Committee on Public Health Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
SANT European Parliament
Follow its sittings
Speaker 3
However, we also identified some issues that could threaten long-term effectiveness. I will cover three topics. First, funding, especially in combination with the timeline; then some observations on how the plan is being put into practice; and finally, I'll discuss monitoring and evaluation. First, funding. The commission announced a $4,000,000,000 budget.
More than a quarter of that would come from EU4Health, but EU4Health's budget for 2025 to 2027 was cut by more than 35% following the midterm revision of the MFF. We do not know what impact that might have on Europe's Beating Cancer Plan. In addition to the budget cut, we do not know anything about financing after 2027. At the same time, Europe's Beating Cancer Plan has no defined end date, and many activities stretch well beyond 2027. While actions generally run until 2030, some targets are set for 2040.
This creates uncertainty about the financing of long-term activities as well as future support for the plan. The different time frames of actions, targets, and funding also mean that we do not know when the overall performance can be meaningfully assessed. Now, a great deal of work has already been done, starting to put the plan into practice. We were glad to see that all milestones for launching platforms, portals, and networks for the 10 flagship initiatives were met as planned by 2024. This is positive.
For example, the European Cancer Imaging Initiative aims to support artificial intelligence models to help with cancer diagnosis. To do this, it started collecting a large dataset of anonymous images, which has clear EU added value. However, some initiatives have overlapping objectives or produce similar outputs. We found several projects developing prevention apps and using cancer survivor networks. Such overlaps risk duplication of efforts and may limit the efficient and effective use of EU resources.
One of Europe's beating cancer plan's overarching objectives is to tackle inequalities. We found that all 10 flagship initiatives include such measures, which is good. For example, we saw projects that help reduce inequalities by sharing knowledge and expertise from more advanced hospitals with those that have fewer resources. Monitoring inequalities and benchmarking performance have been made easier through the European Cancer Inequalities Registry and the Cancer Performance Tracker. This is a step toward better comparability and accountability.
However, usefulness depends on regional data, particularly on screening and vaccination rates, and on access to services. Unfortunately, regional data is not always included or available. Without comprehensive regional data, it is difficult to analyze inequalities within member states or to tailor interventions effectively. The national authorities we talked to said that regional differences are particularly significant for early detection and treatment. Despite efforts, significant inequalities still remain.
For example, our analysis of breast cancer screening showed that many member states are on the right track to meet the targets of 90%, but, increasingly, more than half of the member states even reported a negative trend. We are also worried about the sustainability of the actions and projects. Some have long-term arrangements. However, many projects depend on follow-up actions and funding by member states. And if member states do not integrate and maintain these tools, the benefits of EU investment may not be sustained.
And finally, I will talk about weaknesses in monitoring and evaluation. Only a third of the plan's sub-objectives have measurable, quantified targets. For example, HPV vaccination, cancer screening, tobacco reduction, and access to comprehensive cancer centers. And it is not clear how the commission will assess the plan's overall impact. An implementation roadmap tracks milestones until 2025, but many actions continue after that.
Output results and impact indicators are incomplete. This means that the commission cannot systematically access progress, and it is not clear when a meaningful assessment of impact could take place. In our report, we made two recommendations to the commission, and the commission accepted both of them. Firstly, we recommend improving coherence and long-term usefulness by identifying overlaps and synergies, working with member states to strengthen sustainability planning, and prioritizing a core set of EU actions to boost impact. Secondly, we recommend a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework to assess results and relevance to the plan, including its contribution to reducing inequalities.
So, to conclude, Europe's beating cancer plan is an important and ambitious step forward. It has already brought updates to national cancer plans and launched initiatives with clear added value. However, more targeted priorities, better data, a stronger national update, and a reliable post-2027 framework will be needed if the plan is to deliver lasting improvements for patients and citizens. Thank you very much for your attention, and I look forward to your questions.
Stine Bosse
Thank you very much, Ms. Elvinger. And I will start by giving the floor to EPP, Patos Alukovits.
Bartosz Arłukowicz
Thank you, Madam Chair. I've been looking with a lot of interest at the development and implementation of this plan in Europe. For the first time in the history of parliament, we established a special committee on combating cancer, which I presided over. And there, we pointed out several of the most important problems in fighting cancer. Of course, those could be multiplied.
I've been working on this as a doctor for over 20 years now. And I believe deeply that there are numerous problems that we're facing, but also looking at what we can see in the implementation of the fight against cancer, unfortunately, it's too dispersed. There are also different areas of activity: vaccination, prevention, exchange of information, platforms for this, that, and the other. We have numerous objectives, and it's difficult to implement them, so the final result might be insufficient. But I think we should be able to identify patients for whom the plan was beneficial, so that they saw their life improve or they were able to survive in the first place. We pointed out differences in access to modern diagnosis and treatment.
And I think EU institutions, such as the European Commission, should be able to help negotiate prices for access to modern technologies. I understand there are platforms and applications related to vaccination; all of that is very relevant. But if the final result is such that big pharma companies are implementing new treatments and patients will not have the possibility to take advantage of them because the governments will be unable to afford them, then it will be a very undesired final result. If we are able to build roads together, which we know we can do, we can build sports facilities, which we also know we can do. It turns out we're able to buy vaccines together, which we couldn't do before.
We are able today to provide military support to Ukraine, which we know we can do as well. Then, I think, in my assessment, we should be able to fight cancer together by the same token, because it's one of the major reasons for people dying in Europe. Of course, we can be happy with a report that describes how we create all those platforms and applications that improve access, but, all in all, the core of the matter is that the female patient with breast cancer, if she resides in Eastern Europe, should not face a death sentence compared to patients in Western Europe who have better access and better chances for survival. So, I understand all of the actions. I would like us to focus on the most important things, namely access to the most modern therapies. Thank you.
Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
Thank you so much. May I continue in Lithuania? I
I would like to thank you for this very comprehensive audit and the clear-cut recommendations, although they understandably are quite cautious. But we have to give an answer to the following question. If the European Commission says that the Europe Beat Cancer Plan is a priority program, and all of a sudden, €1,000,000,000 is cut from funding, a very reasonable question arises. Is this really the program that can be touched in this crisis situation, or maybe the funding of this program should not have been cut? A lot could be said today, but we understand perfectly well that the funding instruments in the European Union for the fight against cancer are not very strong.
And in the current reality, we see an enormous challenge: an immense cut of €1,000,000,000. If we take a look at the previous action plan, we can see that many promises have not been implemented up to now. And now, with the reduced and unclear funding for the new MFF, we don't even see the probability of compensating that €1,000,000,000. €1,000,000,000, that's an enormous amount of money that has been taken away from the cancer sector, the beat cancer sector. So do we really believe that this billion will reappear in the new perspectives, in the new MFF, or will it just disappear?
And then, we will end up with a huge delay in implementing this plan. So, I think that the question related to the €1,000,000,000 cut is that you said it's difficult to forecast the effectiveness, but we have to assess it bearing in mind that the Commission needs to really reestablish the amounts which have been cut, and an additional €1 billion needs to be added to the new MFF. Thank you.
Stine Bosse
Please correct. Try to stay within the given time so that everybody gets the possibility to speak. So, from the Patriots, Lauren Castillo.
Laurent Castillo
Thank you very much indeed, Jean, and thank you for this report, which sheds some light on the beating cancer plan at an important moment in time. There are some positive points in the report, such as the implementation of national plans for screening and detection, thanks to AI tools. Another point, which has already been raised, is less positive. I am very disappointed in the commission's response. Firstly, when you talk about detecting and resolving the gaps between the different financing programs in the long term.
What we really want is some clarity about how EU funds are actually used. They should be used to ensure there is no overlap and that funds are used effectively. How can you justify this plan at the EU level if we don't have this visibility? Then, when you talk about implementing a monitoring framework with indicators based on the results and the impact. This seems to be a self-defense mechanism.
You're blaming the member states for not getting involved. It's true that they have to bear some responsibility because health is, above all, a member state competence, but the Commission also needs to assume responsibility here. They have to provide support and coordination for this plan. And then the guarantees: I hope that the commission will finally prioritize European actions against high-impact cancer in order to justify the existence of this plan, as well as the implementation of other plans yet to come. When we see that breast cancer screening has dropped in many member states on a European level, this should be a warning.
We need to look at the role of Europe here. We need to communicate with those stakeholders who are committed to action. This plan should serve as a model for other public health strategies. I'm thinking about pathologies and cardiovascular issues as well. Thank you.
Stine Bosse
Thank you very much. Mister Roquero Rasa from ECR is not here, so we will go on to renew Vlad Vasile Visculesco.
Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu
Thank you, sir. Dear colleagues, representatives of the European Court of Auditors, thank you for this timely report on Europe's cancer plan. Cancer remains the EU's second leading cause of death, with more than one million deaths and an estimated €100,000,000,000 economic impact. These are two numbers that are easy to remember for every citizen of Europe. Your audit confirms that the plan has genuine EU added value.
It has helped to coordinate efforts and acted as a catalyst for national action. You also highlight three risks in my reading that we here in the Sand Committee cannot ignore. The first one would be uncertainty. The second one is fragmentation, if I read your report correctly. And the third one is weak accountability.
I'll go to the first one. Uncertainty. The plan has started with an announced 4,000,000,000 envelope. Yet from the very beginning, without a clear distribution across objectives and actions, and with an unclear outlook after 2027. That has been compounded by the cuts of the EU for health budgets over €1,000,000,000.
If the next phase is to deliver, it needs to be predictable, with predictable financing and transport budget tagging so that Parliament can track what is actually spent and on what. Second, fragmentation. The explosion of platforms, portals, networks, and apps may create value, but you find the risks of overlap, duplication, and limited uptake. This means EU-funded tools can remain pilots rather than becoming standard practice across member states. A new version of the plan should move from more initiatives to fewer but interoperable, used-at-scale solutions with sustainability and national uptake built in from day one.
Third, accountability. Progress is tracked via an implementation roadmap, yet there is still no robust monitoring framework to assess achievements, results, and, when feasible, impact. Without common indicators, baselines, data quality checks, and a clear evaluation timeline, we cannot credibly claim success or correct course early enough. So, with that in mind, I would dare to conclude with two questions for the European Court of Auditors' representatives. The first one is based on your audit work.
What is the minimum annual reporting package that this committee should require from the commission to make parliamentary scrutiny of the next phase really meaningful? And the second question is: which single governance change would most improve implementation? Systematic consolidation of overlapping initiatives, mandatory sustainability, uptick plans for EU-funded tools, or a stronger link between EU funding and measurable national delivery. Thank you. And thank you, Chair.
Stine Bosse
Thank you very much. And now, we have a remote contribution from Tilly Metz. Welcome.
Speaker 11
Okay. I'm very short. Dear Chair, thank you for your work as auditor in assessing the Europe Beating Cancer Plan. I would like to use this opportunity to congratulate all of us on the last cancer resolution adopted in February by the parliament. It's proof that Becca's legacy is still valid.
However, I'm a bit concerned that it is not fully taken on board. Similarly, the European skin cancer plan is not fully realized, and in some areas, it looks particularly weak. One of the objectives in the plan was to contribute to achieving a tobacco-free generation where less than 5% of the population uses tobacco by 2014. Today, it's around 25 percent. Increasingly, more young people use tobacco and nicotine products.
