‘Can’t pay, won’t pay’? Why the EU is good value for our citizens’ health

By Denis Horgan, Executive Director, European Alliance for Personalised Medicine

With every new EU administration comes the regular reassessment of the budgets – and the monies paid into the Union by each contributing member state.

And while the Eurosceptic parties – especially in the larger countries – will always trot out the same lines that too much cash is spent on administration and bureaucracy while relatively little actually goes towards adding value, this is not strictly true.

While it is a fact that the UK and Netherlands are being asked to contribute more this time around (in the first instance due to an economic upturn), arguments that the citizen is gaining nothing from an EU economy of more than $16 trillion are clearly nonsense.

And there is even an argument that we need more, not less ‘Europe’, certainly in the area of health.

One of the key tenets of the EU is the improvement of the lives of its, now, 500 million citizens and billions of euro are being poured annually into, for example, research into cures for illnesses.

At the same time, many much-maligned EU laws have given citizens more, and more equal, rights to better access to treatment.

On the topics of research and innovation, EU-funding will not only improve Europeans' quality of life but will also enhance the EU's global competitiveness.

Horizon 2020 has a budget of almost €80 billion – and that’s around 30% more than in the current framework in real terms. Under this scheme, and with this budget, the European Union rightly– in the view of the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) - argues that researchers and businesses will benefit from increased and simplified EU support.

The EU goes on to argue that Horizon 2020 will support innovation through investment in key technologies, greater access to capital and support for SMEs, as well as helping to cope with the significant challenges of an ageing population, while helping to bridge the gap between research and the market.

These are sound arguments, based on real facts and figures, not on the kind of political motivation that fuels specious rhetoric from the likes of UKIP’s Nigel Farage.

And perhaps most importantly when it comes to research is the fact that such work can drastically improve – and often save – the lives of a growing body of citizens who will all, at some point, need treatment.

A prime example of EU money well spent as a benefit to every Member State’s citizens is the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) which is entering its IMI2 phase and has been working to improve health by speeding up the development of, and patient access to, innovative medicines.

In a similar way to personalised medicine it encourages and facilitates collaboration between key players involved in healthcare, in this case particularly research, including universities, the pharmaceutical and other industries, SMEs, patient organisations, and medicines regulators.

It is a partnership between the EU and the pharma industry, represented by EFPIA and has a €3.3bn budget for 2014-2024. Just over half of this comes from Horizon 2020 with the balance from EFPIA companies, making IMI the world's biggest public-private partnership in the life sciences.

IMI, launched in 2008, now has almost 50 ongoing projects, with more on the way.

Essentially, the EU is an organization whose members can only benefit in the long term from working and acting together. This is why EAPM would like to see much more collaboration to improve health systems at the EU level, rather than hear certain politicians in some member states arguing for ‘less Europe’.

It is clear that no single nation can tackle its own health problems alone in the face of rapidly changing demographics.

More collaboration means more sharing of resources, which will allow for the improvement of healthcare systems – especially in smaller member states and in the regions of some larger ones.

The EU prides itself on striving for equality and, as mentioned, improving the lives of all of its citizens. Adequately funded research into medicines and innovative treatments is one way of ensuring a healthier; longer-living population of 500 million in 28 member states.

And if one nation has a larger population, why should it still not benefit greatly – including the inevitable hospital cost savings - from having the best care achievable for its people, even if this means a slightly higher contribution in relative terms than it made during the last EU budget?

In the end, talk is cheap, Mr Farage. And while membership of the EU costs considerably more than that cheap talk, it’s not difficult to see where the true value lies when comparing one to the other.

Share this article: