The UK has historically been a global leader in life sciences innovation, but recent statistics paint a worrying picture for medicines access. The right policy can start to reverse this. We are living in a time where the intersection between breakthrough science, technology and data insights has the potential to transform treatment options for some of the toughest health conditions faced by patients in the UK. The UK has long played a central role in driving innovation when it comes to healthcare, and at Johnson & Johnson (J&J) we were pleased to see some positive signs from the Government at the end of 2025, illustrating an intent to reverse a decade of decline of investment in how the UK values innovative treatments. It was a positive first step, but now the real work begins to enable us to deliver the best possible outcomes for UK patients. To achieve this, our focus must be on ensuring our health system is set up to match the pace and gain the benefits of innovation that science provides. We need a supportive medicines environment that fully fosters growth, because even the most pioneering drugs and therapies are only valuable if they can be accessed by patients when they need them most. > even the most pioneering drugs and therapies are only valuable if they can be > accessed by patients when they need them most. At J&J, we are proud to have been part of the UK’s health innovation story for more than a century. We believe that turning ambition into delivery requires a clearer focus on the foundations that enable innovation to reach patients. We have had a substantial and long-term economic presence, with our expertise serving as the grounds for successful partnerships with patients, healthcare providers, clinical researchers and the NHS. Recent national developments are a step in the right direction The UK Government’s recent announcements on the life sciences industry are an important move to help address concerns around medicines access, innovation and the UK’s international standing. This includes a welcome planned increase to the baseline cost-effectiveness threshold (the first change to be made since its introduction in the early 2000s). While it is crucial to get this implemented properly, this seems like a step in the right direction — providing a starting point towards meaningful policy reform, industry partnership and progress for patients. The true impact of stifling medicine innovation in the UK compared with our peers These positive developments come at a critical time, but they do not fix everything. Over the past decade, spending on branded medicines has fallen in real terms, even as the NHS budget has grown by a third.[i] Years of cost-containment have left the UK health system ill-prepared for the health challenges of today, with short-term savings creating long-term consequences. Right now, access to innovative medicines in the UK lags behind almost every major European country[ii]; the UK ranks 16th and 18th among 19 comparable countries for preventable and treatable causes of mortality.[iii]These are conditions for which effective medicines already exist. Even when new medicines are approved, access is often restricted. One year after launch, usage of innovative treatments in England is just over half the average of comparator countries such as France, Germany and Spain.[iv] The effect is that people living with cancer, autoimmune conditions and rare diseases wait longer to access therapies that are already transforming lives elsewhere in Europe. And even at its new level, the UK’s Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing, Access and Growth (VPAG) clawback rate remains higher than in comparable countries.[v] J&J is committed to working together to develop a new pricing and access framework that is stable, predictable and internationally competitive — enabling the UK to regain its position as a leading destination for life sciences. Seeing the value of health and medicines investment as a catalyst for prosperity and growth Timely access to the right treatment achieves two things; it keeps people healthy and prevents disease worsening so they can participate in society and a thriving economy. New research from the WifOR Institute, funded by J&J, shows that countries that allocate more resources to health — especially when combined with a skilled workforce and strong infrastructure — consistently achieve better outcomes.[vi] > Timely access to the right treatment achieves two things; it keeps people > healthy and prevents disease worsening so they can participate in society and > a thriving economy. The UK Government’s recent recognition of the need for long-term change, setting out plans to increase investment in new medicines from 0.3 percent of GDP to 0.6 percent over the next 10 years is positive. It signals a move towards seeing health as one of our smartest long-term investments, underpinning the UK’s international competitiveness by beginning to bring us nearer to the levels in other major European countries. This mindset shift is critical to getting medicines to patients, and the life sciences ecosystem, including the pharmaceutical sector as a cornerstone, plays a pivotal role. It operates as a virtuous cycle — driven by the generation, production, investment in, access to and uptake of innovation. Exciting scientific developments and evolving treatment pathways mean that we have an opportunity to review the structures around medicines reimbursement to ensure they remain sustainable, competitive and responsive. At J&J, we have the knowledge and heritage to work hand-in-hand with the Government and all partners to achieve this. Together, we can realise the potential of medicine innovation in the UK Patients have the right to expect that science and innovation will reach them when they need it. Innovative treatments can be transformative for patients, meaning an improved quality of life or more precious time with loved ones. We fully support the Government’s ambitions for life sciences and the health of the nation. Now is the moment to deliver meaningful change — the NHS, Government and all system partners, including J&J, must look at what valuing innovation actually means when it comes to modernising the frameworks and mechanisms that support access and uptake. Practical ways to do this include: * Establishing a new pricing and access framework that is stable, predictable and internationally competitive. * Evolving medicines appraisal methods and processes, to deliver on the commitments of the UK-US Economic Prosperity Deal. * Adapting thresholds and value frameworks to ensure they are fit for the future — in the context of wider system pressures, including inflation, and the evolution of medical innovation requiring new approaches to assessment and access. > the NHS, Government and all system partners, including J&J, must look at what > valuing innovation actually means when it comes to modernising the frameworks > and mechanisms that support access and uptake. By truly recognising the value of health as an investment, rather than as a cost, we can return the UK to a more competitive position. The direction of travel is positive. At J&J, we stand ready to work in partnership to help ensure the UK is once again the best place in the world to research, develop and access medicines. Follow Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine UK on LinkedIn for updates on our business, our people and our community. CP-562703 | January 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [i] House of Commons Library (2026). ‘NHS Funding and Expenditure’ Research Briefing. Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn00724/ (Accessed January 2026). [ii] IQVIA & EFPIA (2025). EFPIA Patients W.A.I.T Indicator 2024 Survey. Available at: https://efpia.eu/media/oeganukm/efpia-patients-wait-indicator-2024-final-110425.pdf. (Accessed January 2026) [iii] The Kings Fund (2022). ‘How does the NHS compare to the health care systems of other countries?’ Available at: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/reports/nhs-compare-health-care-systems-other-countries (Accessed January 2026) [iv] Office for Life Sciences (2024). Life sciences competitiveness indicators 2024: summary. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/life-sciences-sector-data-2024/life-sciences-competitiveness-indicators-2024-summary (Accessed January 2026). [v] ABPI. VPAG payment rate for newer medicines will be 14.5% in 2026. December 2025. Available at: https://www.abpi.org.uk/media/news/2025/december/vpag-payment-rate-for-newer-medicines-will-be-145-in-2026/. (Accessed January 2026). [vi] WifOR Institute (2025). Healthy Returns: A Catalyst for Economic Growth and Resilience. Available at: https://www.wifor.com/en/download/healthy-returns-a-catalyst-for-economic-growth-and-resilience/?wpdmdl=360794&refresh=6942abe7a7f511765977063. (Accessed January 2026).