So, a tobacco-free generation is to be achieved also by reviewing the legislation. We are in 2026, and we are still waiting for the new proposal for the Tobacco Products Directive. Progress on the taxation directive is quite modest, and even the Commission and the Parliament struggle with the implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, while we are supposed to mobilize member states to improve implementation. So, I would really like to call on the Commission and on the Commissioner personally to do their utmost to make progress on the EU legal framework on tobacco. I would like to finish on a positive note.
I was happy to see in the European Court of Auditors' report that the cancer plan served as a trigger for policy change at the national level. After it was adopted, four countries developed new national cancer plans, and 10 countries updated their existing plans. This shows that EU-wide and ambitious actions in prevention make sense, and we should not slow down. Thank you very much.
Stine Bosse
Thank you, Tilly. Two more to go before I give the floor back. So, from the left, Katharina Martins.
Catarina Martins
Yeah. Thank you, Chair. I will speak in Portuguese.
I'll keep it very brief because I don't want to repeat the points that have already been made. I'd like to thank you very much indeed for your work on this file, and say that I really think we have to focus on budgetary issues in the EU. Of course, we want to develop many of these projects, and some of the points that have been raised here are not budgetary. There are areas where we could have a greater discussion. We have to improve our work.
There is one glaring problem. If we don't have the budget, all of these commitments made at the European level are worthless. So we have committed to beating cancer. And as such, we have committed to investing in research and innovative therapies that could save lives. But we were also committed to ensuring that screening happens early in a more effective manner, and we have to ensure that treatment is fair across the EU.
We know that access to treatment is extremely unequal. But in order to do all this, we need the budget. And I think the resolution we passed in plenary last session shows this. I think that we have broad political support in this committee to ensure that the next EU budget is sufficient to meet the commitments we have made here. Thank you.
Stine Bosse
Thank you so much. And Miss Anderson is not here, so I'll give the floor back to Miss Ervinger.
Oh, second round.
Stine Bosse
You take the second round. Miss Ervinger, please. Flow shows. Then, we continue.
Speaker 3
Yeah. Thank you very much for all your interventions. I think there were quite some questions which were more addressed to the commission, but I would start maybe with the first comments and also the last ones on the inequalities. And it is true that the report finds significant inequalities persist. And while several flagship initiatives include measures to address disparities, large gaps remain in HPV vaccination rates, breast cancer screening rates, and regional access to services.
We found that all 10 flagship initiatives include measures to identify or address inequalities; however, actual impact depends heavily on member state uptake, and significant disparities remain, for example, in HPV vaccination and breast cancer screening rates. Then, as regards funding, the report notes that, as was repeated as well, the EU for Health budget for the 2025-2027 period was reduced by more than a third, and the Commission could not specify which parts of Europe's Beating Cancer Plan will be affected, which means that there is uncertainty about how the plan will be implemented over the coming years. While we cannot say what initiatives will be cut or delayed, reduced resources inevitably create pressure across the health portfolio and may influence the extent to which the original ambitions can be maintained. And regarding the question about the new MFF, I think this is still a work in progress, so it's not up to us to foresee what's going to happen there. And then, as regards the commission putting the mistake on the member states, yeah, I mean, it's true that in terms of health, it mostly relates to the member states.
And, I mean, yep, it's something we highlight as well in all our reports. And I don't know whether, yeah. There was a question on what the minimum annual reporting package required and funded by each objective of the plan linked to input, output, results, and, if possible, also output indicators, and reporting actually by each action would also be desirable. But yeah. And then, the other question, which relates to which single government change would most improve the implementation.
So here, we can only say that the stronger link between the EU funding and the national initiatives would be wishful to ensure sustainability, as well as addressing and improving synergies. So that's also what's in our recommendations, one A and one B of the report. I hope I can reply to the questions. Otherwise, I am still available.
Stine Bosse
Thank you so much. We will continue now with the next round. Elena Nevado de Campo, please. The floor shows.
Elena Nevado del Campo
Thank you, Christine. I will speak in Spanish. Firstly, I'd like to thank the ECA for this report on Europe's Beating Cancer Plan. It's a very wide-ranging report, and it confirms the positive aspects of this plan. It has proved effective in pushing forward national policies to beat cancer across the EU.
But the plan may well end up failing. But what is at risk here isn't the future of the plan alone. We're talking about thousands of European lives. So, I don't think that we can allow a strategy which, while it was a result of an initiative by the EPP in 2021 with majority support from all political groups in this Parliament. We cannot allow it to fail now because it does not have the funding.
We're talking about the second-largest cause of death in the EU. One in every 2 Europeans will suffer from cancer throughout their lives. So, three key messages here from the EPP. The beating cancer plan needs sufficient, solid, and stable funding. Secondly, we need solid, coordinated, and effective governance.
Thirdly, we need to focus our efforts on reducing inequalities. Thank you.
Thank you.
Margarita de la Pisa Carrión
You, Chair, ladies and gentlemen. Firstly, we'd like to thank the Court of Auditors for their hard work on this report on the beating cancer plan. This plan was the result of an ambitious initiative. And I would like to remind the rapporteur and others that this report had almost unanimous support in the plenary. We are all aware that we share a concern about our health.
It is an opportunity for us to talk together in this committee with health professionals, patients, and other experts. Doctors made it clear where we need to intervene when it comes to lung cancer, such as reducing smoking. We've worked together with national entities in Spain, in my case. And as the report said, the impact is that countries such as mine, which are in a relatively good position, have not always been able to make clear progress.
If you
Margarita de la Pisa Carrión
Look, if you take a broader view of the situation, it may well be seen that there have been some steps backwards. In other countries, the situation is much more complicated. The report makes it clear that some countries that had not had a national strategy will be obliged to draft one. But there are a number of issues remaining. There are a lot of initiatives and projects which are not coordinated, and public money does not always bear fruit.
Need a way to measure the impact of the plan. We find ourselves at a crossroads where we have new therapeutic tools, especially given the innovative technology.
Sorry. Sorry for the interruption.
