,” says Zozan Sewger Kvist, Ågrenska’s CEO. POLITICO Studio spoke with her about where the Swedish system falls short and what must change across Europe to ensure patients are not left behind. POLITICO Studio: From Ågrenska’s experience working with families of rare disease patients across Sweden, where does the system most often break down? Zozan Sewger Kvist: For 25 years the families have been telling us the same thing: the system doesn’t connect. Zozan Sewger Kvist, CEO, Ågrenska The breakdown is most evident in health care, especially when transitioning from pediatric to adult care. But it also happens when patients are transitioning between schools, social services and medical teams. No one is looking at their care from a holistic point of view. Families become their own project managers. They are the ones booking appointments, chasing referrals, explaining the diagnosis again and again. It’s a heavy burden. That’s largely why our organization exists. We provide families with the knowledge, networks and tools to navigate the system and understand their rights. But there’s a limit to what one organization can do. In a perfect world, these functions would already be embedded within public care. > Without clear national coordination, it becomes much harder to monitor whether > families are actually receiving the support they are entitled to. PS: Access to rare disease care varies widely within many European countries and Sweden is no exception. In practical terms, what do those regional disparities look like? ZSK: Swedish families have the same rights across the country, but regional priorities differ. That leads to unequal access in practice. For example, areas with university hospitals tend to have stronger specialist networks and rehabilitation services. In more rural parts of the country, especially in the north, it is harder to attract expertise, and families feel that gap directly. In practical terms, that can mean something as basic as access to rehabilitation. In some regions, children receive coordinated physiotherapy, speech therapy and follow-up. In others, families struggle to access rehabilitation at all. And that’s a big issue because a lot of Sweden’s health care runs through rehabilitation — without it, referrals to other services and treatments can stall. PS: Would a comprehensive national rare disease strategy meaningfully change outcomes across regions? ZSK: The problem is compliance, not regulation. Sweden has strong rules but regions have almost full freedom to organize care, which makes consistency difficult. As it stands, without clear national coordination, it becomes much harder to monitor whether families are actually receiving the support they are entitled to. A national rare disease strategy would not solve everything but it would set expectations such as what the minimum level of care should look like, what coordination should include and how outcomes are followed up. A draft national strategy was developed in 2024, and there was real momentum. Patient organizations, health care experts and the government were all involved. Everyone was optimistic the framework would provide guidance and accountability. After some delays, work on the national strategy has resumed, so hopefully we will see it implemented soon. > Families often feel they need to take on a coordinating role themselves. They > describe an endless search — calling clinics, repeating their story, trying to > connect the dots. PS: Families often describe a long and fragmented path to diagnosis. Where does that journey tend to go wrong, and what would shorten it most? ZSK: Coordinated multidisciplinary teams would make the biggest difference — teams that can look at the whole condition, not just one symptom at a time. The challenge is that rare diseases often affect multiple organ systems. Several specialists may be involved, but they do not always work together, and it may not be clear who is taking responsibility for the whole case. When no one holds that overview, delays multiply. Sweden also lacks a fully integrated national health record system, so specialists may be looking at different pieces of the same case without seeing the full picture. Families often feel they need to take on a coordinating role themselves. They describe an endless search — calling clinics, repeating their story, trying to connect the dots. PS: Sweden participates in the European Reference Networks, yet you’ve suggested they’re underused. What’s missing in how Sweden leverages that expertise? ZSK: The ERNs are a strong, established framework for connecting specialists across borders. Swedish experts participate, but we are not using that structure to its full potential. Participation often appears project-based rather than long-term. Neighboring countries such as Norway, Denmark and Finland are more proactive in leveraging these collaborations. I would like to see Sweden invest more in turning these networks into durable partnerships that support clinical practice — not just research initiatives. > Rare