January 2026 I GB-73006 Disclaimer  POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT  * This is sponsored content from AstraZeneca.  * The advertisement is linked to public policy debates on the future of cardiovascular care in the UK.  * This content has been paid for and developed by AstraZeneca UK  Cardiovascular disease (CVD) has shaped the nation’s health for generations. It remains a leading cause of death and a major driver of long-term sickness, yet it is also one of the most preventable. Today, 8 million people in the U.K. live with CVD, and early deaths from CVD in England have reached a 14-year high.1,2 The reality is stark: without urgent action, one million more could live with CVD by 2030 — and two million by 2040.1  Tackling CVD is not only a moral imperative, it’s an economic necessity. In the U.K., 2.5 million working-age people are economically inactive due to long-term sickness, and CVD contributes to long-term sickness at unprecedented levels3 Each year, CVD costs the U.K. economy an estimated £24 billion, straining public finances, dampening productivity and widening inequalities.4  In July 2023, AstraZeneca convened the CVD-risk coalition — with charities, clinical organizations and patient groups — to shape a coordinated response to these trends.   Today, the coalition has published Getting to the heart of the matter: A national action plan for tackling cardiovascular disease5 — a blueprint for decisive action and a call for the government and the NHS to confront CVD head on. It has a clear message: the tools exist to tackle this challenge, but we need leadership, investment, and a focus on prevention and early intervention to unlock meaningful change.  > the tools exist to tackle this challenge, but we need leadership, investment, > and a focus on prevention and early intervention to unlock meaningful change. Diagnosis and prevention gaps we cannot afford   CVD often arises from detectable and treatable conditions: hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, chronic kidney disease. Yet millions remain undiagnosed. Six million people in the U.K. don’t know they have high blood pressure — a silent driver of heart attacks, strokes and kidney disease.6,7   This systemic diagnosis gap is not the result of a lack of evidence or clinical consensus; rather, the longstanding pressure on primary and community care, fragmentation across services, and declining investment in public health. Between 2015/16 and 2023/24, funding for key preventative services — including smoking cessation and adult obesity support — fell sharply in real terms.8  Additionally, secondary prevention remains patchy across England. Despite clear treatment guidance from NICE, less than half of patients with CVD meet recommended cholesterol levels. Almost 30 percent of hypertension patients are not meeting recommended blood pressure targets or don’t have a recent blood pressure measurement in their records.9   The consequences are clear: progress on CVD outcomes has stalled, premature deaths are rising and those in England’s most deprived areas are four times more likely to die prematurely from CVD than those in the least deprived.10  > progress on CVD outcomes has stalled, premature deaths are rising and those in > England’s most deprived areas are four times more likely to die prematurely > from CVD than those in the least deprived We must place prevention at the heart of our health system.  A vision for proactive, personalized cardiovascular care  Early CVD prevention and treatment save lives and money. It benefits patients, reduces NHS pressure and strengthens the UK’s economic resilience.   A 20 percent reduction in CVD incidence could save the NHS £1.1 billion annually within five years and place 60-70,000 more people into work.11 Recent CVDACTION modeling suggests that even modest near-term improvements in treatment could prevent approximately 61,000 events of heart attack, stroke, heart failure admission and end-stage kidney disease in three years.12   This is not theoretical. We know what integrated, proactive models can do.   Unlocking the power of data and digital tools  Platforms like CVDPREVENT and CVDACTION already demonstrate how data-driven insights from GP records can flag undiagnosed or undertreated patients — enabling clinicians to prioritize, optimize treatment and thus prevent avoidable heart attacks and strokes every year.13,14  Additionally, as the NHS App becomes a digital ‘front door’, there is an opportunity to deliver personalized risk information, lifestyle guidance and seamless access to services.  But digital transformation requires investment in workforce capability, interoperability between systems and national procurement frameworks that can scale at pace.  Tom Keith Roach A neighborhood approach to prevention  Joined-up neighborhood services — across community pharmacies, general practice, specialist teams and local authorities — could identify risk earlier, manage long-term conditions holistically and reduce avoidable admissions.   Community pharmacy hypertension screening has delivered over two million blood pressure checks in a single year, identifying thousands previously unaware of their risk.15    The LUCID program, developed as part of a joint working initiative between AstraZeneca and University Hospitals Leicester, has shown that integrated care across nephrology specialists and primary care can identify high-risk chronic kidney disease patients and optimize their treatment, reducing emergency admissions and long-term NHS costs.16    But to truly deliver change, resources must be rebalanced toward primary and community care. Cardiovascular prevention cannot be driven from hospitals alone. The neighborhood service must be properly resourced, with contracts and incentives aligned to prevention and outcomes, not activity.  A whole-system effort to transform lives and the economy  The forthcoming Modern Service Framework for CVD, promised within the Government’s 10 Year Health Plan, presents a critical opportunity. This framework must: * Embed prevention into every level of care  * Enable earlier diagnosis using digital and community-based tools  * Support optimal treatment through data and workforce innovation  * Define clear national priorities backed by accountability  CVD is a health challenge and a national prosperity challenge. We cannot afford rising sickness, worsening inequalities, and an NHS stretched by late-stage, preventable disease. The link between health and wealth has never been clearer: investing in CVD prevention will deliver both immediate and long-term returns.  > The link between health and wealth has never been clearer: investing in CVD > prevention will deliver both immediate and long-term returns. The action plan published today provides a clear, evidence-based roadmap.5 It calls for:  * National clinical and political leadership  * Ambitious targets, including a 20 percent reduction in incidence  * Investment in prevention and the expansion of Health Checks  * Improved uptake of effective treatments, guided by data  * Digital and diagnostic excellence across neighborhoods  * Partnership working at every level  A call to action  CVD has affected too many lives for too long. But progress is within reach. The decisions we make today will determine whether the next decade is defined by a widening crisis or a renewed national effort to prevent avoidable illness.  AstraZeneca stands ready to support the government, the NHS and partners to deliver the change our country needs. The time to act is now.  Find out more at astrazeneca.co.uk   References [1] British Heart Foundation. UK factsheet. January 2026. Available at: https://www.bhf.org.uk/-/media/files/for-professionals/research/heart-statistics/bhf-cvd-statistics-uk-factsheet-jan26.pdf.Last accessed: January 2026. [2] British Medical Journal. Early deaths from cardiovascular disease reach 14 year high in England. British Medical Journal. January 2024. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q176. Last accessed: December 2025.   [3] Rising ill-health and economic inactivity because of long-term sickness, UK: 2019 to 2023. Office for National Statistics. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/economicinactivity/articles/risingillhealthandeconomicinactivitybecauseoflongtermsicknessuk/2019to2023. Last accessed: December 2025.   [4] UK Government. UIN HL5942. March 2025. Available at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-03-18/hl5942. Last accessed: December 2025. [5] Getting to the heart of the matter. A national action plan for tackling cardiovascular disease. AstraZeneca. 