Therefore, given advances in biotechnology, we should be able to ensure that Europe can lead this fight both for the development of research and technology so that we can ensure that we have access to these tools. It's also important to look at progress made in medical devices to make sure they are more accessible and for primary care, which will allow for early diagnosis as well. We have to look at the role played by donors, such as bone marrow donors. This is important for diseases such as leukemia. We need to continue working together to ensure that this plan is not just a toolbox of measures, but a coherent whole that can improve all of our lives.
Thank you.
Stine Bosse
Thank you. It's not because I want to stress you. It's just because I want everybody to have a chance. Nikos Papandréou?
Nikos Papandreou
Thank you, Chair. I think it's excellent work that the auditors did because, for me, it shows that we did some good things in the last few years. I wasn't here last term, but it's something I think we can be proud of. It shows the weaknesses of the EU, but it also shows the strengths when we do things together. So, just to ask a question, how is the trajectory going?
I'm very interested in HPV and the screening. At 20:30, we're supposed to get 90 percent. We haven't received it. What's your sense of how we're doing on that, regardless of whether there will be funding in the future or not? Thank you.
Stine Bosse
Thank you very much. Then I'll just give myself the floor for perhaps more comments. Many of you actually mentioned it. What is so important now is that we get this right in the next MFF. And I loved your comment on this being the EPP position.
We want there to be more funding. Please keep that position because it is exactly what we need. We have to make sure that we can bridge from where we are now to where we actually want to go. And we need to go to the area where we were just after COVID, before the budget cuts. And then I want to quote our commissioner for the budget.
What we can do better and cheaper together, we must do. I mean, this has to be our mantra in the SAND Committee to make sure that we really get things in the right order here. And then on to Martin Hausling. Where is Martin?
Martin Häusling
Thank you very much. I would very much like to thank the ECA for this important report. There's one thing that we all agree on across party lines. The financing needs to be guaranteed after 2028. I think this plan is one of the best measures that you've drawn up over the last few years.
And now, if we're lacking money, I think people outside of this room will not understand why. We're dealing with 1.1 million people in Germany who are dying of cancer. That's far too many. There is not enough prevention. When we look at the issue of tobacco use, we can see there are varying levels of ambition on this issue across the member states.
In my member state of Germany, it is quite cheap to consume tobacco, and that needs to change. So, I think we need to ensure that the member states can make an effort here and bring those efforts to the table. This issue of inequality was also mentioned. I'll be very interested in how this plays out in terms of access to medicine. Treatment is expensive.
It's becoming increasingly expensive. We have an aging population, of course, and we need to make sure that people have access to medication, and high-level medication at that. So, I think this report actually feeds into the budgetary discussions. And then, we have to look at what the plan will look like moving forward. And I would like people to take to heart what we are saying here.
We need to ensure that we have the necessary finances, and we also need to make sure that we work on prevention. We need to make sure that we have enough budgetary resources to tackle this issue. Thank you.
Manuela Ripa
Yes. Thank you very much. I
I think the best way of fighting cancer is to stop it from occurring in the first place. And if you look at the heart of the EU Beating Cancer campaign, that is essentially that 40 percent of cancers are preventable. And so, that's why I have a question about the recommendations coming from the ECA. Can you state that you were saying that we've got a good plan here in terms of screening as a prevention measure, as well as vaccination? And the plant has important measures against, for instance, tobacco use.
That's all part and parcel of the plan. And then you are saying that measurable preventative benchmarks are lacking, and actually measurable indicators in terms of prevention. So, I would like to hear from you whether you could expound on this. So, what do you believe needs to be done on the part of member states so that these avoidable cancer cases can be reduced to a bare minimum? Thank you.
Speaker 3
Yeah. Thank you very much again for your questions in the second round. I think there was one clear question to the Court of Auditors, which was about the HPV vaccination. And there, we cannot yet assess the status as of 2030. Across the EU, on average, 64% of girls aged 15 in 2023 had been vaccinated, and the trend has been positive since 2013.
But no data on the HPV vaccination was reported for five member states, and these five were Croatia, Greece, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia. Moreover, in Bulgaria, Estonia, and Latvia, three member states with vaccination rates below the EU average, the trend was negative during the ten years up to 2023. And then, to the last question, Miss Ripa, it is actually the Commission who should work with the member states to ensure the uptake of the EU initiatives and also prevention actions. And I think this is more a question for the commission rather than for the court of auditors because it's a political decision to be taken. Thank you very much.
So maybe just to summarize, I would really like to thank you all for your attention to this important initiative. On the whole, I think that Europe's beating cancer plan is an ambitious move that contributes to the coordination and implementation of member states' efforts in the fight against cancer, and it has gotten off to a good start. Nevertheless, a real impact is expected in the long term, and the success will depend on a number of factors, and action can be better targeted. Funding post-2027 is uncertain, and a comprehensive evaluation framework is needed to assess the overall impact. And with that, I would really like to thank you again for your interest.
Speaker 24
And should there be more questions afterward, we are still available by email.
Stine Bosse
Thank you very much. And, on your last comment, thankfully, we have the commission present. And over now to Matthias Schuper, deputy head of the Cancer and Health in All Policies unit. You're present with us here today, and you have 4 minutes. Thank you very much.
Speaker 25
Thank you, Madam Chair, honorable members of the Parliament. The commission welcomes the ongoing high level of attention that the European beating cancer plan still receives five years after its adoption. The European Parliament continues to be a strong voice for ensuring the EU's commitment to the full and effective implementation of the cancer plan. This is clearly shown by the Parliament's recent resolution on the occasion of World Cancer Day, but also by the statements made today in this committee. The European Court of Auditors is another important actor in this regard, and I would like to thank the representative of the court for a very balanced presentation.