disease care needs sustained political and financial follow-through. > Without that, families will continue to carry burdens that the system should > be managing. PS: Sweden often falls behind other EU countries in terms of access to orphan medicines (drugs that treat rare diseases). What needs to change in Sweden’s approach to ensure patients aren’t left behind? ZSK: Families are very aware of how access compares across Europe. They follow these discussions closely, and when a treatment is available in one country but not another, it is difficult for them to understand why. In Sweden, reimbursement decisions often come down to cost-effectiveness calculations. That makes access an ethical as well as an economic question. But for a family, it is hard to accept that a few additional years of life or stability are weighed against a financial threshold. Some families choose to cross borders for treatment. But that can be quite a complex, expensive process, depending on the kind of treatment. I think greater transparency and clearer communication about the criteria and long-term impact — not only the immediate cost — would make difficult outcomes easier to understand. PS: You’ve worked with families for decades. Have things materially improved — and what worries you most if reforms stall? ZSK: Unfortunately, I cannot say that things have materially improved. When I look back at the challenges families described 15 or 20 years ago, many of them are still the same. There have been some positive developments. Digital access means families are more informed and can connect more easily with others in similar situations. That has strengthened their voice. But structurally, many of the underlying gaps remain. Rare disease care needs sustained political and financial follow-through. Without that, families will continue to carry burdens that the system should be managing. Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Alexion Pharmaceuticals * The entity ultimately controlling the sponsor: AstraZeneca plc * The political advertisement is linked to policy advocacy around rare disease governance, funding, and equitable access to diagnosis and treatment across Europe More information here.

Europe stands at a crossroads. Cancer cases continue to rise, health systems are under visible strain and critical gaps in care remain unaddressed. Yet, just as the need for action grows more urgent, political attention to health — and to cancer — is fading. Now is the moment for Europe to build on hard-won work and ensure patients across the continent benefit from the care they deserve. As negotiations open on the EU’s next long-term budget (2028-34), priorities are shifting toward fiscal restraint, competitiveness and security. Health — once firmly on the political radar — is slipping down the agenda. This shift comes at a critical moment: Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, a €4 billion flagship effort to turn the tide against cancer, is set to end in 2027 with no clear commitment to renew its mandate. With cancer incidence rising and systems struggling, letting Europe’s cancer framework fade would be a costly mistake. Across Europe, patients, clinicians and advocates are sounding the alarm. > With cancer incidence rising and systems struggling, letting Europe’s cancer > framework fade would be a costly mistake. “With 2.7 million cancer diagnoses and 1.3 million deaths each year, Europe must reach higher for cancer care, not step back,” says Dr. Isabel Rubio, president of the European Cancer Organisation. “Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan has set a new course, but sustained funding is now essential to protect progress and close the gaps patients still face.” Protecting the status quo is not enough. If the EU is serious about patient-centered cancer care, it must make a firm commitment to cancer and confront long-overlooked gaps, namely one with profound impact but minimal political attention: cancer-related malnutrition. The invisible crisis undermining cancer care Nutrition remains one of the most glaring blind spots in European cancer care. Cancer-related malnutrition affects up to seven out of ten patients, driven by the disease and its treatments.1 Increased nutritional needs — combined with symptoms such as nausea, fatigue and loss of appetite — mean that many patients cannot meet requirements through normal diet alone. The result is avoidable weight loss that weakens resilience, delays treatment and undermines outcomes.2 A new pan-European study by Cancer Patient Europe, spanning 12 countries, underscores the scale of this silent crisis: despite widespread nutritional challenges, support remains inconsistent and insufficient. Only 20 percent of patients reported receiving a nutritional assessment during treatment, and just 14 percent said their nutritional status was monitored over time — a clear mismatch between needs and the care provided. > If the EU is serious about patient-centered cancer care, it must make a firm > commitment to cancer