2025. Available at: https://qr.short.az/r/Getting-to-the-heart-of-the-matter. Last accessed: January 2026. [6] Blood Pressure UK. Why is know your numbers! needed?. Available at: https://www.bloodpressureuk.org/know-your-numbers/why-is-know-your-numbers-needed/. Last accessed: December 2025.   [7] Department of Health and Social Care. Get your blood pressure checked. March 2024. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/get-your-blood-pressure-checked. Last accessed: December 2025. [8] The Health Foundation. Investing in the public health grant. February 2025. Available at: https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/investing-in-the-public-health-grant. Last Accessed January 2026.  [9] CVDPREVENT. CVDP Annual Audit Report 2025. March 2025. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/65eafc36395e4d64e18a3232/t/6937fb8666a6d23761182c05/1765276550824/CVDPREVENT+Fifth+Annual+Report.pdf Last Accessed: January 2026. [10] Public Health England. Health matters: preventing cardiovascular disease. February 2019. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-preventing-cardiovascular-disease/health-matters-preventing-cardiovascular-disease. Last accessed: December 2025. [11] Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. The economic case for Protect Britain, a preventative health care delivery programme. July 2024. Available at: https://assets.ctfassets.net/75ila1cntaeh/7CcuI38C3mxgps6lC9O2iA/825bf2a41f933cf719459087c1599190/Tony_Blair_Institute_for_Global_Change__The_Economic_Case_for_Protect_Britain__July_2024.pdf Last accessed January 2026 [12] Into-Action.Health. Powering the prevention shift – The CVDACTION impact model.  September 2025. Available at: https://www.into-action.health/_files/ugd/ee4262_81e75612f13e403aab6594727b338771.pdf. Last Accessed January 2026. [13]Data & Improvement Tool. CVDPREVENT. Available at: https://www.cvdprevent.nhs.uk/. Last accessed: December 2025.   [14] Transforming the prevention of CVD. CVDACTION. Health Innovation Network. Available at: https://thehealthinnovationnetwork.co.uk/case_studies/transforming-the-prevention-of-cvd/. Last accessed: December 2025. [15] NHS Business Services Authority. Dispensing contractors’ data. Available at: https://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/prescription-data/dispensing-data/dispensing-contractors-data . Last Accessed January 2026 [16] AstraZeneca UK. Executive summary of Joint Working outputs. Pan Leicester Integrated Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) Transformation Project: a quality improvement project to identify CKD patients in primary care suitable for virtual management to improve patient outcomes. (LUCID). July 2024. Available at: https://www.astrazeneca.co.uk/content/dam/intelligentcontent/unbranded/astrazeneca/uk/en/pdf/work-with-nhs-uk/Executive_Summary_of_Joint_Working_Outputs_Pan_Leicester.pdf. Last Accessed: January 2026

The German government rejected claims by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that Berlin prosecuted doctors and patients for refusing Covid-19 vaccinations or mask mandates. “The statements made by the U.S. Secretary of Health are completely unfounded, factually incorrect, and must be rejected,” German Health Minister Nina Warken said in a statement late Saturday. “I can happily explain this to him personally,” she said. “At no time during the coronavirus pandemic was there any obligation for doctors to carry out vaccines against Covid-19,” Warken added. “Anyone who did not wish to offer vaccines for medical, ethical or personal reasons were not criminally liable and did not have to fear penalties,” she said. Warken added that “criminal prosecution took place only in cases of fraud and forgery of documents, such as the issuing of false vaccine certificates” or exemption certificates for masks.  “Doctors [in Germany] decide independently and autonomously on the treatment of patients,” the minister stressed, adding that “patients are also free to decide which treatment they wish to receive.” Kennedy said in a video post on Saturday that he had written to Warken after receiving reports that Germany was restricting “people’s abilities to act on their own convictions” in medical decisions. He claimed that “more than a thousand German physicians and thousands of their patients” faced prosecution for issuing exemptions from mask-wearing or Covid-19 vaccination requirements during the pandemic. Kennedy did not provide specific examples or identify the reports he cited, but he said Germany was “targeting physicians who put their patients first” and was “punishing citizens for making their own medical choices.” He accused Berlin of undermining the doctor–patient relationship and replacing it with “a dangerous system that makes physicians enforcers of state policies.” Former German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach also pushed back on the claims, telling Kennedy on X to “take care of health problems in his own country.”

People who stop taking weight-loss drugs regain body mass four times faster than those who lost their excess pounds through diet and exercise, according to an analysis of the latest studies. The additional benefits from taking weight-loss drugs, such as improvements in cholesterol and blood pressure, were also reversed when patients quit the medications, the study found. The research, published in the British Medical Journal on Thursday, adds to a growing body of evidence that suggests life-long treatment of obesity is needed to maintain control of the condition. But the high cost of the latest drugs — as well as their side effects — present barriers to long-term use. “We know that obesity is a chronic relapsing condition. We know that when treatment stops, weight is regained. And so, some kind of treatment needs to be continued. What [that] treatment should be, I don’t know,” co-author Susan Jebb, professor of diet and population health at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, told journalists. Rates of obesity and overweight are growing rapidly on the continent, with around 51 percent of people in the EU aged 16 years or over being overweight in 2022. Obesity significantly increases the risk of chronic illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease and cancers, and health systems are struggling to cope. Researchers analyzed weight gain from 37 trials of multiple weight-loss drugs, including older medications and the newer GLP-1s. The latest drugs, including Novo Nordisk’s diabetes and weight-loss drugs Ozempic and Wegovy and Eli Lilly’s Mounjaro, saw the greatest weight loss and the fastest weight regain when treatment stopped. Compared with another analysis of behavioral weight management programs supporting low energy diets and exercise, weight regain was faster after ending medication than after ending behavioral programs. THE LONG-TERM DILEMMA The newer weight-loss drugs have seen a boom in uptake across Europe and America, despite their high prices. Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro soared in popularity after demonstrating roughly 15 percent weight loss in trials, and were pounced on by celebrities and influencers. However, around half of people who take these drugs will stop them after one year. Side effects such as nausea and vomiting, costs or dissatisfaction with weight loss as it plateaus are driving decisions to halt treatment, lead author Sam West, a postdoctoral researcher also at the Nuffield department at the University of Oxford, told journalists during the briefing. Most people in the U.K. — around 90 percent — pay privately for their weight-loss medication, Jebb said. But those who access it through the National Health Service are subject to a two-year cap on access to the drugs, known as GLP-1s. Similar limits apply in other EU countries. Dimitris Koutoukidis, associate professor in diet, obesity and behavioral sciences at the University of Oxford, suggested the U.K. may not be getting the value for money it envisioned with these weight-loss drugs. The model used to assess whether Lilly and Novo’s medicines were cost-effective assumed people would regain their lost weight after two years, he told journalists — but their study shows weight is regained at around 1.5 years. “It is really hard to treat obesity and keep the weight off long-term,” Jebb said. “That should make us put even more effort into preventing weight gain in the first place. And if we could transform our food environment to make it easier for people to manage their weight it would stop them gaining weight in the first place and help people — after a successful weight loss attempt — to keep it off.” “These treatments are not a whole solution,” she added.