Speaker 26
The auditors have confirmed that the cancer plan is making a real difference. They noted that actions launched to implement the cancer plan are useful and add value, and that important milestones across all 10 flagship initiatives have been reached. Furthermore, the plan has helped coordinate and strengthen the efforts of member states, and it has considerably expanded the scope of previous EU actions on cancer. The commission is fully committed to taking forward the recommendations of the court and to working closely with the parliament to ensure the full implementation of the York's Beating Cancer Plan. In doing so, we will have a strong focus on exploiting synergies, identifying priorities, ensuring sustainability, addressing inequalities, as well as focusing on monitoring and evaluation.
Thank you.
Stine Bosse
Thank you very much for being present here today, and thank you also to Miss Elvinger. And that concludes this intervention. Thank you very much. And we go on to the next item on our agenda: gender inequalities in health, specifically regarding gender-specific conditions. We continue this afternoon with this point, which considers the draft opinion on gender inequalities in health, especially regarding gender-specific conditions.
The lead committee is female. I will give the floor first to the, then to the, and to any member who asks for the floor based on catching the eye. I will finally give the floor to the Commission. If you want to take the floor, please raise your hand so that the secretariat can see it and take note. Miss Martin Scrapateur, for the sent opinion, you have the floor for 4 minutes to present the draft opinion.
And.
Catarina Martins
Thank you.
Very much indeed, Chair. I wanted to start by saying that I very much hope we'll be able to work well together on this opinion. I think that seems to.
Catarina Martins
The case so far, and I wanted to look at some of the criteria that I followed when drafting this report. Firstly, I wanted to avoid saying what was already contained in the FAM report, namely, sexual and reproductive health and sexual reproductive health rights of women. That's why I decided not to repeat the comments made in the amendments already tabled along these lines. I wanted to look at what is not sufficiently tackled by the report. There are four main questions that I focused on.
The first of these is that I think we need to go further when it comes to the need to research not just the health conditions that affect only women, but we have to ensure that the clinical and medical research which is carried out takes into account the gender-specific conditions that affect women. This includes something that wasn't touched on by the report, which is generic medicinal products that come in different formats. And once again, when they have developed, gender is not always considered. Secondly, I wanted to look at the teaching and training of health professionals in the report. Many curricula do not cover gender-specific conditions or health conditions that only affect women, nor specific conditions or specific ways in which a disease may affect women at different stages of their lives.
So a number of the amendments which I have tabled focus on this: training and education, and school curricula. Thirdly, I have tabled amendments on technological advances and the way in which women's health has not been protected by these new technological advances. Here, I am talking not just about medical devices, but also about the increasing use of AI tools in the health sector. Let me remind you that when looking at cardiovascular health, 80% of the data used by AI tools comes from male bodies, and this means it would be almost impossible to correctly triage women. Then finally, I looked at some health conditions related to a woman's life cycle, but I also wanted to flag this up now.
Some health problems affect women in particular, and these are not considered. They are not sufficiently researched. They are not covered by training or education. Here, I'm talking about cardiovascular health more than anything else. 40% of women die of cardiovascular issues in the EU.
This is more than cancer. And I think this shows just how a set of factors can come together to negatively impact women's health. You can see that women's health hasn't received the necessary attention over the last few years. There has, of course, been a lot of progress, but I think we're still very much running behind.
Sirpa Pietikäinen
Thank you. There are quite a lot of issues that deal with gender and health, and that's why the priority is to demand the commission to come up with a women's health strategy and that the member states should have respective national strategies. Why? Well, we have already heard quite a lot. Thank you, the rapporteur.
But research shows that male, female, and other sexes' bodies are different from the stem level up. So, what does that mean as an implication for medication, symptoms, and proneness to some diseases? We need to conduct a lot of research. Then it is the medication, the impacts, effectiveness, disinfecting properties, and side effects of medications. It is about how different treatments work and how the hormonal cycle impacts different conditions like heart conditions, blood pressure, medications, or diabetes, for example. Yes.
This needs to be reflected in the education of all levels of health professionals. And we do need, I guess, at least momentarily, this kind of women's and LGBTIQ health centers to get the best treatment, to serve as this kind of resource center, focusing on research and hands-on new types of treatments and diagnosis. And indeed, we need a lot of work on socio-economic factors because there's a great bias between men and women here, and we can see it. That includes culture and age as overall factors also. We need gender budgeting when we look at how we allocate our public and private budgetary resources here. And, of course, sexual and reproductive issues, as well as issues that are directly related, like menopause and endometriosis, are included.
And I would like to conclude on the accessibility of different kinds of digital health devices, as there is a big group of women with memory disabling diseases at lower socioeconomic states. Thank you.
Merci, madame. Thank you.
Christophe Clergeau
You, Madam Chairman. First of all, I'd like to thank the rapporteur for the high quality of her work and say how much we agree with many of her proposals. I think the amendments show that we'll have a good progressive approach to this. And I've been working closely with my colleagues, shadowing the family committee. The parliament's work on health inequalities linked to gender is essential.
I think that health and treatment were developed using a male reference, which ignores the specific nature of women's bodies, and we have not taken into account the specific risks for women. This is something we are trying to work against now. Now, if we're all fighting for the European Commission to give the best follow-up possible to my voice, my choice when we're talking about abortion rights, I think it's key that we work towards effective access for this as well. I think we need to go further than what the report has proposed in recognizing diseases specific to women. Endometriosis is covered in the report, but we will add amendments to link it to other diseases, such as PCOS or uterine fibrosis, which up till now are largely unknown and undertreated.
We would also like to highlight women's mental health from adolescence to menopause. These are also issues that are not fully followed up. Dealing with women's health is a question of discrimination and access to health because this reinforces the discrimination that women are already subject to, in particular in terms of medical deserts. So, access to health should be a fundamental right. To finish, I greatly appreciate what the rapporteur has done on research, and I want to add one additional point.
