Developed and funded by AbbVie in collaboration with the World Ovarian Cancer Coalition (the Coalition) and based on an interview with Christel Paganoni-Bruijns, chief executive officer of the Coalition, and Frances Reid, programme director of the Coalition -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Late diagnoses, burdensome treatments and disease recurrence are realities for many women with ovarian cancer.1,2,3,4,5 Their stories are evidence of systemic challenges impacting care that policymakers have the power to combat. The World Ovarian Cancer Coalition (the Coalition), the only global ovarian cancer patient advocacy organization, is driving evidence generation to inform tangible policy reforms that could reduce the socioeconomic burden of this disease on individuals and wider societies.6 Ovarian cancer is one of the deadliest cancers affecting women in Europe, yet it remains overlooked.7,8 While other areas of women’s health benefit from policy frameworks and public awareness, ovarian cancer continues to sit in the margins, creating real human consequences. In 2022, Europe recorded the highest rates of ovarian cancer incidence and mortality worldwide.8 Only 40 percent of women in Europe remain alive five years after being diagnosed with ovarian cancer, with advanced-stage diagnoses often having poorer outcomes.8 Despite this, ovarian cancer remains absent from many national cancer plans and there is still no unified European policy framework to address it.  In partnership with European patient groups, the Coalition is convening a series of workshops for ovarian cancer survivors to share their experiences. Alongside leading clinicians and advocates, the Coalition is leveraging these testimonies to develop policy recommendations to inform national and European cancer strategies. Christel Paganoni-Bruijns, the Coalition’s chief executive officer, and Frances Reid, programme director and Every Woman Study lead, share their insights into the challenges women with ovarian cancer face and how policy changes can offer improved support. The hidden emotional and physical cost  There are education and awareness gaps that can impede diagnosis and prioritization. Many women believe that cervical cancer screening (otherwise known as the Pap smear) can detect ovarian cancer.9 Another widespread misconception is that ovarian cancer has no symptoms until very advanced stages.10 However, the Coalition’s Every Woman Study (2021) found that nine in 10 women do experience symptoms, even during the early stages.11  “These misconceptions cause real harm. They delay diagnosis, they delay action and they stop women from being heard,” Reid comments.  The ovarian cancer journey can be distressingly complex. Women frequently undergo major surgery, multiple rounds of treatment and long recovery periods.4,12,13 Even after treatment ends, the fear of recurrence can cast a shadow over daily life.  Ovarian cancer often strikes when many women are still working, caring for children, supporting aging parents and contributing to their communities in a variety of ways. 14,15 When they fall ill, the consequences ripple outwards. Some partners have to reduce their working hours or leave employment entirely to care for their loved ones.16 Families may take on emotional strain and financial pressure that can carry lasting impacts.17,18  Reid says: “These women are mothers, daughters, employees, carers, community anchors. When they are affected, the impact is not only personal — it is economic, social and predictable.” The Coalition’s socioeconomic burden study explored the cost to health services, the impact of informal caregiving, productive time lost by patients traveling to and receiving care, and longer-term productivity impacts.17 It found that the majority of the socioeconomic impact of ovarian cancer does not come from health service costs, but from the value of lives lost.17 Across the 11 countries examined, ill-health from ovarian cancer led to lost labor productivity equivalent to 2.5 million days of work.17 In the U.K. alone, productivity losses amounted to over US$52 million per year.17 In 2026, the Coalition will look further into the socioeconomic impact across high-income countries across Europe. Despite this measurable burden, ovarian cancer remains under-prioritized in health planning and funding decisions. Why women still struggle to get the care they need  Across Europe, many women face delays at various stages along their journey, some due to policy and system design choices. For example, without screening methods for early detection, diagnosis relies heavily on recognizing symptoms and receiving timely referrals.1,19,20 Yet many women often struggle to access specialists or face long waits for investigations.2,11,21   While Europe benefits from world-class innovation in ovarian cancer research, access to that innovation can be inconsistent. Recently published data from the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) found that average time to availability for oncology products in Europe continues to increase, with 2024 data showing time from approval to access was 33 days slower than in 2023 and 66 days slower than in 2022.22 In 2024, it took an average of 586 days — or ~19 months — for patients to access new therapies after approval, with significant variation between countries.22 Delays in treatment impact prognosis and survival for patients with ovarian cancer.23 The challenges in care also extend to psychological and emotional support. The Every Woman Study found that only 28 percent of women were offered mental health support, despite the known vulnerabilities throughout treatment, recovery and recurrence.12   Paganoni-Bruijns and Reid reinforce that through the Coalition’s work, they have often found that “women feel unseen and unheard. They see progress in other cancers and ask: why not us?” What a better future looks like A better future starts with addressing ovarian cancer as part of a holistic vision and plan for women’s health. Europe has the foundational frameworks, infrastructure and clinical expertise to lead the way. What is needed now is political attention and policy alignment that includes ovarian cancer as part of these broader programs.  Paganoni-Bruijns comments: “We cannot keep treating gynecological cancers as if they exist in separate boxes. Women experience their health as one reality, so policies must reflect that.”  