President Donald Trump has told his health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to consider aligning the U.S. vaccination schedule with those in Europe, where many countries recommend fewer vaccines. Kennedy has taken up the charge with gusto and is considering advising parents to follow Denmark’s childhood schedule rather than America’s. Many who specialize in vaccination and public health say that would be a mistake. While wealthy European countries do health care comparatively well, they say, there are lots of reasons Americans are recommended more shots than Europeans, ranging from different levels of access to health care to different levels of disease. “If [Kennedy] would like to get us universal health care, then maybe we can have a conversation about having the schedule adjusted,” Demetre Daskalakis, who led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases before resigning in protest in August, told POLITICO. Children, especially those who live in poor and rural areas, would be at greater risk for severe disease and death if the U.S. were to drop shots from its schedule, Daskalakis said. Denmark, for instance, advises immunizing against only 10 of the 18 diseases American children were historically recommended immunizations against. It excludes shots for potentially serious infections, including hepatitis A and B, meningitis and respiratory syncytial virus. Under Kennedy, the government has already changed its hepatitis B vaccine recommendations for newborns this year, even as critics warned the new advice could lead to more chronic infections, liver problems and cancer. The health department points out that the new guidance on hepatitis B — that mothers who test negative for the virus may skip giving their newborn a shot in the hospital — now align more closely with most countries in Europe. Public health experts and others critical of the move say slimmer European vaccine schedules are a cost-saving measure and a privilege afforded to healthier societies, not a tactic to protect kids from vaccine injuries. Kennedy’s interest in modeling the U.S. vaccine schedule after Europe, they point out, is underpinned by his belief that some childhood vaccines are unsafe and that American kids get too many too young. Kennedy’s safety concerns don’t align with the rationale underpinning the approach in Europe, where the consensus is that childhood vaccines are safe. Wealthy European countries in many cases eschew vaccines based on a risk-benefit calculus that doesn’t hold in America. European kids often don’t get certain shots because it would prevent a very small number of cases — like hepatitis B — or because the disease is rarely serious for them, such as Covid-19 and chickenpox. But since the U.S. doesn’t have universal access to care, vaccinating provides more return on investment, experts say. “We just have a tradition to wait a little bit” before adding vaccines to government programs, said Johanna Rubin, a pediatrician and vaccine expert for Sweden’s health agency. Swedish children are advised to get vaccines for 11 diseases before they turn 18. Rubin cited the need to verify the shots’ efficacy and the high cost of new vaccines as reasons Sweden moves slowly to add to its schedule. “It has to go through the health economical model,” she said. VACCINE SAFETY’S NOT THE ISSUE Martin Kulldorff, a Swedish native and former Harvard Medical School professor who led Kennedy’s vaccine advisory panel until this month, pointed to that country’s approach to vaccination and public health in an interview with POLITICO earlier this year. Before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this month dropped its recommendation that children of mothers who test negative for hepatitis B receive a vaccine within a day of birth, Kulldorff cited Sweden’s policy. “In Sweden, the recommendation is that you only do that if the mother has the infection. That’s the case in most European countries,” he said. “You could have a discussion whether one or the other is more reasonable.” The U.S. policy, as of Dec. 16, more closely resembles Sweden’s, with hepatitis B-negative mothers no longer urged to vaccinate their newborns against the virus at birth. But Sweden’s public health agency recommends that all infants be vaccinated, and the country’s regional governments subsidize those doses, which are administered as combination shots targeting six diseases starting at 3 months. Public health experts warn that even children of hepatitis B-negative mothers could catch the virus from others via contact with caregivers who are positive or shared household items. The prevalence of chronic hepatitis B in the U.S. is 6.1 percent compared to 0.3 percent in Sweden, according to the Coalition for Global Hepatitis Elimination, a Georgia-based nonprofit which receives funding from pharmaceutical companies, the CDC and the National Institutes of Health, among others. Michael Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said the U.S. has taken a more comprehensive approach to vaccination, in part because its population is sicker than that of some Western European countries, and the impact of contracting a disease could be more detrimental. Osterholm pointed to the Covid pandemic as an example. By May 2022, the U.S. had seen more than 1 million people die. Other high-income countries — though much smaller — had more success controlling mortality, he said. “People tried to attribute [the disparity] to social, political issues, but no, it was because [peer nations] had so many more people who were actually in low-risk categories for serious illness,” Osterholm said. Kennedy and his advisers also cited European views on Covid vaccination in the spring when the CDC dropped its universal recommendation, instead advising individuals to talk to their providers about whether to get the shot. Last month, the Food and Drug Administration’s top vaccine regulator, Vinay Prasad, linked the deaths of 10 children to Covid vaccination without providing more detailed information about the data behind his assertion. European countries years ago stopped recommending repeat Covid vaccination for children and other groups not considered at risk of becoming severely sick. Covid shots have been linked to rare heart conditions, primarily among young men. European vaccine experts say Covid boosters were not recommended routinely for healthy children in many countries — not because of safety concerns, but because it’s more cost-effective to give them to high-risk groups, such as elderly people or those with health conditions that Covid could make severely sick and put in the hospital. In the U.K., Covid-related hospitalizations and deaths declined significantly after the pandemic, and now are “mostly in the most frail in the population, which has led to more restricted use of the vaccines following the cost-effectiveness principles,” said Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group in the United Kingdom, which works on developing vaccines and was behind AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 shot. Pollard led the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization, which advises the U.K. government, for 12 years before stepping down in September. In the U.S., more moves to follow Europe are likely. At a meeting of Kennedy’s vaccine advisers earlier this month, Tracy Beth Høeg, now acting as the FDA’s top drug regulator, pointed to Denmark’s pediatric schedule, which vaccinates for 10 diseases, while questioning whether healthy American children should be subject to more vaccines than their Danish counterparts. Danish kids typically don’t get shots for chickenpox, the flu, hepatitis A and B, meningitis, respiratory syncytial virus and rotavirus, like American children do, though parents can privately pay for at least some of those vaccines. The country offers free Covid and flu vaccines to high-risk kids. After the vaccine advisory meeting wrapped, Trump said he was on board, directing Kennedy to “fast track” a review of the U.S. vaccine schedule and potentially align it with other developed nations. He cited Denmark, Germany and Japan as countries that recommend fewer shots. Last week, Kennedy came within hours of publicly promoting Denmark’s childhood vaccine schedule as an option for American parents. The announcement was canceled at the last minute after the HHS Office of the General Counsel said it would invite a lawsuit the administration could lose, a senior department official told POLITICO. The notion that the U.S. would drop its vaccine schedule in favor of a European one struck health experts there as odd. Each country’s schedule is based on “the local situation, so the local epidemiology, structure of health care services, available resources, and inevitably, there’s a little bit of political aspect to it as well,” said Erika Duffell, a principal expert on communicable disease prevention and control at the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, an EU agency that monitors vaccine schedules across 30 European countries. Vaccine safety isn’t the issue, she said. For example, even though most Europeans don’t get a hepatitis B shot within 24 hours of birth, the previous U.S. recommendation, “there is a consensus that the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine has been confirmed through decades of research” and continuous monitoring, she said. European nations like Denmark and the U.K. have kept new cases of hepatitis B low. Denmark recorded no cases of mother-to-child transmission in 2023, and Britain’s rate of such spread is less than 0.1 percent — though the latter does routinely recommend vaccinating low-risk infants beginning at 2 months of age. European experts point to high levels of testing of pregnant women for hepatitis B and most women having access to prenatal care as the reasons for success in keeping cases low while not vaccinating all newborns. The major differences between the U.S. and the U.K. in their approach to hepatitis B vaccination are lower infection rates and high screening uptake in Britain, plus “a national health system which is able to identify and deliver vaccines to almost all affected pregnancies selectively,” Pollard said. The CDC, when explaining the change in the universal birth dose recommendation, argued the U.S. has the ability to identify nearly all hepatitis B infections during pregnancy because of ”high reliability of prenatal hepatitis B screening,” which some European experts doubt. “If we change a program, we need to prepare the public, we need to prepare the parents and the health care providers, and say where the evidence comes from,” said Pierre Van Damme, the director of the Centre for the Evaluation of Vaccination at the University of Antwerp in Belgium. He suggested that, if there was convincing evidence, U.S. health authorities could have run a pilot study before changing the recommendation to evaluate screening and the availability of testing at birth in one U.S. state, for example. WHERE EUROPEANS HAVE MORE DISEASE In some cases, European vaccination policies have, despite universal health care, led to more disease. France, Germany and Italy moved from recommending to requiring measles vaccination over the last decade after outbreaks on the continent. The U.S., until recently, had all but eradicated measles through a universal recommendation and school requirements. That’s starting to change. The U.S. is at risk of losing its “measles-elimination” status due to around 2,000 cases this year that originated in a Texas religious community where vaccine uptake is low. The 30 countries in the European Union and the European Economic Area, which have a population of some 450 million people combined, reported more than 35,000 measles cases last year, concentrated in Romania, Austria, Belgium and Ireland. Europe’s comparatively high rate is linked to lower vaccination coverage than the level needed to prevent outbreaks: Only four of the 30 countries reached the 95-percent threshold for the second measles dose in 2024, according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Kennedy touted the U.S.’s lower measles rate as a successful effort at containing the sometimes-deadly disease, but experts say the country could soon see a resurgence of infectious diseases due to the vaccine skepticism that grew during the pandemic and that they say Kennedy has fomented. Among kindergarteners, measles vaccine coverage is down 2.7 percentage points as of the 2024-2025 school year, from a peak of 95.2 percent prior to the pandemic, according to CDC data. That drop occurred before Kennedy became health secretary. Kennedy and his advisers blame it on distrust engendered by Covid vaccine mandates imposed by states and President Joe Biden. But Kennedy led an anti-vaccine movement for years before joining the Trump administration, linking shots to autism and other conditions despite scientific evidence to the contrary, and he has continued to question vaccine safety as secretary. In some EU nations, vaccines aren’t compulsory for school entry. Swedish law guarantees the right to education and promotes close consultation between providers and patients. Some governments fear mandates could push away vaccine-hesitant parents who want to talk the recommended shots over with their doctor before giving the vaccines to their children, Rubin explained. In the U.S., states, which have the authority to implement vaccine mandates for school entry, rely on the CDC’s guidance to decide which to require. Vaccine skeptics have pushed the agency to relax some of its recommendations with an eye toward making it easier for American parents to opt out of routine shots. Scandinavian nations maintain high vaccine uptake without mandates thanks to “high trust” in public health systems, Rubin said. In Sweden, she added, nurses typically vaccinate young children at local clinics and provide care for them until they reach school age, which helps build trust among parents. CHICKENPOX Another example of where the U.S. and Europe differ is the chickenpox vaccine. The U.S. was the first country to begin universal vaccination against the common childhood illness in 1995; meanwhile, 13 EU nations broadly recommend the shot. Denmark doesn’t officially track chickenpox — the vaccine isn’t included on its schedule — but estimates 60,000 cases annually in its population of 6 million. The vastly larger U.S. sees fewer than 150,000 cases per year, according to the CDC. Many European countries perceive chickenpox as a benign disease, Van Damme said. “If you have a limited budget for prevention, you will spend usually the money in other preventative interventions, other vaccines than varicella,” he said, referring to the scientific term for chickenpox. But there’s another risk if countries decide to recommend chickenpox vaccination, he explained. If the vaccination level is low, people remain susceptible to the disease, which poses serious risks to unborn babies. If it’s contracted in early pregnancy, chickenpox could trigger congenital varicella syndrome, a rare disorder that causes birth defects. If children aren’t vaccinated against chickenpox, almost all would get the disease by age 10, Van Damme explained. If countries opt for vaccination, they have to ensure robust uptake: vaccinate virtually all children by 10, or risk having big pockets of unvaccinated kids who could contract higher-risk infections later. Europe’s stance toward chickenpox could change soon. Several countries are calculating that widely offering chickenpox vaccines would provide both public health and economic benefits. Britain is adding the shot to its childhood schedule next month. Sweden is expected to green-light it as part of its national program in the coming months. While the public doesn’t see it as a serious disease, pediatricians who see serious cases of chickenpox are advocating for the vaccine, Rubin told POLITICO. “It is very contagious,” she said. “It fulfills all our criteria.” The U.K. change comes after its vaccine advisory committee reviewed new data on disease burden and cost-effectiveness — including a 2022 CDC study of the U.S. program’s first 25 years that also examined the vaccine’s impact on shingles, a painful rash that can occur when the chickenpox virus reactivates years later. Scientists had theorized for years that limiting the virus’ circulation among children could increase the incidence of shingles in older adults by eliminating the “booster” effect of natural exposure, but the U.S. study found that real-world evidence didn’t support that hypothesis.

Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * This is sponsored content from AstraZeneca. * The advertisement is linked to public policy debates on the future of cancer care in the EU. More information here. Europe has made huge strides in the fight against cancer.[1] Survival rates have climbed, detection has improved and the continent has become home to some of the world’s most respected research hubs.[2],[3] None of that progress came easy — it was built on years of political attention and cooperation across borders. However, as we look to 2026 and beyond, that progress stands at a crossroads. Budget pressures and tougher global competition threaten to push cancer and health care down the EU agenda. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan — a flagship initiative aimed at expanding screening, improving early detection and boosting collaboration — is set to expire in 2027, with no clear plan to secure or extend its gains.[4],[5] “My [hope is that we can continue] the work started with Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan and make it sustainable… [and] build on the lessons learned, [for other disease areas] ” says Antonella Cardone, CEO of Cancer Patients Europe. A new era in cancer treatment Concern about the lapsing initiative is compounded by two significant shifts in health care: declining investment and increasing scientific advancement. Firstly, Europe has seen the increased adoption of cost-containment policies by some member states. Under-investment in Europe in cancer medicines has been a challenge — specifically with late and uneven funding, and at lower levels than international peers such as the US — potentially leaving patients with slower and more limited access to life-saving therapies.[6],[7],[8] Meanwhile, the U.S., which pays on average double for medicines per capita than the EU,[9] is actively working to rebalance its relationship with pharmaceuticals to secure better pricing (“fair market value”) through policies across consecutive administrations.[10] All the while, China is rapidly scaling investment in biotech and clinical research, determined to capture the trials, talent, and capital that once flowed naturally to Europe.[11] The rebalancing of health and life-science investment can have significant consequences. If Europe does not stay attractive for life-sciences investment, the impact will extend beyond cancer patient outcomes. Jobs, tax revenues, advanced manufacturing, and Europe’s leadership in strategic industries are all at stake.[12] Secondly, medical science has never looked more promising.[7] Artificial intelligence is accelerating drug discovery, clinical trials, and diagnostics, and the number of approved medicines for patients across Europe has jumped from an average of one per year between 1995 and 2000 to 14 per year between 2021 and 2024.