As you know, we're all working on the concept of the exposome, how exposure over life can increase chronic diseases. And there is one linked to the specific living conditions or exposure to pollution and products, and we need to take this into account in the research that needs to be developed. This gender aspect must be taken into account so that we can carry out research on the exposure of women and prevent specific diseases affecting them. I think this is the spirit in which we will all be working together. Thank you.
Stine Bosse
Thank you so much. And then on to Patriots, Macraeser de la Pisa, Carrillo.
Margarita de la Pisa Carrión
Thank you, Chairman. We fully agree with the rapporteur that we need to make progress in recognizing the study of specific women's health issues. We need to consider the specific female biology. We talk about the difficulty in detecting cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases in women, understanding hormonal behavior, how it affects women, and how it affects women's health throughout their life, obviously from maternity to menopause. We need to understand how far biological differences affect women in developing different diseases and the need for this to be part of larger clinical samples, with support for pregnancy and post-pregnancy issues.
Our amendments will respect the informed consent procedure regarding any kind of treatment or intervention. This has not been guaranteed; it has been threatened when we're talking.
About.
Margarita de la Pisa Carrión
Reproduction. We have also seen an alarming number of incidents of women's health being affected by this. We also have to look at issues such as migraines, for example, which have a higher incidence in women. We will be defending a text that works on truly integrated women's health support for maternity and dignity, providing greater support for women's health. Thank you.
Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu
Thank you. Dear colleagues, please excuse my colleague Olivier Castel. That's the Renu shadow on this file, who was unable to attend due to other commitments in the committee at the same time. I will read his intervention on his behalf. I would like to thank the reporter for her work, as well as our colleagues in the FEM committee for the solid initial text.
From my side, I intend to table amendments related to antimicrobial resistance, which constitutes a growing public health challenge and also has a clear agenda dimension. According to the WHO, women are 27% more likely to receive antibiotics throughout their lifetime than men. I also welcome the fact that certain conditions, such as endometriosis, are now receiving greater attention and are firmly on the political agenda. At the same time, other less visible diseases and syndromes must also be taken into account. I am thinking in particular of polycystic ovary syndrome, which, like endometriosis, remains widely underdiagnosed or diagnosed only after many years, with cascading health effects and a significant impact on fertility.
Finally, while we rightly focus on sexual and reproductive health and rights, I believe it's about blood. Yes. Finally, while we rightly focus on sexual and reproductive health and rights, I believe it is equally important to recall some fundamental principles, namely the right to be informed. The right to informed choice in contraception and the need to promote a more balanced sharing of contraceptive responsibility between partners so that it does not fall disproportionately on women. I look forward to working together on this file.
Thank you.
Stine Bosse
Thank you very much, Vlad. And we have a question or a desire to participate from Mayolina Sub Sabai remote, but you are on your phone, and that makes it very difficult for the interpreters to actually interpret. So please connect with your computer if you want to participate. And then I want to go on, and I'll take the two rounds together. So, Tilly, are you there?
Speaker 11
Yes. I'm still here. Thank you very much for giving me the floor. Dear Stine, dear colleagues, Together with my colleagues Romana, Stine, and Zirkba, we launched an interest group called MEPs for Women's Health.
Many colleagues from SUNS and also from other committees joined us, and we are really following the work on this record, of course. Last year, we also had a good exchange with Zira Porter, and today, I'm very thankful to Katharina for all the work done so far. So, women's health is important for a simple reason. We do not have to come up with complex arguments. It is important because it concerns half of the population in Europe and beyond.
Gender disparities in health that we see today are the result of structural problems in research, clinical practice, and health policies. The European Health Union, which serves everyone, must address the persistent gender data gap in medical research. For decades, clinical trials, diagnostic criteria, and treatment protocols have been based predominantly on male physiology. This has led to misdiagnosis, delayed treatment, and poorer outcomes for women and other underrepresented groups, so the collection of sex- and gender-disaggregated data from study design to evaluation cannot be questioned anymore. A particularly urgent issue is continued exclusion.
Speaker 11
Oh, sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. A particularly urgent issue is the continued exclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding women from clinical trials.
While ethical and scientific safeguards are essential, blanket exclusion leaves millions without evidence-based guidance on medicines, vaccines, and treatments. This creates uncertainty for healthcare professionals and risk for women. Finally, we must give greater recognition and resources to gender-specific health conditions that have historically been trivialized or under-researched, including endometriosis and menopause-related health impacts. Just because something concerns only women, it cannot be less important. And finally, I look forward to the upcoming gender equality strategy, which will hopefully build on the roadmap and deliver on the health pillar.
Thank you.
Stine Bosse
Thank you very much, Tilley. Then I will give the floor to myself again, just for a short comment. First of all, thank you very much to the Raboteur. I think it is very good work, and it is very important work. I want to mention a couple of things that have not been said; otherwise, I'm very much aligned with all comments. Research and screening for ovarian cancer.
There are some types of ovarian cancer that are very terrible and occur at a very early age, but they are genetically identified. So actually, with screening programs and much more communication and knowledge of your own family history, if only women knew that they have to know, we could put ourselves in a different place. So, I also want that to be highlighted. Then, I think there is also a lot to be said about clinical trials. You've said a lot.
But also, I think there's something for us to think about, VITENIS, in the Biotech Act. Everywhere we can actually think about demanding more from clinical trials regarding gender, I think we should do so. And then finally, I think you said it, Martinez, on the question of AI, but we really risk taking on board all the biases that we are sitting with. And this, we should definitely avoid. That would be just ridiculous.
So, I'm happy that you are nodding. If it's in there, I'm even happier. And thank you very much for that. And then I just want to ask Madeline Sabe if you want to connect via your phone but not be interpreted? Then it is now.
No? No. Okay. Then I want to give the floor back to our rapporteur, Miss Martins.
Thank you.