and confront long-overlooked gaps, namely one with > profound impact but minimal political attention: cancer-related malnutrition. International authorities have repeatedly raised concerns about these gaps. The WHO Regional Office for Europe has warned that without proper training, healthcare providers lack the tools to screen, diagnose and address cancer-related malnutrition — highlighting a systemic weakness that continues to be overlooked. Patients themselves understand these shortcomings and seek more information and support. Most recognize nutrition as essential to their wellbeing, yet only 26 percent say they received guidance from their care team. As Antonella Cardone, CEO of Cancer Patient Europe, stresses: “Too many patients are left to face nutritional challenges alone, even when these difficulties directly affect their ability to cope with treatment.” She continues: “Malnutrition is not peripheral to their care. It is central. Addressing malnutrition can contribute to better treatment outcomes and recovery.” Without systematic action, malnutrition will continue to erode patients’ resilience — a preventable barrier that demands attention. A viable yet under-used solution Yet, the tools to address malnutrition already exist. In cancer care, systematic nutritional support has been shown to improve treatment tolerance and support recovery. Medical nutrition — taken orally or through tube feeding — is a science-based intervention designed for patients who cannot meet their nutritional needs through diet alone. Research shows it can reduce complications, limit treatment interruptions and help patients regain strength throughout their cancer journey. “Precision oncology is not only about targeting tumors, but about treating the whole patient. When nutritional needs are overlooked, the effectiveness of cancer therapies is compromised from the very start of the clinical journey,” says Alessandro Laviano, head of the Clinical Nutrition Unit at Sapienza University Hospital Sant’Andrea in Rome. The case is equally compelling for health systems. Malnourished patients face more infections, more complications and longer hospital stays — driving an estimated €17 billion in avoidable costs across Europe each year. In other words, tackling malnutrition is not only clinically essential; it is fiscally smart, precisely the kind of reform that strengthens systems under pressure. > Malnourished patients face more infections, more complications and longer > hospital stays — driving an estimated €17 billion in avoidable costs across > Europe each year. Ultimately, the challenge is not the absence of tools, but their inconsistent use. Nutritional care has proven benefits for patients and for health systems alike, yet it remains unevenly integrated in cancer care across Europe. To change this, the EU needs a clear policy framework that makes nutritional care a standard part of cancer care. This means ensuring routine malnutrition screening, equipping healthcare professionals with the practical skills to act and guaranteeing equal access to medical nutrition for eligible patients. Keep cancer high on the agenda and close the nutritional gap Europe has both the opportunity and the responsibility to keep cancer high on the political agenda. A more equitable and effective approach to cancer care is within reach, but only if EU leaders resist scaling back ambition in the next budget cycle. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, a major political and financial commitment, has strengthened prevention, screening, workforce training and patient rights. Yet the mission is far from complete. Cancer continues to affect millions of families and places a significant and rising burden on European health systems. Protecting progress means addressing persistent gaps in care. As the EU pushes for earlier detection, integrated pathways and stronger resilience, nutritional care must be part of that effort, not left on the margins. With such a patient-first approach — screening early, equipping clinicians and ensuring equitable access to medical nutrition — Europe can improve outcomes and further strengthen health systems. Now is the moment to build on hard-won progress and accelerate results for patients across the region. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. Ryan AM, et al. 2019. https://www.danone.com/newsroom/stories/malnutrition-in-cancer.html 2. Ipsos European Oncology Patient Survey, data on file, 2023. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Danone * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on EU health and budgetary policy. It calls for sustained EU funding and political commitment to renew and strengthen Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan in the upcoming 2028–34 budget cycle, and urges integration of medical nutrition into EU cancer policy frameworks. The article explicitly addresses EU leaders and institutions, advocating policy and funding decisions to close gaps in cancer care across Member States. More information here.

