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

Biotechnology is central to modern medicine and Europe’s long-term competitiveness. From cancer and cardiovascular disease to rare conditions, it is driving transformative advances for patients across Europe and beyond . 1         Yet innovation in Europe is increasingly shaped by regulatory fragmentation, procedural complexity and uneven implementation across  m ember s tates. As scientific progress accelerates, policy frameworks must evolve in parallel, supporting the full lifecycle of innovation from research and clinical development to manufacturing and patient access.  The proposed EU Biotech Act seeks to address these challenges. By streamlining regulatory procedures, strengthening coordination  and supporting scale-up and manufacturing, it aims to reinforce Europe’s position in a highly competitive global biotechnology landscape .2       Its success, however, will depend less on ambition than on delivery. Consistent implementation, proportionate oversight and continued global openness will determine whether the  a ct translates into faster patient access, sustained investment and long-term resilience.  Q: Why is biotechnology increasingly seen as a strategic pillar for Europe’s competitiveness, resilience and long-term growth?  Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen:  Biotechnology sits at the intersection of health, industrial policy and economic competitiveness. The sector is one of Europe’s strongest strategic assets and a leading contributor to  research and development  growth . 3    At the same time, Europe’s position is under increasing pressure. Over the past two decades, the EU has lost approximately 25  percent of its global share of pharmaceutical investment to other regions, such as the  United States  and China.   The choices made today will shape Europe’s long-term strength in the sector, influencing not only competitiveness and growth, but also how quickly patients can benefit from new treatments.  > Europe stands at a pivotal moment in biotechnology. Our life sciences legacy > is strong, but maintaining global competitiveness requires evolution .” 4   > >  Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, > Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen. Q: What does the EU Biotech Act aim to do  and why is it considered an important step forward for patients and Europe’s innovation ecosystem?  Marrache: The EU Biotech Act represents a timely opportunity to better support biotechnology products from the laboratory to the market. By streamlining medicines’ pathways and improving conditions for scale-up and investment, it can help strengthen Europe’s innovation ecosystem and accelerate patient access to breakthrough therapies. These measures will help anchor biotechnology as a strategic priority for Europe’s future  —  and one that can deliver earlier patient benefit  —  so long as we can make it work in practice.  Q: How does the EU Biotech Act address regulatory fragmentation, and where will effective delivery and coordination be most decisive? Marrache: Regulatory fragmentation has long challenged biotechnology development in Europe, particularly for multinational clinical trials and innovative products. The Biotech Act introduces faster, more coordinated trials, expanded regulatory sandboxes and new investment and industrial capacity instruments.   The proposed EU Health Biotechnology Support Network and a  u nion-level regulatory status repository would strengthen transparency and predictability. Together, these measures would support earlier regulatory dialogue, help de-risk development   and promote more consistent implementation across  m ember  s tates.   They also create an opportunity to address complexities surrounding combination products  —  spanning medicines, devices and diagnostics  —  where overlapping requirements and parallel assessments have added delays.5 This builds on related efforts, such as the COMBINE programme,6 which seeks to streamline the navigation of the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation , 7 Clinical Trials Regulation8 and the Medical Device Regulation9 through a single, coordinated assessment process. Continued clarity and coordination will be essential to reduce duplication and accelerate development timelines .10 Q: What conditions will be most critical to support biotech scale-up, manufacturing  and long-term investment in Europe?  Marrache: Europe must strike the right balance between strategic autonomy and openness to global collaboration. Any new instruments under the Biotech Act mechanisms should remain open and supportive of all types of biotech investments, recogni z ing that biotech manufacturing operates through globally integrated and highly speciali z ed value chains.   Q: How can Europe ensure faster and more predictable pathways from scientific discovery to patient access, while maintaining high standards of safety and quality?   Marrache: Faster and more predictable patient access depends on strengthening end-to-end pathways across the lifecycle.  The Biotech Act will help ensure continuity of scientific and regulatory experti z e, from clinical development through post-authori z ation. It will also support stronger alignment with downstream processes, such as health technology assessments, which  are  critical to success.   Moreover, reducing unnecessary delays or duplication in approval processes can set clearer expectations, more predictable development timelines and earlier planning for scale-up.    Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen. Via Amgen. Finally, embedding a limited number of practical tools (procedural, digital or governance-based) and ensuring they are integrated within existing  European Medicines Agency and EU regulatory structures can help achieve faster patient access . 