Catarina Martins
Very much indeed, Chair, and thank you very much to all my colleagues for their contributions. I'm very happy to see that. I think we've got a good starting point for our work together. That's great news. I think this is a topic that could give rise to a lot of subtopics as well because, essentially, what we're doing is covering how everything is seen in the health sector. For example, taking the man as the reference gender means that many health issues that solely affect women have never been correctly researched.
Some we have started talking about, others we have not. That's one aspect of the problem. It's also true that the male body is seen as a reference body for all illnesses, all diseases, and research across the board. Women are only used for reproductive research. This means that all health conditions which affect both men and women, we're never quite sure how women's bodies are going to react.
Furthermore, the justification for taking this approach is that it is an attempt to achieve a degree of stability in research and education, and women's bodies are unstable. Women are unstable, and this odd justification is what has led to half of the population being excluded because it was a little more complicated to work with a human body that goes through hormonal cycles and other changes throughout their life cycle. This is somewhat ridiculous, as women make up half the population, and I very much hope that research practice has improved and will continue to improve. I very much like the idea of a strategy for women's health. I think that the interest groups should be involved at the very beginning of the process.
They raised that point at the beginning of this term, and I hope that we can continue to make progress along this path. I look forward to hearing your amendments. I'm sure that the opinion will be much better. Thanks to them, that's what we all need. Thank you.
Stine Bosse
Thank you very much, and thank you for the discussion. Following the written announcements last Friday, we announced that the deadline for tabling amendments is set to March 4 at 6:00 in the evening. So, the next point on the agenda. Dear colleagues, the next item. Yeah.
We'll just wait for the experts. Different seating arrangements. We need the experts. Yeah. So, I would like to welcome here Professor Doctor Vander Hining and Doctor Patrick D. Hayes on the occasion of World Hearing Day.
Stine Bosse
So, dear colleagues, this next item on our agenda is an exchange of views in the series "Excellence in Health Science." By developing this series of exchanges of views, we wanted to put more focus on science and innovation in health. And for this purpose, we are inviting representatives of excellence in health science. As you remember, we already had two exchanges of views in this series in September and November, and we are continuing today on the occasion of World Hearing Day, which is taking place tomorrow, March 3. I welcome today the two colleagues who were just presented here.
Professor Paul van der Hainen is a renowned Belgian, and it is very difficult for me to actually pronounce this long word. Just ENT? ENT. ENT, and then we can hear the real long word perhaps later. And Professor Emeritus at the Antwerp University Hospital and University of Antwerp, known for his extensive contributions to cochlear implantation, inner ear pathology, and tinnitus research.
He has just supervised dozens of PhD theses, published hundreds of scientific papers, and played key leadership roles in international hearing research organizations such as the Hearing Group. Our second speaker is Doctor Patrick DeHaas, the corporate director of awareness and public affairs at MEDEL, bringing more than 30 years of healthcare industry expertise with deep experience in active implantable hearing devices and global public health perspectives. He holds multiple degrees, including a PhD in medical science, is a visiting professor at Wirth University Brussels, serves on several advisory boards, and has lectured and published widely on hearing health and public health topics. I will give the floor to Professor Van der Hynen and Doctor De Haas for their introductory speeches. And after that, to members for question and answer sessions.
So, please, onto you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Chairperson, President of the meeting, honorable members of the European Parliament. Ladies and gentlemen, it's a pleasure for us to be here today to talk to you about building a hearing-inclusive society through awareness, innovation, and policy change. What I just want to point out is that we are here to also represent the Hearing Health Forum EU, which is a network of three partners. On the one hand, there is MEDEL. There is the Hearing Group, a global network of ENT professors and audiologists.
And the third partner is EuroCIU, which is a European umbrella organization of national patient associations of CI users. Now, I first want to give a short introduction. Oh, this is going too fast. Sorry. Okay.
So, what we know is that hearing loss is on the rise. This shows some data from the World Health Organization report from 2021, where if you look at the black line at the bottom, you see the number of people who have what is called a disabling hearing loss. And these are people who would need to be helped from a health care perspective with hearing aids or cochlear implants. The point is that you see that, where it was 430 million people globally in 2019, if nothing is done, this will increase to 711 million by 2025. Now, if we break it down on the European level, this is again the European region as defined by the World Health Organization, so not the EU because it also includes countries like Israel, Russia, and the UK, for example, then you see that the number is still very high.
You start off with 197 million in 2019, but the point is that the number will increase. Now, if you drill it down to an EU level, we know that nowadays we have 52 million people with a disabling hearing loss. Out of that, there are 34 million adults. And the last point I want to make before I pass on the word to Professor Anne Hoehning is that you should also know that hearing loss is the third largest cause of disability in the EU. If you look into the global burden of disease, and that is based on years lived with disability, it is only preceded by lower back pain and depression.
And now I would like to pass on the word to Professor Van der Hoehnning, who will dig a bit deeper into hearing loss and comorbidities.
Speaker 30
Mister President, honorable members of the committee, good afternoon, and I am happy to be able to discuss with you the problems of hearing loss. Hearing loss obviously provokes difficulties during conversations. That is obvious, especially in difficult listening conditions like noisy backgrounds. However, the impact of a quiet hearing loss, that is, hearing loss arising during your life, on the quality of life of people with hearing loss is largely underexposed. There are four major challenges that people with hearing loss face: social isolation, depression, cognitive decline, and financial costs due to work limitations.
In society at large, hearing loss is associated with a stigma: the stigma of being old and being less capable of doing things correctly. They don't understand the questions well, and sometimes they give strange answers. And when they ask to repeat the questions, sometimes they get annoyed and even angry reactions. Moreover, they are suspected of having cognitive decline. Hearing loss is said to be an invisible disability, but in fact, it cannot be hidden.