Existing structures in breast and cervical cancer offer valuable lessons. Across Europe, millions of women already move through screening programs, health promotion initiatives and established diagnostic pathways.24 These systems could be used to increase awareness of ovarian cancer symptoms, improve referral routes and access to specialist care, and support earlier detection. Increased investment in genetic and biomarker testing, as well as emerging early detection research, can be accelerated by aligning with these established programs. The Coalition is partnering with global experts to translate these lessons into the first-ever evidence-based framework for ovarian cancer mortality rate reduction, however, policy action at the regional and national level must keep pace.  The EU-funded DISARM project is a promising example of the progress underway to help Europe ‘disarm’ the threat of ovarian cancer. DISARM is a coordinated, multi-country effort to strengthen ovarian cancer risk assessment, validate affordable early-detection tools and understand how these innovations can be implemented within real-world health systems. Crucially, it is designed both to generate evidence and to address feasibility, uptake and system readiness, the factors that, together, determine whether innovation actually reaches patients.   As Paganoni-Bruijns explains, “DISARM shows what progress looks like when science, policy and patient experience are designed to work together. It is not about a single breakthrough or ‘quick fix’, but about building the conditions for earlier detection — through better risk assessment, validated tools and systems that are ready to use them.”  Yet projects like DISARM, while essential, cannot carry the burden alone. Without a cohesive European or global World Health Organization framework for ovarian cancer, progress remains fragmented, uneven and vulnerable to delay. Europe has often set the pace for global cancer policy and ovarian cancer should be no exception. By recognizing ovarian cancer as a priority within European women’s health, policymakers can be part of setting the global standard for a new era of coordinated and patient-centered care. Paganoni-Bruijns shares the Coalition’s call-to-action: “The systems exist. The evidence exists. We know that we need to include ovarian cancer in national cancer plans, improve diagnostic pathways, strengthen genetic testing and commit to EU-level monitoring. What is missing is prioritization. With leadership and accountability, ovarian cancer does not have to remain one of Europe’s deadliest cancers.” The stakes are rising and the window for meaningful action is narrowing. But with focused leadership, Europe can change the trajectory of ovarian cancer. Women across the continent deserve earlier diagnoses, access to innovation and the chance to live not just longer, but better. To understand why action on ovarian cancer cannot wait, listen to the Coalition’s Changing the Ovarian Cancer Story podcast series, or visit the Coalition’s website. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1 Rampes S, et al. Early diagnosis of symptomatic ovarian cancer in primary care in the UK: opportunities and challenges. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2022;23:e52. 2 Funston G, et al. Detecting ovarian cancer in primary care: can we do better? Br J Gen Pract. 2022;72:312-313.  3 Tookman L, et al. Diagnosis, treatment and burden in advanced ovarian cancer: a UK real-world survey of healthcare professionals and patients. Future Oncol. 2024;20:1657-1673.  4 National Cancer Institute. Ovarian Epithelial, Fallopian Tube, and Primary Peritoneal Cancer Treatment (PDQ) – Health Professional Version. Available at: https://www.cancer.gov/types/ovarian/hp/ovarian-epithelial-treatment-pdq [Last accessed: January 2026]. 5 Beesley et al. Evaluating patient-reported symptoms and late adverse effects following completion of first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer using the MOST (Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns). Gynecologic Oncology 164 (2022):437-445.  6 World Ovarian Cancer Coalition. About the World Ovarian Cancer Coalition. Available at: https://worldovariancancercoalition.org/about-us/ [Last accessed: January 2026]. 7 Manzano A, Košir U, Hofmarcher T. Bridging the gap in women’s cancers care: a global policy report on disparities, innovations and solutions. IHE Report 2025:12. The Swedish Institute for Health Economics (IHE); 2025. 8 ENGAGe. Ovarian Cancer. Available at: https://engage.esgo.org/gynaecological-cancers/ovarian-cancer/ [Last accessed: January 2026].  9 Target Ovarian Cancer. Driving change through knowledge – updated NHS cervical screening guide. Available at: https://targetovariancancer.org.uk/news/driving-change-through-knowledge-updated-nhs-cervical-screening-guide [Last accessed: January 2026]. 10 Goff BA, et al. Frequency of Symptoms of Ovarian Cancer in Women Presenting to Primary Care Clinics. JAMA. 2004;291(22):2705–2712.  11 Reid F, et al. The World Ovarian Cancer Coalition Every Woman Study: identifying challenges and opportunities to improve survival and quality of life. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31:238-244.  12 National Health Service (NHS). Ovarian cancer. Treatment. Available at: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ovarian-cancer/treatment/ [Last accessed: January 2026].  13 Cancer Research UK. Recovering from ovarian cancer surgery. Available at: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/ovarian-cancer/treatment/surgery/recovering-from-surgery [Last accessed: January 2026]. 14 National Health Service (NHS). Ovarian cancer. Causes. Available at: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ovarian-cancer/causes/ [Last accessed: January 2026].  15 American Cancer Society. Ovarian Cancer Risk Factors. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/ovarian-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/risk-factors.html [Last accessed: January 2026].  16 Shukla S, et al. VOCAL (Views of Ovarian Cancer Patients and Their Caregivers – How Maintenance Therapy Affects Their Lives) Study: Cancer-Related Burden and Quality of Life of Caregivers [Poster]. Presented at: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Europe; 2022 Nov 6–9; Vienna, Austria. 17 Hutchinson B, et al. Socioeconomic Burden of Ovarian Cancer in 11 Countries. JCO Glob Oncol. 