11 Q: What role can stronger regulatory coordination, data use and public - private collaboration play in strengthening Europe’s global position in biotechnology?  Marrache: To unlock biotechnology’s full potential, consistent implementation is essential. Fragmented approaches to secondary data use, divergent  m ember   state interpretations and uncertainty for data holders still limit access to high-quality datasets at scale. The Biotech Act introduces key building blocks to address this.   These include Biotechnology Data Quality Accelerators to improve interoperability, trusted testing environments for advanced innovation, and alignment with the EU AI Act ,12  European Health Data Space13 and wider EU data initiatives. It also foresees AI-specific provisions and clinical trial guidance to provide greater operational clarity.  Crucially, these structures must simplify rather than add further layers of complexity.   Addressing remaining barriers will reduce legal uncertainty for AI deployment, support innovation and strengthen Europe’s competitiveness.  > These reforms will create a moderni z ed biotech ecosystem, healthier > societies, sustainable healthcare systems and faster patient access to the > latest breakthroughs in Europe .” 14 > > Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, > Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen.  Q: As technologies evolve and global competition intensifies, how can policymakers ensure the Biotech Act remains flexible and future-proof?  Marrache:  To remain future-proof, the Biotech Act must be designed to evolve alongside scientific progress, market dynamics and patient needs. Clear objectives, risk-based requirements, regular review mechanisms and timely updates to guidance will enhance regulatory agility without creating unnecessary rigidity or administrative burden.  Continuous stakeholder dialogue combined with horizon scanning will be essential to sustaining innovation, resilience and timely patient access over the long term. Preserving regulatory openness and international cooperation will be critical in avoiding fragmentation and maintaining Europe’s credibility as a global biotech hub.  Q: Looking ahead, what two or three priorities should policymakers focus on to ensure the EU Biotech Act delivers meaningful impact in practice?  Marrache: Looking ahead, policymakers should focus on three priorities for the Biotech Act:    First, implementation must deliver real regulatory efficiency, predictability and coordination in practice. Second, Europe must sustain an open and investment-friendly framework that reflects the global nature of biotechnology.  And third, policymakers should ensure a clear and coherent legal framework across the lifecycle of innovative medicines, providing certainty for the use of  artificial intelligence   —  as a key driver of innovation in health biotechnology.  In practical terms, the EU Biotech Act will be judged not by the number of new instruments it creates, but by whether it reduces complexity, increases predictability and shortens the path from scientific discovery to patient benefit. An open, innovation-friendly framework that is competitive at the global level will help sustain investment, strengthen resilient supply chains and deliver better outcomes for patients across Europe and beyond. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/media/press-releases/2025/05/The_EU_Biotech_Act_Unlocking_Europes_Potential 2. European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation to establish measures to strengthen the Union’s biotechnology and biomanufacturing sectors, December 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-establish-measures-strengthen-unions-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-sectors_en 3. EFPIA, The pharmaceutical sector: A catalyst to foster Europe’s competitiveness, February 2026. Retrieved from https://www.efpia.eu/media/zkhfr3kp/10-actions-for-competitiveness-growth-and-security.pdf 4. The Parliament, Investing in healthy societies by boosting biotech competitiveness, November 2024. Retrieved from https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/investing-in-healthy-societies-by-boosting-biotech-competitiveness#_ftn4 5. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/docs/BiotechPP_final_digital_version_May_2025.pdf   6. European Commission, combine programme, June 2023. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-topics-interest/combine-programme_en  7. European Commission. Medical Devices – In Vitro Diagnostics, March 2026. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-vitro-diagnostics_en 8. European Commission, Clinical trials – Regulation EU No 536/2014, January 2022. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medicinal-products/clinical-trials/clinical-trials-regulation-eu-no-5362014_en 9. European Commission, Simpler and more effective rules for medical devices – Commission proposal for a targeted revision of the medical devices regulations, December 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-sector/new-regulations_en#mdr 10. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/docs/BiotechPP_final_digital_version_May_2025.pdf   11. AmCham, EU position on the Commission Proposal for an EU Biotech Act 12. European Commission, AI Act | Shaping Europe’s digital future, June 2024. Retrieved from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai 13. European Commission, European Health Data Space, March 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/ehealth-digital-health-and-care/european-health-data-space-regulation-ehds_en 14. The Parliament, Why Europe needs a Biotech Act, October 2025. Retrieved from https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/why-europe-needs-a-biotech-act -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Amgen Inc * The ultimate controlling entity is Amgen Inc * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on the EU Biotech Act. More information here.

Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen sind weltweit und damit in den meisten europäischen Ländern – auch Deutschland – seit Jahren die häufigste Todesursache bei Frauen.  Dennoch wird ihr Risiko oft unterschätzt. Ein Grund dafür: Frauenherzen senden häufig andere, „leisere“ Signale als die, die wir aus dem klassischen medizinischen Bild kennen. Viele Frauen erleben keine typischen Brustschmerzen mit Ausstrahlung in den linken Arm, sondern Symptome wie Rückenschmerzen, Übelkeit, Atemnot, Erschöpfung oder ein unspezifisches Druckgefühl. Das macht die Einordnung schwieriger und führt dazu, dass diese Warnzeichen im Alltag leicht „überhört“ werden. Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen äußern sich bei Frauen oft anders als bei Männern, was ihre Diagnose komplexer macht. Hinzu kommt, dass Frauen in kardiologischen Studien historisch unterrepräsentiert sind. Viele diagnostische Standards wurden lange auf Basis männlicher Daten entwickelt. Dabei unterscheidet sich der weibliche Körper stark hinsichtlich des Herz-Kreislauf-Systems: hormonelle Einflüsse, zusätzliche Risikofaktoren, Krankheitsbilder und Symptome folgen teilweise eigenen Mustern – und diese Unterschiede sind für Diagnostik und Therapie entscheidend. > Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen äußern sich bei Frauen oft anders als bei Männern, > was ihre Diagnose komplexer macht. Studien zeigen zudem, dass Frauen bei ähnlicher Symptomatik häufiger unzureichend diagnostiziert werden als Männer – selbst dann, wenn später ein Herzinfarkt folgt. Diese Versorgungslücke entsteht nicht nur durch unterschiedliche Symptomprofile, sondern auch durch Verzögerungen im Hilfesuchverhalten: Viele Frauen gehen später in die Notaufnahme, weil sie ihre Beschwerden nicht als herzbezogen erkennen, sie auf Stress zurückführen oder ihre Angehörigen nicht beunruhigen möchten. Das kostet Zeit – und Zeit kann im Falle eines Herzinfarkts ein kritischer Faktor sein. Daten aus der deutschen NAKO-Gesundheitsstudie zeigen, dass sozioökonomische Faktoren das kardiovaskuläre Risiko von Frauen stärker beeinflussen als das der Männer. Besonders deutlich wird dies beim Bildungsniveau: Frauen mit niedriger Bildung haben mehr als dreimal so hohe Chancen, innerhalb von 10 Jahren ein sehr hohes kardiovaskuläres Risiko zu entwickeln – deutlich stärker ausgeprägt als bei Männern im gleichen Bildungssegment. Diese Differenz zieht sich durch mehrere Risikofaktoren wie Bluthochdruck, Übergewicht oder ungünstige Cholesterinprofile. Für die Praxis kann das bedeuten: Auch soziale Faktoren können das Herzrisiko von Frauen zusätzlich verstärken, weshalb