[13],[14],[15], [7] Digital health tools and innovative medtech startups are multiplying, increasing competitiveness and lowering costs — guiding care toward a future that is more personalized and precise.[16],[17] Europe stands at the threshold of a new era in cancer treatment. But if policymakers ease up now, progress could stall — and other regions, especially the U.S. and China, are more than ready to widen the innovation gap. Recognizing the strategic investment Health spending is generally treated as a budget item to be contained. Yet investment in cancer care has been one of Europe’s smartest economic bets.[18],[19] The sector anchors millions of high-skilled jobs (it employs around 29 million people in the EU[11]) and attracts global life sciences investment. According to the European Commission, the sector contributes nearly €1.5 trillion to the EU economy.[12] Studies from the Institute of Health Economics confirm that money put into research directly translates into better survival outcomes.[20] The same report shows that although the overall spend on cancer is increasing, the cost per patient has actually decreased since 1995, suggesting that innovative treatments are increasing efficiency.[20] Those gains matter not only to patients and families, but to Europe’s long-term stability: healthier populations mean fewer costs down the line, stronger productivity, and more sustainable public finances.[20] Fixing Europe’s access gap Cancer medicines bring transformative value — to patients, to society and to the wider economy. [21] However, even as oncology therapies advance, patients across Europe are not benefiting equally. EFPIA’s 2024 Patients W.A.I.T. indicator shows that, on average, just 46 percent of innovative medicines approved between 2020 and 2023 were available to patients in 2024.[22] On average, it takes 578 days for a new oncology medicine to reach European patients, and only 29 percent of drugs are fully available in all member states.[23] This is not caused by a lack of breakthrough medicines, but by national policy mechanisms that undervalue innovation. OECD and the Institute for Health Economics data show that divergent HTA requirements, rigid cost-effectiveness thresholds, price-volume clawbacks, ad hoc taxes on pharmaceutical revenues and slow national reimbursement decisions collectively suppress timely access to new cancer medicines across the EU.[24] These disparities cut against Europe’s long-standing reputation as a collection of societies that values equitable, high-quality care for all of its citizens. It risks eroding one of the EU’s defining strengths: the commitment to fairness and collective progress. Cancer policy solutions for the EU Although this is ultimately a matter for member states, embedding cancer as a permanent EU priority — backed by funding, coordination, and accountability — could give national systems the incentives and strategic direction to buck these trends. These actions will reassure pharmaceutical companies that Europe is serious about attracting clinical trials and the launch of new medicines, ensuring that its citizens, societies and economies enjoy the benefits this brings. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan delivered progress, but its expiry presents a pivotal moment. 2026 and beyond bring a significant opportunity for the EU to build on this by ensuring that member states implement National Cancer Control Plans and have clear targets and accountability on their national performance, including on investment and access. To do this, EU policymakers should consider three actions as an immediate priority with lasting impact: * Embed cancer and investment within EU governance. Build it into the European Semester on health with mandatory indicators, regular reviews, and accountability frameworks to ensure continuity. This model worked well during Covid-19 and should be adapted for non-communicable diseases starting with cancer as a pilot. * Secure stable and sufficient funding. The Multiannual Financial Framework must ensure adequate funding for health and cancer to encourage coordinated initiatives across member states. * Strengthen EU-level coordination. Ensure that pan-EU structures such as the Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Mission Hubs are adequately funded and empowered. These are the building blocks of a lasting European commitment to cancer. With action, Europe can secure a sustainable foundation for patients, resilience and continued scientific excellence. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] European Commission, OECD/European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. 2023. State of Health in the EU: Synthesis Report 2023. Available at: https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-12/state_2023_synthesis-report_en.pdf [Accessed December 2025] [2] Efpia. 2025. Cancer care 2025: an overview of cancer outcomes data across Europe. Available at: https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/statements-press-releases/ihe-cancer-comparator-report-2025/ [Accessed December 2025] [3] Cancer Core Europe. 2024. Cancer Core Europe: Advancing Cancer Care Through Collaboration. Available at: https://www.cancercoreeurope.eu/cce-advancing-cancer-care-collaboration/ [Accessed December 2025] [4] European Commission. 2021. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan. Available at:https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-02/eu_cancer-plan_en_0.pdf [Accessed December 2025] [5] European Parliament. 2025. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan: Implementation findings. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2025/765809/EPRS_STU(2025)765809_EN.pdf [Accessed December 2025] [6] Hofmarcher, T., et al. 2024. Access to Oncology Medicines in EU and OECD Countries (OECD Health Working Papers, No.170). OECD Publishing. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/09/access-to-oncology-medicines-in-eu-and-oecd-countries_6cf189fe/c263c014-en.pdf [Accessed December 2025] [7] Manzano, A., et al. 2025. Comparator Report on Cancer in Europe 2025 – Disease Burden, Costs and Access to Medicines and Molecular Diagnostics (IHE). Available at: https://ihe.se/app/uploads/2025/03/IHE-REPORT-2025_2_.pdf [Accessed December 2025] [8] Efpia. [no date]. Europe’s choice. Available at: https://www.efpia.eu/europes-choice/ [Accessed December 2025] [9] OECD. 2024. Prescription Drug Expenditure per Capita. https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?lc=en&pg=0&snb=1&vw=tb&df[ds]=dsDisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_SHA%40DF_SHA&df[ag]=OECD.ELS.HD&df[vs]=&pd=2015%2C&dq=.A.EXP_HEALTH.USD_PPP_PS%2BPT_EXP_HLTH._T..HC51%2BHC3.._T…&to[TIME_PERIOD]=false&lb=bt [Accessed December 2025] [10] The White House. 2025. Delivering most favored-nation prescription drug pricing to American patients. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/delivering-most-favored-nation-prescription-drug-pricing-to-american-patients/ [Accessed December 2025] [11] Eleanor Olcott, Haohsiang Ko and William Sandlund. 2025. The relentless rise of China’s Biotechs. Financial Times. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/c0a1b15b-84ee-4549-85eb-ed3341112ce5 [Accessed December 2025] [12] European Commission, Directorate-General for Communication. 2025. Making Europe a Global Leader in Life Sciences. Available at: https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/making-europe-global-leader-life-sciences-2025-07-02_en [Accessed December 2025] [13] Financial Times. 2025. How AI is reshaping drug discovery. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/8c8f3c10-9c26-4e27-bc1a-b7c3defb3d95 [Accessed December 2025] [14] Seedblink. 2025. Europe’s HealthTech investment landscape in 2025: A deep dive. https://seedblink.com/blog/2025-05-30-europes-healthtech-investment-landscape-in-2025-a-deep-dive [15] European Commission. [No date]. Artificial Intelligence in healthcare. Available at: https://health.ec.europa.eu/ehealth-digital-health-and-care/artificial-intelligence-healthcare_en [Accessed December 2025] [16] Codina, O. 2025. Code meets care: 20 European HealthTech startups to watch in 2025 and beyond. EU-Startups. Available at: https://www.eu-startups.com/2025/06/code-meets-care-20-european-healthtech-startups-to-watch-in-2025-and-beyond [Accessed December 2025] [17] Protogiros et al. 2025. Achieving digital transformation in cancer care across Europe: Practical recommendations from the TRANSiTION project. Journal of Cancer Policy. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538325000281 [Accessed December 2025] [18] R-Health Consult. [no date]. The case for investing in a healthier future for the European Union. EFPIA. Available at: https://www.efpia.eu/media/xpkbiap5/the-case-for-investing-in-a-healthier-future-for-the-european-union.pdf [Accessed December 2025] [19] Pousette A., Hofmarcher T. 2024.Tackling inequalities in cancer care in the European Union. Available at: https://ihe.se/en/rapport/tackling-inequalities-in-cancer-care-in-the-european-union-2/ [Accessed December 2025] [20] Efpia. 2025. Comparator Report Cancer in Europe 2025. Available at: https://www.efpia.eu/media/0fbdi3hh/infographic-comparator-report-cancer-in-europe.pdf [Accessed December 2025] [21] Garau, E. et al. 2025. The Transformative Value of Cancer Medicines in Europe. Dolon Ltd. Available at: https://dolon.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/EOP_Investment-Value-of-Oncology-Medicines-White-Paper_2025-09-19-vF.pdf?x16809 [Accessed December 2025] [22] IQVIA. 2025. EFPIA Patients W.A.I.T. Indicator 2024 Survey. Available at: https://www.efpia.eu/media/oeganukm/efpia-patients-wait-indicator-2024-final-110425.pdf [Accessed December 2025] [23] Visentin M. 2025. Improving equitable access to medicines in Europe must remain a priority. The Parliament. Available at: https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/improving-equitable-access-to-medicines-in-europe-must-remain-a-priority [Accessed December 2025] [24] Hofmarcher, T. et al. 2025. Access to novel cancer medicines in Europe: inequities across countries and their drivers. ESMO Open. Available at: https://www.esmoopen.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2059-7029%2825%2901679-5 [Accessed December 2025]