2025;11:e2400313. 18 Petricone-Westwood D, et al.An Investigation of the Effect of Attachment on Distress among Partners of Patients with Ovarian Cancer and Their Relationship with the Cancer Care Providers. Current Oncology. 2021;28(4):2950–2960.  19 World Ovarian Cancer Coalition. Ovarian Cancer Testing & Detection. Available at: http://worldovariancancercoalition.org/about-ovarian-cancer/detection-testing/ [Last accessed: January 2026]. 20 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Suspected cancer: recognition and referral. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng12/resources/suspected-cancer-recognition-and-referral-pdf-1837268071621 [Last accessed: January 2026]. 21 Menon U, et al. Diagnostic routes and time intervals for ovarian cancer in nine international jurisdictions; findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP). Br J Cancer. 2022;127:844-854.  22 European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). New data shows no shift in access to medicines for millions of Europeans. Available at: https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/statements-press-releases/new-data-shows-no-shift-in-access-to-medicines-for-millions-of-europeans/ [Last accessed: January 2026].  23 Zhao J, et al. Impact of Treatment Delay on the Prognosis of Patients with Ovarian Cancer: A Population-based Study Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database. J Cancer. 2024;15:473-483.  24 European Commission. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan: Communication from the commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Available at: https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-02/eu_cancer-plan_en_0.pdf [Last accessed: January 2026].  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALL-ONCOC-250039 v1.0  February 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is AbbVie * The ultimate controlling entity is AbbVie More information here.

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).

BRUSSELS — Europe is on track to pay at least €440 billion to deal with the pollution and health impacts from toxic PFAS chemicals by the middle of the century, according to a study released Thursday by the European Commission. The cost could soar to nearly €2 trillion under more ambitious clean-up goals, the analysis warns, describing the roughly half-trillion-euro estimate as a baseline for addressing PFAS pollution across the European Economic Area. PFAS or “forever chemicals” — man-made chemicals used in a wide variety of industrial processes and consumer products — have been linked to a range of health problems, including cancer and fertility problems. The EU is preparing to propose a ban on their use later this year, with exemptions for “critical sectors” — a position likely to draw pushback from industry and some political groups. But even a full ban would leave Europe with costs of €330 billion by 2050, the report warned. “Providing clarity on PFAS with bans for consumer uses is a top priority for both citizens and businesses,” said EU environment chief Jessika Roswall. “That is why this is an absolute priority for me to work on this and engage with all relevant stakeholders. Consumers are concerned, and rightly so. This study underlines the urgency to act.” The study, carried out by consultancies WSP, Ricardo, and Trinomics, shows that how Europe acts matters just as much as whether it acts. In one scenario, where emissions continue, and authorities rely largely on wastewater treatment to meet strict environmental standards, the total bill would soar to around €1.7 trillion by 2050, driven mainly by clean-up costs. If the EU bans forever chemicals, the health costs would fall from about €39.5 billion a year in 2024 to roughly €0.5 billion by 2040, under a full phase-out scenario. “The Commission’s study exposes the staggering costs of PFAS pollution. Every day of inaction inflates the bill,” said Noémie Jégou, policy officer for Chemicals at the European Environmental Bureau. “The EU must turn off the tap now through an ambitious EU restriction of PFAS present in consumer products and used in industrial processes.”

BRUSSELS — The European Commission suspects that a massive tranche of pro-industry comments on the EU’s proposed tobacco tax hike was “probably” a coordinated attempt to distort public feedback. The Commission received thousands of anonymous submissions promoting pro-tobacco industry arguments in the final hours of the public feedback period on its proposal on the Tobacco Tax Directive. There were also fake submissions purporting to be from public health experts opposing the plan. “We have been looking at the submissions in the public consultation and we saw some elements that indicated, indeed, some of the submissions were probably submitted in a coordinated manner and not necessarily representing individual views,” said David Boublil from the Commission’s tax department, in response to a question from POLITICO. Boublil didn’t say who was behind the coordinated submissions but said the lobbying from the tobacco industry on the file was “gigantic.” He was speaking at an event on tobacco taxation hosted by the European Respiratory Society in Brussels. Public consultations on controversial products like tobacco have attracted suspicious activity in the past. A 2024 U.K. consultation on tobacco and vaping policies received over 90,000 fraudulent responses that the government said was consistent with the use of bots. In Europe, this year is likely to see increased industry lobbying as two pieces of tobacco legislation are slated for review. The Commission’s plan to hike tobacco taxes is likely to be a contentious political issue: It wants to raise the EU-wide minimum levy on tobacco from €90 per 1,000 cigarettes to €215, but some countries think that’s too aggressive. Cyprus, which holds the presidency of the Council of the EU until the end of June, has suggested paring that back to €200 and giving countries an extra two years to implement the directive. The Commission also plans to overhaul its rules on the marketing and sale of nicotine products to cover e-cigarettes, heated tobacco and nicotine pouches in 2026. A draft European Parliament report said the Commission should extend its tobacco control laws to all non-medicinal nicotine products, including a crackdown on marketing, flavors and packaging.