niedrigschwellige Aufklärung, verständliche Risikokommunikation- und leicht zugängliche Untersuchungsangebote eine besonders wichtige Rolle spielen. Umso wichtiger ist eine gezielte Aufklärung mit klaren, verständlichen Informationen zu spezifischen Warnzeichen. Community‑based Ansätze – niedrigschwellig und alltagsnah – haben sich hier als besonders wirksam erwiesen. Für medizinisches Fachpersonal können strukturierte Checklisten und regelmäßige Trainings in der Erstversorgung helfen, subtile Hinweise besser zu erkennen und geschlechterspezifische Unterschiede konsequent zu berücksichtigen. Zuhören bedeutet in diesem Zusammenhang: Beschwerden ernst nehmen, auch wenn sie „leise“ sind und nicht dem vertrauten klinischen Bild entsprechen. Moderne bildgebende Verfahren können eine zentrale Rolle spielen, da sie sowohl strukturelle Veränderungen der Koronararterien als auch funktionelle Störungen der Durchblutung des Herzmuskels erfassen können. Während funktionelle Verfahren Durchblutungsstörungen sichtbar machen, ermöglicht die koronare CT-Angiographie insbesondere die Visualisierung frühzeitiger Veränderungen und Risikokonstellationen der Herzkranzgefäße, die im EKG (Elektrokardiogramm) oder in Blutwerten häufig unauffällig bleiben. Gerade bei Frauen liefert sie wichtige Hinweise auf nicht-kalzifizierte Plaques und sogenannte nicht-obstruktive Formen der koronaren Herzkrankheit. Leitlinien betonen daher zunehmend diagnostische Wege, die Frauen und ihre spezifischen Muster stärker einbeziehen und damit frühere sowie präzisere Entscheidungen ermöglichen. > Frauenherzen warnen anders. Sie warnen „leise“. Wenn wir ihre Signale kennen, > ihnen zuhören, moderne Diagnostik gezielt einsetzen und die Therapie > personalisieren, können wir viel bewegen. Auch die interdisziplinäre Zusammenarbeit gewinnt an Bedeutung. Viele kardiovaskuläre Risiken stehen im Zusammenhang mit hormonell relevanten Lebensphasen wie Schwangerschaft oder Menopause. In diesen Situationen ist die interdisziplinäre Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Disziplinen Kardiologie, Gynäkologie und Endokrinologie besonders wichtig. Herzgesundheit bei Frauen erfordert ein bewusstes Hinsehen und ein besseres Verständnis für ihre eigenen Muster. Frauenherzen warnen anders. Sie warnen „leise“. Wenn wir ihre Signale kennen, ihnen zuhören, moderne Diagnostik gezielt einsetzen und die Therapie personalisieren, können wir viel bewegen: frühere Diagnosen, präzisere Entscheidungen und somit eine verbesserte Prognose. Aufmerksamkeit ist kein Detail. Sie ist der Anfang einer besseren Versorgung – und der Schlüssel zu mehr Gesundheit.

Today, cancer remains one of Europe’s leading causes of death and disability, accounting for 23 percent of all deaths in 2022 and 17 percent of disability-adjusted life years in 2021. Four Europeans are diagnosed with cancer every minute, a number that is expected to rise over the next several decades due to population aging. As the EU Beating Cancer Plan reaches the end of its initial phase, Europe now stands at a critical moment. The question is not whether progress has been made, but whether Europe will build on that momentum or allow it to stall, with consequences not only for health outcomes, but also for economic growth and scientific leadership. Gilles Marrache At this juncture, cancer care must be understood not as a cost to be contained, but also as a strategic investment that delivers measurable returns in survival, productivity and Europe’s global competitiveness. > Continued investment in oncology is therefore not only a moral imperative but > also a proven economic and social multiplier. Cancer innovation delivers proven returns Investment in cancer innovation has already delivered extraordinary value for European patients and societies. Since 1989, advances in oncology have helped prevent an estimated 5.4 million deaths. More recently, since 2012, innovative cancer medicines have generated approximately 1.1 million quality-adjusted life years, all while accounting for just 6.6 percent of total health budgets. These gains are not abstract. They represent longer lives, improved quality of life, and the ability for people to remain active contributors to their families, workplaces and communities. Continued investment in oncology is therefore not only a moral imperative but also a proven economic and social multiplier. Delayed access is holding Europe back Despite these returns, Europe continues to struggle with timely access to innovative cancer medicines and diagnostics. According to EFPIA’s 2025 W.A.I.T. data, only 46 percent of centrally approved innovative medicines are available to patients on average across Europe, with a mean delay of 578 days between EU approval and patient access. In oncology, these waits have grown since 2023, which undermines patient outcomes and weakens Europe’s competitiveness in health innovation. Europe’s innovation edge is at risk Without decisive action, Europe risks falling further behind other regions. High-income European countries currently invest roughly half as much per capita in innovative medicines as the United States. This gap is driven largely by differences in how new therapies are valued, assessed and reimbursed. The impact of this underinvestment is already visible. Over the past two decades, Europe has lost around a quarter of its global share of biopharmaceutical research and development. Along with that loss comes fewer high-quality jobs, reduced private investment and weakened strategic autonomy in a sector that is increasingly central to economic and health security. > evidence suggests that every euro invested in health can generate up to four > euros in economic value, unlocking an estimated €10 trillion in GDP and saving > up to 60 million lives. Smart health investment drives growth and resilience By increasing targeted investment in innovative medicines, including in oncology, Europe can improve health outcomes for citizens, support workforce participation  and stimulate sustainable economic growth. Globally, evidence suggests that every euro invested in health can generate up to four euros in economic value, unlocking an estimated €10 trillion in GDP and saving up to 60 million lives. What European policymakers should do next To support oncology patients and safeguard innovation, regional and national governments must act across policy, funding and access: — Value what matters: modernize health technology assessment frameworks to better capture the full societal and economic benefits of innovation, while reducing duplicative and inefficient evidence requirements. This is particularly important as oncology products begin going through the new EU Joint Clinical Assessment. — Accelerate access: introduce time-bound, predictable pricing and reimbursement pathways; address regional and formulary-level delays; and invest in diagnostic and biomarker testing capacity to ensure patients receive the right treatment at the right time. — Back prevention and screening: fully finance the EU Beating Cancer Plan’s screening ambitions and scale proven pilot programmes that detect cancer earlier and improve outcomes. — Invest in innovation: increase public spending on innovative medicines in line with their true societal impact, while eliminating clawbacks and other cost-containment measures that disproportionately undermine the value of these therapies. A defining choice for Europe Europe stands at a crossroads. It can choose to invest now in cancer innovation, which would help to close survival gaps, strengthen competitiveness and deliver long-term value for citizens. Or it can allow delays, underinvestment and fragmented policies to widen those gaps further. Aligning policy, funding and access around innovation would not only improve cancer outcomes but make health one of Europe’s most powerful and sustainable investments for the future.     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on securing a technology-neutral EU road-transport decarbonisation framework through recognition of renewable fuels, strengthened grid and infrastructure enablers, and avoiding mandates that limit operators’ choice and competitiveness. * The ultimate controlling entity is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) More information here.

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.