Thirty-six million Europeans — including more than one million in the Nordics[1] — live with a rare disease.[2] For patients and their families, this is not just a medical challenge; it is a human rights issue. Diagnostic delays mean years of worsening health and needless suffering. Where treatments exist, access is far from guaranteed. Meanwhile, breakthroughs in genomics, AI and targeted therapies are transforming what is possible in health care. But without streamlined systems, innovations risk piling up at the gates of regulators, leaving patients waiting. Even the Nordics, which have some of the strongest health systems in the world, struggle to provide fair and consistent access for rare-disease patients. Expectations should be higher. THE BURDEN OF DELAY The toll of rare diseases is profound. People living with them report health-related quality-of-life scores 32 percent lower than those without. Economically, the annual cost per patient in Europe — including caregivers — is around €121,900.[3] > Across Europe, the average time for diagnosis is six to eight years, and > patients continue to face long waits and uneven access to medications. In Sweden, the figure is slightly lower at €118,000, but this is still six times higher than for patients without a rare disease. Most of this burden (65 percent) is direct medical costs, although non-medical expenses and lost productivity also weigh heavily. Caregivers, for instance, lose almost 10 times more work hours than peers supporting patients without a rare disease.[4] This burden can be reduced. European patients with access to an approved medicine face average annual costs of €107,000.[5] Yet delays remain the norm. Across Europe, the average time for diagnosis is six to eight years, and patients continue to face long waits and uneven access to medications. With health innovation accelerating, each new therapy risks compounding inequity unless access pathways are modernized. PROGRESS AND REMAINING BARRIERS Patients today have a better chance than ever of receiving a diagnosis — and in some cases, life-changing therapies. The Nordics in particular are leaders in integrated research and clinical models, building world-class diagnostics and centers of excellence. > Without reform, patients risk being left behind. But advances are not reaching everyone who needs them. Systemic barriers persist: * Disparities across Europe: Less than 10 percent of rare-disease patients have access to an approved treatment.[6] According to the Patients W.A.I.T. Indicator (2025), there are stark differences in access to new orphan medicines (or drugs that target rare diseases).[7] Of the 66 orphan medicines approved between 2020 and 2023, the average number available across Europe was 28. Among the Nordics, only Denmark exceeded this with 34. * Fragmented decision-making: Lengthy health technology assessments, regional variation and shifting political priorities often delay or restrict access. Across Europe, patients wait a median of 531 days from marketing authorization to actual availability. For many orphan drugs, the wait is even longer. In some countries, such as Norway and Poland, reimbursement decisions take more than two years, leaving patients without treatment while the burden of disease grows.[8] * Funding gaps: Despite more therapies on the market and greater technology to develop them, orphan medicines account for just 6.6 percent of pharmaceutical budgets and 1.2 percent of health budgets in Europe. Nordic countries — Sweden, Norway and Finland — spend a smaller share than peers such as France or Belgium. This reflects policy choices, not financial capacity.[9] If Europe struggles with access today, it risks being overwhelmed tomorrow. Rare-disease patients — already facing some of the longest delays — cannot afford for systems to fall farther behind. EASING THE BOTTLENECKS Policymakers, clinicians and patient advocates across the Nordics agree: the science is moving faster than the systems built to deliver it. Without reform, patients risk being left behind just as innovation is finally catching up to their needs. So what’s required? * Governance and reforms: Across the Nordics, rare-disease policy remains fragmented and time-limited. National strategies often expire before implementation, and responsibilities are divided among ministries, agencies and regional authorities. Experts stress that governments must move beyond pilot projects to create permanent frameworks — with ring-fenced funding, transparent accountability and clear leadership within ministries of health — to ensure sustained progress. * Patient organizations: Patient groups remain a driving force behind awareness, diagnosis and access, yet most operate on short-term or volunteer-based funding. Advocates argue that stable, structural support — including inclusion in formal policy processes and predictable financing — is critical to ensure patient perspectives shape decision-making on access, research and care pathways. * Health care pathways: Ann Nordgren, chair of the Rare Disease Fund and professor at Karolinska Institutet, notes that although Sweden has built a strong foundation — including Centers for Rare Diseases, Advanced Therapy (ATMP) and Precision Medicine Centers, and membership in all European Reference Networks — front-line capacity remains underfunded. “Government and hospital managements are not providing  resources to enable health care professionals to work hands-on with diagnostics, care and education,” she explains. “This is a big problem.” She adds that comprehensive rare-disease centers, where paid patient representatives collaborate directly with clinicians and researchers, would help bridge the gap between care and lived experience. * Research and diagnostics: Nordgren also points to the need for better long-term investment in genomic medicine and data infrastructure. Sweden is a leader in diagnostics through Genomic Medicine Sweden and SciLifeLab, but funding for advanced genomic testing, especially for adults, remains limited. “Many rare diseases still lack sufficient funding for basic and translational research,” she says, leading to delays in identifying genetic causes and developing targeted therapies. She argues for a national health care data platform integrating electronic records, omics (biological) data and patient-reported outcomes — built with semantic standards such as openEHR and SNOMED CT — to enable secure sharing, AI-driven discovery and patient access to their own data DELIVERING BREAKTHROUGHS Breakthroughs are coming. The question is whether Europe will be ready to deliver them equitably and at speed, or whether patients will continue to wait while therapies sit on the shelf. There is reason for optimism. The Nordic region has the talent, infrastructure and tradition of fairness to set the European benchmark on rare-disease care. But leadership requires urgency, and collaboration across the EU will be essential to ensure solutions are shared and implemented across borders. The need for action is clear: * Establish long-term governance and funding for rare-disease infrastructure. * Provide stable, structural support for patient organizations. * Create clearer, better-coordinated care pathways. * Invest more in research, diagnostics and equitable access to innovative treatments. Early access is not only fair — it is cost-saving. Patients treated earlier incur lower indirect and non-medical costs over time.[10] Inaction, by contrast, compounds the burden for patients, families and health systems alike. Science will forge ahead. The task now is to sustain momentum and reform systems so that no rare-disease patient in the Nordics, or anywhere in Europe, is left waiting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] https://nordicrarediseasesummit.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/25.02-Nordic-Roadmap-for-Rare-Diseases.pdf [2] https://nordicrarediseasesummit.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/25.02-Nordic-Roadmap-for-Rare-Diseases.pdf [3] https://media.crai.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/28114611/CRA-Alexion-Quantifying-the-Burden-of-RD-in-Europe-Full-report-October2024.pdf [4] https://media.crai.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/28114611/CRA-Alexion-Quantifying-the-Burden-of-RD-in-Europe-Full-report-October2024.pdf [5] https://media.crai.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/28114611/CRA-Alexion-Quantifying-the-Burden-of-RD-in-Europe-Full-report-October2024.pdf [6] https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/a-competitive-and-innovationled-europe-starts-with-rare-diseases? [7] https://www.iqvia.com/-/media/iqvia/pdfs/library/publications/efpia-patients-wait-indicator-2024.pdf [8] https://www.iqvia.com/-/media/iqvia/pdfs/library/publications/efpia-patients-wait-indicator-2024.pdf [9] https://copenhageneconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Copenhagen-Economics_Spending-on-OMPs-across-Europe.pdf [10] https://media.crai.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/28114611/CRA-Alexion-Quantifying-the-Burden-of-RD-in-Europe-Full-report-October2024.pdf 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.