Europe’s ambition to become climate neutral by 2050 cannot succeed in healthcare unless we fix a basic problem: we do not measure sustainability in the same way across the single market. Currently, measuring Product Carbon Footprints (PCF) and Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) throughout the European Union consists of a patchwork of national methodologies and/or competing frameworks. This fragmentation is not just a technical inconvenience, it actively undermines fair procurement, increases costs, and risks unequal patient access across Europe.[1] Without a single, harmonized methodology or framework, this EU sustainability and competitiveness goal will remain challenging to achieve. Though the lack of harmonizsation may seem technical, its consequences are tangible. PCF and LCA outputs can differ widely depending on the standards and methodologies defined and endorsed by policymakers, the way they are applied by industry, or how existing international standards are interpreted and implemented across member states.[2] The result is that national authorities are effectively speaking different languages. A treatment considered more environmentally responsible in one country may be evaluated entirely differently just across the border. And without harmonized sustainability assessments for medicines, there is a risk that sustainability is given disproportionate weight compared with safety and quality, undermining high-quality medicine development. In short, fragmentation slows progress, weakens trust and, importantly, – prevents comparability. [1]  > In short, fragmentation slows progress, weakens trust and, importantly, – > prevents comparability. In practice, the absence of a harmonized standard allows 27 different interpretations of ‘sustainability’ to coexist, which is incompatible with a functioning single market. Fortunately, PAS 2090:2025 offers what the EU has been missing: a single, science-based methodology that allows regulators, procurers, and industry to finally speak the same language. Developed with stakeholders across the healthcare and life sciences sector, PAS 2090:2025 specifies the appropriate methodology for medicines under ISO standards, aligning the playing field for everyone involved. Published by the British Standards Institution in November 2025, it reflects broad technical consensus and strong credibility. PAS 2090:2025 provides the first practical methodology for measuring the environmental performance of pharmaceuticals, establishing a common framework to support comparable environmental reporting, reduce regulatory duplication and provide policymakers with a credible basis to demonstrate progress toward climate neutrality. It also gives industry the predictability needed to invest in sustainable innovation, while ensuring that patients receive consistent assessments of a treatment’s environmental profile, regardless of where it is evaluated. Importantly, this approach reflects principles already embedded in EU policymaking. The European Health Data Space, for example, demonstrates how interoperability and standardized frameworks are essential in making cross-border data meaningful and actionable.[3] Meanwhile, the European Commission has been equally clear: harmonized technical standards and coherent sustainability rules are critical to the effective functioning of the Single Market and ensuring the free movement of goods.[4] This is a shared concern across stakeholder groups. Both the Federation of European Academies of Medicine and European Academies’ Science Advisory Council, representing Europe’s leading academies of medicine and science, have similarly highlighted the fact that common standards are essential for transparent procurement and fair competition across therapeutic categories.[5]And the innovative pharmaceutical industry, via the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, has outlined both the challenges caused by the absence of harmonized standards and called for policymakers, regulators and healthcare stakeholders to endorse PAS 2090:2025 as the one, internationally accepted standard for measuring PCA and LCA in the pharmaceutical industry.[6]Europe’s leading academies of medicine and science, the European Commission, and the innovative pharmaceutical sector all point to the same conclusion: without harmonized standards, sustainability policy cannot work. > At Chiesi, we support PAS 2090:2025 not because it is convenient, but because > it makes our environmental performance directly comparable and therefore > accountable.[2]  That is why our teams have laid out ambitious, yet reachable, targets regarding the reduction of Scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions. We also know that in order to reach these targets, we need to measure our actions and emissions. Measuring what matters is the foundation to making a meaningful difference.[3]  > Measuring what matters is the foundation to making a meaningful > difference.