Europeans’ world-leading drinking habits are putting their health at risk, but governments are failing to use higher taxes to help curb consumption, warned the World Health Organization. Beer has become more affordable in 11 EU countries since 2022, and less affordable in six, the WHO report revealed Tuesday. There was a similar but even more dramatic trend for spirits, which became more affordable in 17 EU countries and less affordable in two. And for wine, 14 EU countries do not tax it at all, including big producers Italy and Spain, the report found. The EU includes seven of the 10 countries with the highest per-capita alcohol consumption globally, with Romania, Latvia and Czechia among the biggest drinkers. Alcohol is a major driver of cancer, with risk scaling alongside higher consumption. It’s also linked to a wide range of illnesses including cardiovascular disease and depression, all of which are adding pressure to stretched health systems. The WHO said governments should target alcohol consumption to protect people from its ill effects. Increasing the cost of booze through taxes is one of the most effective measures governments can take, the WHO said. Yet, some EU countries have minimal or no taxes on certain types of alcohol. The fact that more than half of EU countries don’t tax wine at all is “unusual” by international standards, WHO economist Anne-Marie Perucic said. She pointed out that the more affordable alcohol is, the more people consume. “Excluding a product is not common. It’s always for political reasons, socio-economic reasons [like] trying to protect the local industry. Clearly, it doesn’t make sense from a health perspective,” Perucic told POLITICO. Those 14 countries span the EU’s northern and central regions, such as Germany, Austria and Bulgaria. “More affordable alcohol drives violence, injuries and disease,” said Etienne Krug, director of the WHO’s department of health determinants, promotion and prevention. “While industry profits, the public often carries the health consequences and society the economic costs.” The EU has touted its plans to protect its wine industry from threats including declining consumption and climate change. EU institutions agreed a package of measures to prop up the sector in December. Meanwhile, the European Commission recently backed down from proposing an EU-wide tax on alcopops; the sweet, pre-mixed alcoholic drinks that taste like sodas, as part of its Safe Hearts plan.  In a separate report, the WHO reported that sugary drinks have also become more affordable in 13 EU countries since 2022, data published in a separate WHO report found. A diet high in sugar is linked to obesity, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, fatty liver disease and certain cancers.

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]

This article is presented by EFPIA with the support of AbbVie I made a trip back to Europe recently, where I spent the vast majority of my pharmaceutical career, to share my perspectives on competitiveness at the European Health Summit. Now that I work in a role responsible for supporting patient access to medicine globally, I view Europe, and how it compares internationally, through a new lens, and I have been reflecting further on why the choices made today will have such a critical impact on where medicines are developed tomorrow. Today, many patients around the world benefit from medicines built on European science and breakthroughs of the last 20 years. Europeans, like me, can be proud of this contribution. As I look forward, my concern is that we may not be able to make the same claim in the next 20 years. It’s clear that Europe has a choice. Investing in sustainable medicines growth and other enabling policies will, I believe, bring significant benefits. Not doing so risks diminishing global influence. > Today, many patients around the world benefit from medicines built on European > science and breakthroughs of the last 20 years I reflect on three important points: 1) investment in healthcare benefits individuals, healthcare and society, but the scale of this benefit remains underappreciated; 2) connected to this, the underpinning science for future innovation is increasingly happening elsewhere; and 3) this means the choices we make today must address both of these trends. First, let’s use the example of migraine. As I have heard a patient say, “Migraine will not kill you but neither [will they] let you live.”[1] Individuals can face being under a migraine attack for more than half of every month, unable to leave home, maintain a job and engage in society.[2] It is the second biggest cause of disability globally and the first among young women.[3] It affects the quality of life of millions of Europeans.[4] From 2011-21 the economic burden of migraine in Europe due to the loss of working days ranged from €35-557 billion, depending on the country, representing 1-2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).[5]   Overall socioeconomic burden of migraine as percentage of the country’s GDP in 2021 Source: WifOR, The socioeconomic burden of migraine. The case of 6 European Countries.5 Access to effective therapies could radically improve individuals’ lives and their ability to return to work.[6] Yet, despite the staggering economic and personal impacts, in some member states the latest medicines are either not reimbursed or only available after several treatment failures.