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

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. came within hours of publicly promoting Denmark’s childhood vaccine schedule as an option for American parents — before legal and political concerns got in the way. A senior HHS official told POLITICO that a press conference set for Friday 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 second senior official at the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed the press conference, which HHS had publicly announced, was to be about the Danish schedule. The second official said it was canceled because it was deemed politically risky. Billed as an “announcement regarding children’s health,” Kennedy was to appear alongside his top agency heads and Tracy Beth Høeg, the Food and Drug Administration’s top drug regulator. Høeg touted the Danish schedule at a vaccine advisory committee meeting earlier this month. HHS canceled the event Thursday evening, hours after announcing it. Andrew Nixon, an HHS spokesperson, called accounts of the cancellation that didn’t come directly from the department “pure speculation” in a statement. HHS officials skeptical of moving to the Danish schedule, which recommends immunization for only 10 of the 17 diseases on the U.S. list, were relieved it was never publicly recommended, the first official said. The internal confusion and disagreement follow similar management bungling within HHS’ Food and Drug Administration that has frustrated the White House. On Dec. 5, President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum titled “Aligning United States Core Childhood Vaccine Recommendations with Best Practices from Peer, Developed Countries.” The memorandum directed HHS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one of its subagencies that sets the vaccine schedule, to review peer-country best practices for vaccines recommended for all children and, if those practices were judged superior, to update the U.S. schedule while preserving access to vaccines already available. In the memorandum, Trump mentioned Denmark, Japan and Germany as examples of countries that recommend fewer shots than the U.S. According to the first official, Kennedy and his top aide, Stefanie Spear, helped sell the peer-country framing to West Wing officials as the clearest way to turn internal vaccine skepticism into a signed White House directive. Spear is Kennedy’s principal deputy chief of staff and senior counselor. Kennedy is a longtime vaccine skeptic who believes the U.S. schedule has grown too quickly, has not been tested in its entirety for adverse effects, and is a likely cause of rising autism rates. Numerous studies have not found a link between vaccines and the neurological disorder that now affects one in 31 U.S. children, up from one in 150 two decades ago. Experts in the condition, which affects the ability to communicate, say expanded diagnostic criteria and awareness are responsible for most of that rise. The condition’s cause is usually genetic, they believe, but researchers are studying possible environmental causes. HHS has made it a priority to learn more about what causes autism and why diagnoses are rising. The department’s research arm, the National Institutes of Health, announced an Autism Data Science Initiative on May 27 and has awarded around $50 million to fund 13 projects investigating potential causes. In April, Kennedy promised to reveal autism’s cause in September, but HHS later said it would reveal preliminary findings early next year. Autism researchers, who have studied the condition for years, have called that unrealistic. The first indication Kennedy might be considering the slimmer Danish schedule, which excludes vaccines for chickenpox, the flu, hepatitis A and B, meningitis, respiratory syncytial virus and rotavirus, came earlier this month during the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting in Atlanta. Høeg presented a slide deck titled “U.S. vs. Danish Vaccine Schedule,” which the CDC posted among the meeting presentations. The department then circulated Høeg’s presentation to top officials at HHS, the first senior official said. In the ensuing debate, Høeg’s supporters proposed offering the Danish schedule as a government-recommended alternative to the U.S. one. The first senior official and two others inside HHS familiar with internal discussions, all of whom were granted anonymity to reveal deliberations they were not authorized to discuss publicly, said proponents of the Danish schedule felt that offering it would help restore trust in vaccines; many Americans were turned off by Covid-era vaccine mandates and claims that Covid shots would halt transmission that turned out to be incorrect, they argued. The three officials said the view of proponents inside the administration was that the Danish schedule could be pitched as a “reset” that might convince hesitant parents to vaccinate their kids. Critics inside the administration, the officials said, argued the plan to recommend the Danish schedule was not rigorous and science-based — and that promoting it publicly would invite criticism. Rather than restoring trust, they said it could undermine it by signaling doubt about the need for, and safety of, routine immunization. Going forward without laying the scientific groundwork or going through normal regulatory processes could also make the department vulnerable to lawsuits, the HHS general counsel’s office argued, according to the first senior official. Mike Stuart, who was a U.S. attorney in West Virginia in Trump’s first term, now is HHS general counsel. The American Academy of Pediatrics, which represents doctors who care for children, along with other physician and public health groups, has already sued HHS for changes it made earlier this year to Covid vaccine recommendations, saying the department violated rules governing how regulatory changes are made. That case is pending in federal district court in Boston. HHS has stopped recommending Covid boosters for previously vaccinated people under 65 who are not at high risk of the disease. Instead, the department says Americans should talk to their doctor and make a shared decision. Carmen Paun contributed to this story. Tim Röhn is senior editor of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network.

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.

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.