[3]  Our support for PAS 2090:2025 reflects a commitment to transparency, science-based decision-making and long-term sustainability; we use it ourselves because we believe it is the way forward — making it simple to compare products fairly, design transparent tenders, and procure with clarity. Further, industry members will be able to innovate with confidence, knowing that the life-changing efforts will be assessed with science and clear understandings. That said, no single actor can deliver alignment alone. Real progress depends on collaboration between regulators, policymakers, scientific bodies, and industry around a shared approach to measuring and comparing environmental impact. Chiesi stands ready to work with policymakers and partners across the healthcare ecosystem in favor of the adoption of PAS 2090:2025, understanding that achieving true regulatory harmonization is essential for ensuring patient access, maintaining high safety and quality standards, and fostering a globally competitive pharmaceutical industry in Europe. At the end of the day, the EU does not need another pilot program, framework, or national workaround. It needs a decision. It needs action. Europe must agree on how sustainability in healthcare is measured consistently and credibly across the single market. Measuring what matters, in the same way across Europe, is the only path to a climate-neutral, competitive, and fair European health system. Endorsing PAS 2090:2025 as the reference methodology would turn that principle into practice. Andrea Bonetti Andrea Bonetti is head of the EU office at Chiesi Farmaceutici, where he oversees the company’s public affairs strategy at European level across healthcare, sustainability and planetary health. Since opening Chiesi’s Brussels office in 2020, he has strengthened the company’s engagement with EU institutions, contributed to key policy discussions and supported initiatives to advance awareness on climate and environmental priorities in line with Chiesi’s values. He collaborates closely with cross-functional teams on the development and implementation of Chiesi’s sustainability strategy and represents the company within European and international trade associations. With more than 15 years of experience in health and environmental policy, he supports Chiesi’s external positioning and contributes to sector-wide work on environmental and sustainability frameworks. Disclaimer: POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Chiesi Farmaceutici * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on EU sustainability and Single Market policy. More information here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] European Commission. (2023). Annual Single Market Report 2023. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-01/ASMR%202023.pdf   [2] Healthcare Without Harm. (2022). Report: Procuring for greener pharma. https://europe.noharm.org/media/4639/download?inline=1   [3] European Union. (2025). Regulation (EU) 2025/327 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2025 on the European Health Data Space and amending Directive 2011/24/EU and Regulation (EU) 2024/2847. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/327 [4] European Commission. (2026). Public procurement. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/public-procurement_en [5] European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC) & Federation of European Academies of Medicine (FEAM). (2021). Decarbonisation of the health sector: A commentary by EASAC and FEAM. https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Health_Decarb/EASAC_Decarbonisation_of_Health_Sector_Web_9_July_2021.pdf.pdf [6]European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). (2025). Advancing environmental sustainability assessment of pharmaceuticals through standardisation and harmonisation of product carbon footprint assessment. https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/efpia-news/advancing-environmental-sustainability-assessment-of-pharmaceuticals-through-standardisation-and-harmonisation-of-product-carbon-footprint-assessment/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

Europe stands at a crossroads. Cancer cases continue to rise, health systems are under visible strain and critical gaps in care remain unaddressed. Yet, just as the need for action grows more urgent, political attention to health — and to cancer — is fading. Now is the moment for Europe to build on hard-won work and ensure patients across the continent benefit from the care they deserve. As negotiations open on the EU’s next long-term budget (2028-34), priorities are shifting toward fiscal restraint, competitiveness and security. Health — once firmly on the political radar — is slipping down the agenda. This shift comes at a critical moment: Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, a €4 billion flagship effort to turn the tide against cancer, is set to end in 2027 with no clear commitment to renew its mandate. With cancer incidence rising and systems struggling, letting Europe’s cancer framework fade would be a costly mistake. Across Europe, patients, clinicians and advocates are sounding the alarm. > With cancer incidence rising and systems struggling, letting Europe’s cancer > framework fade would be a costly mistake. “With 2.7 million cancer diagnoses and 1.3 million deaths each year, Europe must reach higher for cancer care, not step back,” says Dr. Isabel Rubio, president of the European Cancer Organisation. “Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan has set a new course, but sustained funding is now essential to protect progress and close the gaps patients still face.” Protecting the status quo is not enough. If the EU is serious about patient-centered cancer care, it must make a firm commitment to cancer and confront long-overlooked gaps, namely one with profound impact but minimal political attention: cancer-related malnutrition. The invisible crisis undermining cancer care Nutrition remains one of the most glaring blind spots in European