[7] Imagine if Europe shifted its perspective on these conditions, investing to improve not only health but unlocking the potential for workforce and economic productivity? Moving to my second point, against this backdrop of underinvestment, where are scientific advances now happening in our sector? In recent years it is impressive to see China has become the second-largest drug developer in the world,[8] and within five years it may lead the innovative antibodies therapeutics sector,[9] which is particularly promising for complex areas like oncology. Cancer is projected to become the leading cause of death in Europe by 2035,[10] yet the continent’s share of the number of oncology trials dropped from 41 percent in 2013 to 21 percent in 2023.10 Today, antibody-drug conjugates are bringing new hope in hard-to-treat tumor types,[11] like ovarian,[12] lung[13] and colorectal[14] cancer, and we hope to see more of these advances in the future. Unfortunately, Europe is no longer at the forefront of the development of these innovations. This geographical shift could impact high-quality jobs, the vitality of Europe’s biotech sector and, most importantly, patients’ outcomes. [15] > This is why I encourage choices to be made that clearly signal the value > Europe attaches to medicines This is why I encourage choices to be made that clearly signal the value Europe attaches to medicines. This can be done by removing national cost-containment measures, like clawbacks, that are increasingly eroding the ability of companies to invest in European R&D. To provide a sense of their impact, between 2012 and 2023, clawbacks and price controls reduced manufacturer revenues by over €1.2 billion across five major EU markets, corresponding to a loss of 4.7 percent in countries like Spain.[16] Moreover, we should address health technology assessment approaches in Europe, or mandatory discount policies, which are simply not adequately accounting for the wider societal value of medicines, such as in the migraine example, and promoting a short-term approach to investment. By broadening horizons and choosing a long-term investment strategy for medicines and the life science sector, Europe will not only enable this strategic industry to drive global competitiveness but, more importantly, bring hope to Europeans suffering from health conditions. AbbVie SA/NV – BE-ABBV-250177 (V1.0) – December 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] The Parliament Magazine, https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/unmet-medical-needs-and-migraine-assessing-the-added-value-for-patients-and-society, Last accessed December 2025. [2] The Migraine Trust; https://migrainetrust.org/understand-migraine/types-of-migraine/chronic-migraine/, Last accessed December 2025. [3] Steiner TJ, et al; Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache. Migraine remains second among the world’s causes of disability, and first among young women: findings from GBD2019. J Headache Pain. 2020 Dec 2;21(1):137 [4] Coppola G, Brown JD, Mercadante AR, Drakeley S, Sternbach N, Jenkins A, Blakeman KH, Gendolla A. The epidemiology and unmet need of migraine in five european countries: results from the national health and wellness survey. BMC Public Health. 2025 Jan 21;25(1):254. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-21244-8. [5] WifOR. Calculating the Socioeconomic Burden of Migraine: The Case of 6 European Countries. Available at: [https://www.wifor.com/en/download/the-socioeconomic-burden-of-migraine-the-case-of-6-eu­ropean-countries/?wpdmdl=358249&refresh=687823f915e751752703993]. Accessed June 2025. [6] Seddik AH, Schiener C, Ostwald DA, Schramm S, Huels J, Katsarava Z. Social Impact of Prophylactic Migraine Treatments in Germany: A State-Transition and Open Cohort Approach. Value Health. 2021 Oct;24(10):1446-1453. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.04.1281 [7] Moisset X, Demarquay G, et al., Migraine treatment: Position paper of the French Headache Society. Rev Neurol (Paris). 2024 Dec;180(10):1087-1099. doi: 10.1016/j.neurol.2024.09.008. [8] The Economist, https://www.economist.com/china/2025/11/23/chinese-pharma-is-on-the-cusp-of-going-global, Last accessed December 2025. [9] Crescioli S, Reichert JM. Innovative antibody therapeutic development in China compared with the USA and Europe. Nat Rev Drug Discov. Published online November 7, 2025. [10] Manzano A., Svedman C., Hofmarcher T., Wilking N.. Comparator Report on Cancer in Europe 2025 – Disease Burden, Costs and Access to Medicines and Molecular Diagnostics. EFPIA, 2025. [IHE REPORT 2025:2, page 20] [11] Armstrong GB, Graham H, Cheung A, Montaseri H, Burley GA, Karagiannis SN, Rattray Z. Antibody-drug conjugates as multimodal therapies against hard-to-treat cancers. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2025 Sep;224:115648. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2025.115648. Epub 2025 Jul 11. PMID: 40653109.. [12] Narayana, R.V.L., Gupta, R. Exploring the therapeutic use and outcome of antibody-drug conjugates in ovarian cancer treatment. Oncogene 44, 2343–2356 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41388-025-03448-3 [13] Coleman, N., Yap, T.A., Heymach, J.V. et al. Antibody-drug conjugates in lung cancer: dawn of a new era?. npj Precis. Onc. 7, 5 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-022-00338-9 [14] Wang Y, Lu K, Xu Y, Xu S, Chu H, Fang X. Antibody-drug conjugates as immuno-oncology agents in colorectal cancer: targets, payloads, and therapeutic synergies. Front Immunol. 2025 Nov 3;16:1678907. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1678907. PMID: 41256852; PMCID: PMC12620403. [15] EFPIA, Improving EU Clinical Trials: Proposals to Overcome Current Challenges and Strengthen the Ecosystem, efpias-list-of-proposals-clinical-trials-15-apr-2025.pdf, Last accessed December 2025. [16] The EU General Pharmaceutical Legislation & Clawbacks, © Vital Transformation BVBA, 2024.

By Kathryn Kranhold and Jason McLure of The Examination and Rory O’Neill and Antonia Zimmermann of POLITICO. This article was reported in collaboration with The Examination, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates global health threats. BRUSSELS — When the world’s largest tobacco company needed help lifting international restrictions on its products, it enlisted an unlikely ally: the European Union, a leader in tobacco control.  EU officials met with Philip Morris International representatives at least six times from September 2022 through 2024, according to documents released through public records requests. The tobacco giant’s agenda: Enlist EU officials’ help in loosening restrictions or setting favorable tax rates on its products — including IQOS, a heated tobacco device key to the company’s future — in 10 countries outside the EU. Officials with the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, took action at least three times that would have benefitted the company, The Examination and POLITICO found. They published a notice saying Mexico’s ban on new nicotine products was a possible barrier to free trade. They asked Turkish officials whether they planned to maintain the country’s requirement that cigarettes contain a minimum amount of local tobacco. And in a high-level report for EU officials, they flagged that rule and Turkey’s cigarette tax rate as issues that could affect ties between it and the EU.  The Commission’s actions regarding Turkey were “of great help for us,” a PMI representative wrote to staffers at the Commission. “We would like to express our gratitude in regard of (sic) the actions that you took.”  A Philip Morris International representative thanked European Commission trade officials for flagging Turkey’s cigarette tax and a rule on domestic tobacco as possible trade issues. (Redactions by the European Commission. Highlighting by The Examination) The revelations, contained in documents released through public information requests by the French anti-tobacco group Contre-Feu, raise questions about whether the EU breached its commitment to a global treaty to combat smoking signed by the EU and member countries. Guidelines to implement that treaty — the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) — say that when setting and implementing public health policies, governments should restrict their dealings with the tobacco industry and disclose any meetings whenever possible. None of the meetings with PMI or other industry groups cited in the documents were disclosed, according to The Examination and POLITICO’s review of the EU’s disclosure websites. The “fact that EU officials acted upon PMI’s requests signals a troubling willingness to give the tobacco industry privileged access. That is precisely what the FCTC was designed to prevent,” said Tilly Metz, a member of the European Parliament with the Greens. “It undermines both public trust and the EU’s credibility as a global leader in tobacco control.” A spokesperson for the European Commission told The Examination and POLITICO  that it “strictly follows” the treaty guidelines. But tobacco products are covered by EU trade policy, and the Commission can negotiate tariffs and trade rules, the spokesperson said.  “The Commission does not shape, influence or lobby for specific health policies in third countries on behalf of any industry,” the spokesperson said.  While industry associations and companies can share concerns on market access in non-EU countries with the Commission, and the Commission may meet with complainants to get more information, the spokesperson said such meetings are “strictly related to trade facilitation and market access.” European parliamentarians appeared divided over whether the dealings were improper.  Vytenis Andriukaitis with the Socialists and Democrats and a former EU health commissioner said the European Commission “cannot represent the interests of tobacco companies,” nor “press other countries to weaken” their tobacco controls. Barry Andrews, a member of the centrist Renew Europe Group, said: “These regular meetings with big tobacco lobbyists and the flurry of emails should not have happened.” By contrast, Stine Bosse, a member of the same political group, said: “The tobacco industry has every right to employ lobbyists.” However, Bosse added: “Morally, I stand in a very different place. While they constantly try to reinvent new products to get people hooked on nicotine and tobacco, I am fighting for precisely the opposite.”  Philip Morris International did not answer questions from The Examination and POLITICO about its dealing with EU officials. On its website, the company said it shares its perspectives with policymakers and it is “particularly active with respect to policies regarding less harmful alternatives to cigarettes, trade and fiscal matters, and intellectual property.” (The company is separate from Philip Morris USA, which is part of Altria Group.) The Examination and POLITICO have not found evidence that any of the 10 countries targeted by PMI altered their tobacco taxes or regulations following meetings with EU officials, including where the EU took action with regard to Mexico and Turkey. Most of PMI’s entreaties focused on IQOS, which it says is better than cigarettes because heating tobacco releases fewer toxins than burning it. Public health experts say the long-term risks of heated tobacco are unknown and products like IQOS could increase tobacco use. IQOS devices with heated tobacco sticks. Philip Morris International says IQOS is better than cigarettes because heating tobacco releases fewer toxins than burning it. Public health experts say the long-term risks of heated tobacco are unknown. | Roberto Pfeil/picture alliance via Getty Images Public health advocates said Commission officials’ actions were especially surprising because the EU has been one of the strongest supporters of the FCTC.  This year, the Commission proposed hiking EU-wide taxes on most tobacco products and setting minimum taxes for vapes and heated tobacco for the first time. Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi has pledged to drive e-cigarette taxes even higher; his tax counterpart, Wopke Hoekstra, has called vapes the “revenge of the tobacco industry.” The countries that PMI sought help with were outside the EU. Nearly all of them — Argentina, Brazil, India, Mexico, Singapore, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam — had banned heated tobacco. Taiwan had what PMI described as a burdensome approval process. Japanese leaders were in discussions to raise taxes on heated tobacco to the same rate as cigarettes. Philip Morris International asked for the EU’s help in loosening restrictions or setting favorable tax rates on its IQOS product in 10 countries outside the EU. (Redactions by the European Commission. Highlighting by The Examination) PMI officials wanted people in those countries to be able to buy IQOS as easily as cigarettes. The company calls IQOS part of its “dream team” of alternative nicotine products, including e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches, that are meant to offset declining cigarette consumption.  So the company sought help in the EU’s distinctive 15-story glass trade building, the Charlemagne, in Brussels. PMI SEEKS HELP IN MEXICO Mexico was the first country that PMI sought help with, according to the documents. That country was a key market for IQOS, but a ban on vapes and heated tobacco was set to go into effect in December 2022.  In an investor meeting on Sept. 6, 2022, an analyst asked about IQOS’ “lack of success” in the Americas. Emmanuel Babeau, the company’s chief financial officer, blamed “some restrictions” in Mexico but said, “it’s going to be a very successful market for IQOS once we can really sell the device really without any issue.” That same day, company staff had an online meeting with EU officials to discuss the ban. It was one of several discussions about Mexico. After the ban went into effect, PMI sought more help from EU officials. In an April 3, 2023, email, an executive at the company’s Swiss office asked for another meeting, explaining that Mexico’s “business environment is still marked by uncertainty, judicial processes, interpretations, and doubtful, temporary and unclear administrative acts.”    After a ban on vapes and heated tobacco went into effect in Mexico, Philip Morris International sought more help from EU officials. (Redactions by the European Commission. Highlighting by The Examination) Soon after the email, European trade officials issued what is known as a barrier to trade notice, reporting Mexico’s IQOS ban as a potential trade treaty violation. PMI representatives and trade officials met later that month, when the company contended similar bans in Argentina, Brazil and Vietnam were trade barriers, according to a Commission report summarizing the meeting. The Commission spokesperson said it had acted in response to a formal complaint that “involved discriminatory treatment of like products” and that it did not undertake any further action regarding Mexico. Mexico’s Supreme Court struck down the ban in November 2024, allowing PMI to continue selling IQOS there.  The correspondence shows how PMI leveraged its status as a major European employer and exporter. The company employed more than 21,500 people in Europe as of 2023 and had 20 manufacturing sites there. In one email, a PMI representative told a European trade official that a meeting would be a “good opportunity to update you [on] the most recent data on EU exports in the tobacco sector and PMI’s investments in the EU.” OFFICIALS QUESTION TURKEY’S TAXES, RULES ON LOCAL TOBACCO EU officials also assisted PMI in trying to change rules on cigarettes.  In July 2023, a company representative complained to EU officials about Turkey’s cigarette tax, saying in an email that Turkey had “one of the highest ad valorem duty levels in the world.” The representative also flagged Turkey’s “local content” rule, which required that cigarettes made and sold in the country contain a certain amount of domestic tobacco. The PMI representative wrote that the company had “prepared a few suggestions” for the Commission’s upcoming report on Turkey’s economic and diplomatic relationships with the EU.  That report, which came out in November 2023, flagged Turkey’s taxes and the local content rule. That elicited the email from PMI thanking EU officials for their help. Meanwhile, the company was pushing European Commission officials to raise the local content rule again, but in a different forum: an upcoming World Trade Organization (WTO) review of Turkey’s trade policies. PMI provided EU trade officials with questions to ask Turkey. EU officials then submitted a question prior to the review, asking whether the local content requirement for tobacco and other industries would continue, according to meeting minutes. The Commission spokesperson did not directly answer questions from The Examination and POLITICO about its actions regarding Turkey. Turkey has not changed its requirements on local tobacco or its tax rate.  MEETINGS PART OF A MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR LOBBYING EFFORT The meetings are part of an industry lobby that spends $16.2 million (14 million euros) a year in the EU, according to a report by Contre-Feu and STOP, another anti-tobacco group, released Wednesday. Contre-Feu mapped a network of 49 organizations and companies, including Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco, that lobbied the European Commission and Parliament to weaken tobacco regulations and set lower taxes on new nicotine products, both within and outside the EU. (British American Tobacco did not respond to requests for comment.) The interactions between the tobacco industry and EU officials appear to be extensive, according to the documents. They include several dozen email exchanges and refer to at least nine meetings between EU officials and tobacco companies or industry-supported groups.  In addition to the six meetings with PMI, there were three other meetings with tobacco representatives. Trade staff met with three other companies and a tobacco trade group in March 2024 to hear their requests for more favorable tariff rules for new nicotine products. In a separate video conference, British American Tobacco asked trade staff to intervene at a WTO hearing over Saudi Arabia’s proposed tax hike on e-cigarette cartridges. (The EU did not take action, according to the documents.) And in a third meeting, the EU’s former agriculture commissioner, a Polish member of the EU parliament and two tobacco farming lobby groups discussed tobacco subsidies and the Commission’s position on the global tobacco treaty. Nathalie Darge, secretary general of Tobacco Europe, the trade group included in one of those meetings, said its input focused on technical requirements and that it wanted to “ensure legal certainty for operators and customs authorities.” One European Commission report recapping a meeting with PMI was sent to 32 trade department officials and staff, including EU representatives assigned to Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Vietnam and division directors. Contre-Feu wrote that the dealings between government officials and tobacco representatives showed that “current rules to limit industry influence are falling short and European policymakers continue to be heavily lobbied by the tobacco industry and those working on its behalf.” PMI’s efforts are part of a long history of the tobacco industry using trade and investment pacts to expand markets and undermine health policies, said Suzanne Zhou, who works for the World Health Organization FCTC Knowledge Hub on Legal Challenges and a senior fellow at the Melbourne Law School in Australia. “Tobacco companies have lost the argument from a health perspective,” Zhou said. “So they are reframing the issue as a trade issue in the hopes that they can advance their interests in that forum instead.”  