LONDON — A mutated influenza strain is spreading early in Europe this winter, but some experts warn talk of a “superflu” is misleading, erodes public trust and distracts from the underlying problems of the National Health Service. The new strain has triggered dramatic headlines in the U.K., where health leaders are warning of a “worst-case scenario” for the country’s NHS. Health Secretary Wes Streeting described it as a “tidal wave of flu tearing through our hospitals” and labelled it a “challenge unlike any [the NHS] has seen since the pandemic.” While hospital admissions have been rising sharply due to the early arrival of flu season, there is currently no evidence that this season’s variant is more deadly or transmissible, experts at the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) told POLITICO. Neither does the data suggest hospital admissions will peak higher than previous years — although this is possible — just that they’re a few weeks early. But some experts in the U.K. have criticized the government’s “superflu” narrative, suggesting it’s being used as leverage in talks on doctor pay and conditions ahead of a looming strike. Prime Minister Keir Starmer wrote in The Guardian Friday it was “beyond belief” doctors would consider striking in these “potentially dire” circumstances, citing “a superflu epidemic.” The British Medical Association (BMA), the union representing resident doctors due to go on strike Wednesday, claimed it was “irresponsible to portray the current winter flu crisis as unprecedented” given that rates of infection and hospitalization were “comparable to most years,” a spokesperson told POLITICO. Mathematician Christina Pagel, a professor at University College London, said the “superflu” line was based on the “highly misleading use of statistics” and had more to do with the impending doctors’ strike than real trends. When contacted by POLITICO, the U.K. government stood by its health leaders’ warnings of the current flu season, in which they described it as an “unprecedented wave of super flu.” They said staff were being “pushed to the limit.” The government also pointed to stats showing the NHS is under pressure. A DHSC spokesperson told POLITICO the government had offered the BMA an extended mandate so they could strike in January instead, but the union rejected it. The BMA told POLITICO the extension included “several restrictive conditions.” THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUST The government and NHS bosses have warned the heavy burden on hospitals in December could set the health system up for a very severe winter. NHS statistics published last week show an average of 2,660 patients in hospital with flu per day, a record for this time of year, while the Health Foundation has said the NHS could face “major pressures” if cases continue to climb rapidly in the weeks ahead. Yet, while NHS staff are stretched, Pagel and others argue this year is largely consistent with previous severe flu seasons. However, without being clear about this with the public, some experts are concerned the government’s messaging could do more harm than good. “One of the real issues we have with governments everywhere is trust,” Martin McKee, professor of public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, told POLITICO. While NHS staff are stretched, experts argue this year is largely consistent with previous severe flu seasons. | Geography Photos/Getty Images “The difficulty is we’ve seen them do all sorts of things for all sorts of motives. That then becomes a problem whenever they are saying something accurate,” McKee said, adding that the government should be more careful in its flu messaging given the declining trust in science. POLITICO put these concerns over trust in science to DHSC, but the department did not respond by the time of publication. A spokesperson for government-sponsored NHS England told POLITICO: “The NHS is not misleading the public — this is the earliest flu season we have seen in recent years with the latest data showing the numbers of patients in hospital with flu is extremely high for this time of year.” The NHS is struggling as it often does in winter, with a spike in delayed discharges — people who are ready to leave hospital but have nowhere to go — posing an extra challenge for hospitals, The Guardian reported Sunday. Hospital admissions for flu per 100,000 rose 23 percent in last week’s data, compared to 69 percent the previous week, but this doesn’t rule out another surge in the weeks ahead. McKee said the NHS was paying the price for chronic underinvestment. “We almost seem surprised that it’s arrived,” he said of the current flu wave, citing a “massive shortage” in beds, IT equipment and scanners.  WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY There is no reason to think the current flu strain (H3N2 sub-clade K) causes more severe disease than other types of flu, Hans Kluge, head of the World Health Organization’s Europe office, told POLITICO. Nor is there any solid evidence that it is more transmissible, said Edoardo Colzani, a flu expert at the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. It’s possible the lower level of immunity to this strain could lead to more cases “but this is still speculative at this stage,” Colzani said. “The epidemiological situation at the moment [in the EU] does not seem worse than in previous years apart from the fact that it is two-to-three weeks earlier,” Colzani said. Kluge said it was “about 4 weeks earlier than usual,” which “is not out of the ordinary” and trending similar to the 2022–2023 influenza season. There were some concerns the available flu vaccine might not be a “perfect match” for the current strain, Kluge said, but early data from the U.K. suggests it provides “meaningful protection” and may prevent severe disease and death, especially among vulnerable groups. “We [could] end up having a much bigger wave than usual but we have no evidence,” Pagel said, adding she thought it was “most likely” to peak “in a couple of weeks.” But the available data can’t tell us whether it will be a normal wave that starts and ends early, or an especially bad season, she added.  “We don’t know when it will turn the corner but the actual shape of the wave doesn’t look that different from previous years,” McKee said. The NHS has previously warned of the risk of a “long and drawn-out flu season” due to the early start. According to the WHO, some countries in the southern hemisphere had unusually long flu seasons this year.  “Based on previous trends, this season is expected to peak in late December or early January,” Kluge said. The advice from EU and U.K. authorities remains the same — get a flu vaccine as soon as possible, especially for those in a vulnerable group.