cancer care. Cancer-related malnutrition affects up to seven out of 10 patients, driven by the disease and its treatments.1 Increased nutritional needs — combined with symptoms such as nausea, fatigue and loss of appetite — mean that many patients cannot meet requirements through normal diet alone. The result is avoidable weight loss that weakens resilience, delays treatment and undermines outcomes.2 A new pan-European study by Cancer Patient Europe, spanning 12 countries, underscores the scale of this silent crisis: despite widespread nutritional challenges, support remains inconsistent and insufficient. Only 20 percent of patients reported receiving a nutritional assessment during treatment, and just 14 percent said their nutritional status was monitored over time — a clear mismatch between needs and the care provided. > If the EU is serious about patient-centered cancer care, it must make a firm > commitment to cancer and confront long-overlooked gaps, namely one with > profound impact but minimal political attention: cancer-related malnutrition. International authorities have repeatedly raised concerns about these gaps. The WHO Regional Office for Europe has warned that without proper training, healthcare providers lack the tools to screen, diagnose and address cancer-related malnutrition — highlighting a systemic weakness that continues to be overlooked. Patients themselves understand these shortcomings and seek more information and support. Most recognize nutrition as essential to their wellbeing, yet only 26 percent say they received guidance from their care team. As Antonella Cardone, CEO of Cancer Patient Europe, stresses: “Too many patients are left to face nutritional challenges alone, even when these difficulties directly affect their ability to cope with treatment.” She continues: “Malnutrition is not peripheral to their care. It is central. Addressing malnutrition can contribute to better treatment outcomes and recovery.” Without systematic action, malnutrition will continue to erode patients’ resilience — a preventable barrier that demands attention. A viable yet under-used solution Yet, the tools to address malnutrition already exist. In cancer care, systematic nutritional support has been shown to improve treatment tolerance and support recovery. Medical nutrition — taken orally or through tube feeding — is a science-based intervention designed for patients who cannot meet their nutritional needs through diet alone. Research shows it can reduce complications, limit treatment interruptions and help patients regain strength throughout their cancer journey. “Precision oncology is not only about targeting tumors, but about treating the whole patient. When nutritional needs are overlooked, the effectiveness of cancer therapies is compromised from the very start of the clinical journey,” says Alessandro Laviano, head of the Clinical Nutrition Unit at Sapienza University Hospital Sant’Andrea in Rome. The case is equally compelling for health systems. Malnourished patients face more infections, more complications and longer hospital stays — driving an estimated €17 billion in avoidable costs across Europe each year. In other words, tackling malnutrition is not only clinically essential; it is fiscally smart, precisely the kind of reform that strengthens systems under pressure. > Malnourished patients face more infections, more complications and longer > hospital stays — driving an estimated €17 billion in avoidable costs across > Europe each year. Ultimately, the challenge is not the absence of tools, but their inconsistent use. Nutritional care has proven benefits for patients and for health systems alike, yet it remains unevenly integrated in cancer care across Europe. To change this, the EU needs a clear policy framework that makes nutritional care a standard part of cancer care. This means ensuring routine malnutrition screening, equipping healthcare professionals with the practical skills to act and guaranteeing equal access to medical nutrition for eligible patients. Keep cancer high on the agenda and close the nutritional gap Europe has both the opportunity and the responsibility to keep cancer high on the political agenda. A more equitable and effective approach to cancer care is within reach, but only if EU leaders resist scaling back ambition in the next budget cycle. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, a major political and financial commitment, has strengthened prevention, screening, workforce training and patient rights. Yet the mission is far from complete. Cancer continues to affect millions of families and places a significant and rising burden on European health systems. Protecting progress means addressing persistent gaps in care. As the EU pushes for earlier detection, integrated pathways and stronger resilience, nutritional care must be part of that effort, not left on the margins. With such a patient-first approach — screening early, equipping clinicians and ensuring equitable access to medical nutrition — Europe can improve outcomes and further strengthen health systems. Now is the moment to build on hard-won progress and accelerate results for patients across the region. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. Ryan AM, et al. 2019. https://www.danone.com/newsroom/stories/malnutrition-in-cancer.html 2. Ipsos European Oncology Patient Survey, data on file, 2023. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Danone * The ultimate controlling entity is Danone More information here.