In the 1980s, the U.S. Trade Representative threatened sanctions if Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Thailand didn’t open their markets to U.S. cigarette companies. A study later concluded that cigarette consumption in those four markets was nearly 10 percent higher than it would have been if they had remained closed to U.S. companies.  More recently, Australia and Uruguay faced trade litigation from the industry or industry-aligned governments over their tobacco control policies.  COMMISSION CRITICIZED FOR UNDISCLOSED MEETINGS Contre-Feu contended that the documents also show that EU officials didn’t disclose meetings with the industry when they should have. To aid countries in implementing the tobacco treaty, delegates wrote a set of guidelines. They state that when setting and implementing public health policies, interactions with the tobacco industry should be limited to what is strictly necessary for effective regulation. Interactions should be conducted in public and disclosed whenever possible. And the guidelines emphasize that “all branches of government” should be made aware of industry efforts to interfere with policies. The Commission spokesperson said that’s exactly what it does: “Meetings with the tobacco industry are avoided, unless they are strictly necessary. If the applicable conditions are met, meetings are held in a fully transparent manner and are appropriately documented.” But EU trade officials did not disclose any of these meetings on the website where the trade department reports such contacts. One batch of documents was released through a request for access; another batch was obtained by Contre-Feu. One of the meetings not disclosed by trade officials occurred in July 2023. Global health leaders were scheduled to meet that November to update the FCTC. The European Commission was considering supporting strict limitations on heated tobacco products.  A Commission report summarizing a July 19, 2023, meeting with PMI said that the company had “alerted” the Commission about language “calling on WHO members to adopt import bans on heated tobacco products.” The company asserted that EU tobacco policy should take into account WTO agreements, which the company has contended would preclude countries from banning IQOS.  Philip Morris International met with European Commission trade officials in July 2023 to discuss a proposed change to a global tobacco control treaty that would have banned heated tobacco. Though such meetings are supposed to be disclosed, this one wasn’t. (Redactions by the European Commission. Highlighting by The Examination) The documents don’t say anything about whether the Commission took action, and tobacco-friendly countries in the EU such as Italy and Greece pushed back against restrictive guidelines. But in the end, the Commission took no position on heated tobacco— a victory for the industry.  During the period covered by the documents, the EU required only high-ranking Commission officials to report meetings with companies or special-interest groups. In December 2024, the Commission tightened rules to require disclosure by additional staff. It’s unclear whether those rules would’ve required disclosure of these meetings.  Former EU ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, found other instances in which the Commission didn’t disclose meetings with the tobacco industry, which she concluded failed to meet transparency rules required under international law.  Contre-Feu has urged the EU to tighten transparency guidelines even further by extending disclosure requirements to all staff, among other things. The group said in its report that the extensive lobbying and lack of disclosure “reveal either a repeated violation of the FCTC by the European Commission or, at the very least, an insufficient implementation of the treaty’s measures.” Mathieu Tourliere of Proceso contributed reporting. STOP has received support from Bloomberg Philanthropies, which also provides financial support to The Examination. The Examination operates independently and is solely responsible for its content. Correction: This story has been corrected to say that the report on tobacco industry lobbying was jointly published by Contre-Feu and STOP, and that STOP has received support from Bloomberg Philanthropies.

Rick Pazdur, the FDA’s top drug regulator, told staff Tuesday he submitted his resignation to the agency, an abrupt departure weeks after he was convinced by Commissioner Marty Makary to take the post to help bring stability to an agency reeling from months of upheaval, according to four people familiar with the decision granted anonymity to discuss the move. The decision — which comes days after top vaccine regulator Vinay Prasad said the agency would ratchet up regulatory requirements for new vaccines — is almost certain to raise new questions about Makary’s leadership of the FDA. Pazdur in recent weeks clashed with Makary over the Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher program, according to media reports. That program — which aims to speed final review of drugs that address health priorities, pose a transformative innovative impact, address an unmet medical need, help onshoring efforts or increase affordability — was also criticized by Pazdur’s predecessor, George Tidmarsh. FDA experts have worried the involvement of political appointees in the process of choosing which firms receive a voucher could raise questions about the program’s integrity. STAT first reported the news of Pazdur’s decision to retire. It is unclear if the decision is final — one person familiar with the decision said the longtime cancer drug regulator has 30 days to change his decision. “We respect Dr. Pazdur’s decision to retire and honor his 26 years of distinguished service at the FDA,” an FDA spokesperson said in a statement. “As the founding director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, he leaves a legacy of cross-center regulatory innovation that strengthened the agency and advanced care for countless patients. His leadership, vision, and dedication will continue to shape the FDA for years to come.” The White House and Pazdur did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Pazdur, a 26-year agency veteran, initially rebuffed efforts by Makary to convince him to assume leadership of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research — but ultimately agreed to take the job after being assured he would be given autonomy in the role free from political influence and the ability to rehire staff.