The EU's healthcare spending priorities are under scrutiny, with a growing consensus that the current model is financially unsustainable. The focus on disease management, as highlighted by Olivér Várhelyi, the EU's health commissioner, is deemed excessive, while investment in prevention remains woefully inadequate. This imbalance has sparked a call for a fundamental reorientation of European health policy.
The statistics are striking: 80% of the EU's healthcare budget is spent on treating illnesses, while only 3-6% is dedicated to prevention. This disparity is particularly evident in the case of cardiovascular disease (CVD), which claims 1.7 million lives annually and imposes a substantial economic burden of €282 billion. Experts estimate that four-fifths of CVD cases could be prevented through existing interventions, yet these strategies remain underutilized.
Birgit Beger, executive officer of the European Heart Network, emphasizes the need for a comprehensive approach to health policy. She advocates for tighter tobacco controls, healthier food environments, and expanded early detection programs. Beger argues that the current system, heavily reliant on acute treatment, is not equipped to address the complex challenges posed by an aging population, rising chronic diseases, climate change, and antimicrobial resistance.
Fraser Goodwin, policy coordinator at the European Federation of Allergy and Airways Diseases Patients' Associations, agrees that the healthcare system is facing a "polycrisis." He suggests that primary care, including GPs and pharmacies, should be repositioned as the primary focus for prevention and early diagnosis. While acknowledging the EU's limited budget, Goodwin believes that Brussels can play a crucial role as a "multiplier" by coordinating actions across member states and urging governments to fulfill their commitments to the World Health Organization.
Industry representatives, such as Alexander Natz from EUCOPE, the European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs, emphasize the importance of prevention but also caution against taking pharmaceutical innovation for granted. Natz highlights the risks of geopolitical uncertainty, transatlantic pricing disputes, and complex EU regulations that could divert investment. He advocates for a partnership approach between policymakers and the industry to tackle systemic healthcare challenges.
The underlying fiscal logic of underfunding prevention is becoming increasingly clear. As Várhelyi stated, the question for European governments is no longer about affordability but about the sustainability of their healthcare systems. The current structure, heavily reliant on treating illnesses, may no longer be tenable. This realization prompts a critical reevaluation of the EU's healthcare priorities and a call for a more balanced approach that prioritizes prevention alongside treatment.