And this, in turn, leads to self-stigma and withdrawing from social events. It's really no fun to be amid a family reunion or a meeting and understand only half of what has been said. So people with hearing loss refrain from going even to busy shops or shopping malls. And so, without knowing, they are stepping into the insidious part of isolation. And because people with hearing loss are a little ashamed, they want to hide their hearing loss and postpone the decision for a hearing aid or a hearing solution, making things worse, of course.
And this is why the team, last year on the hearing day, was changing the mindset around hearing loss and empowering yourself. And you see the effects of a study we did with patients with severe hearing loss who got an electronic ear, a cochlear implant. And you see a significant improvement after the intervention of self-esteem, getting back to normal daily activities, and regaining social interactions. A second risk that people face with hearing loss is depression. A study and a report for the European Federation of Hard of Hearing People, a patient association, reported that 60% of their respondents said that they had feelings of anxiety and depression after getting sudden or progressive hearing loss.
The combination of social isolation and stigma is really the recipe for depression. But, hopefully, restoring hearing with, for instance, a hearing aid or cochlear implant reverses the mood and improves these depressive feelings. And here's the much-discussed burden of cognitive decline. From the age of 50 to 55, unfortunately, our cognitive abilities slowly decline. But people with hearing loss have an accelerated decline in their cognitive abilities, increasing the risk of entering the zone of mild cognitive impairment and even dementia.
In particular, attention, working memory, and long-term memory are affected. The Lancet Commission on Dementia published in 2020 and again in 2024 estimates that if hearing loss were treated appropriately, there would be 7% less dementia.
Speaker 30
7. Not 70. 7%. Seventy would be too positive, but seven percent. So that means that hearing loss is the most important factor that we can change to decrease the occurrence of dementia.
In our own multicenter study, we saw that patients who got the cochlear implant, and this is the green point, already had a cognitive backlog, but they regained fifty percent of this cognitive backlog after cochlear implantation. And afterwards, they evolved at the same pace as their normal hearing age peers and no longer experienced an accelerated decline. And then, acquiring hearing loss is expensive. It is not just expensive due to the medical costs and the devices, but also because all the people lose their independence, and there is an earlier shift to nursing homes. And for people in active life, there is a limitation of their working potential.
A study has shown that when you experience hearing loss during your active life, there's a 30% chance of losing your job or retiring early. And even in unilateral hearing loss, one-sided hearing loss, it is shown that there is work limitation and a loss of work productivity, which is larger than, for instance, other diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, and inflammatory bowel diseases. And the total cost of hearing loss for our society has been calculated by a UK university to amount to and exceed €200,000,000,000. So if you could recuperate something from these €200,000,000,000, you will easily find the €1,000,000,000 that was discussed as the first point this afternoon. Yes.
Who should know about it? To address this underexposed burden of hearing loss, a comprehensive hearing health action plan is needed. Indeed, only 50 percent of those who would benefit from a hearing aid actually wear and use one. And the penetration of cochlear implantation is just 10 percent among potential candidates. So, the initiative has to involve a broad part of our society.
It is first the patients. They have to change their mindset, stand up for themselves, not hide, not refrain from health care, and see what the risk is for them if they do nothing. There are first-line health care providers, medical doctors, and paramedical personnel. These are the main influences that they have to give the right advice and not say, "Oh, but you are too young for that." Or for another therapy, oh no.
You're too old for that. This is not true. We have to educate this category as well, and we have to inform health insurance and financial health care providers about the cost-benefit of investing in health and hearing loss to reduce society's costs. Also, everyone involved in politics and legislation has to be aware of the effects of hearing loss, and it is only with a broad strategy and approach that we can reduce the impact of hearing loss on well-being and quality of life. My colleague, Patrick Das, will now come on to more concrete items of this plan.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. So, ladies and gentlemen, as mentioned by Professor Under Henning, what needs to happen? In light of World Hearing Day tomorrow, we want to ask for your attention for a policy manifesto, which pleads for launching a European hearing health strategy. Now it consists of four pillars. The overall scope of it is that we want to focus on something called the HERE strategy.
Let me push it once.
Speaker 1
Yes. And so, there are four pillars in it. So, we used the acronym here for it. So, on the one hand, we want to focus on raising awareness about hearing loss. Secondly, early detection and prevention.
Thirdly, access and care. And then, last but not least, research and data collection. So far, for the manifesto, you see on the right-hand side how many organizations have already endorsed it. So, more than 95 are coming out of 45 countries. Now, what do we mean by these different pillars?
First of all, hearing loss awareness. The policy objective is to raise awareness of hearing loss and educate populations to reduce stigma and promote social inclusion. As mentioned, there is still little awareness of the prevalence and impact of hearing loss in individuals and on the economy, resulting in stigmatization, discrimination, and isolation. And so, in line with programs like the EU Youth Strategy or European Public Health Week, we think that there's a lot of scope to raise awareness on hearing loss. Second pillar: early prevention and detection.
There's a need to ensure effective strategies, which would be put in place at the national level to ensure the prevention and detection of hearing loss. But also on an EU level, things can be done by means of prevention, such as the Environmental Noise Directive, for example, or if you look from a screening perspective, where we plead for adult hearing screening in the EU CAN screening project or the Get Screened EU campaign, also related to cancer. The third pillar is access and care. So, we want.
Are we talking about the pediatric population or adults? So, are we also there to make sure that there is equal access for all? And then, finally, research: we would encourage further support towards research and the collection of data to facilitate evidence-based policymaking for persons living with hearing loss.
Okay.
Speaker 1
So, we want to increase and facilitate access to hearing health care, interventions, treatment options, and rehabilitation for people living with hearing loss. We also see that across the different member states of the EU, there are different inequalities. We see large differences whether we talk about children, the pediatric population, or adults. So, our plea is also to make sure that there is equal access for all. And then, finally, research.
And if you talk very concretely, you look into programs like Horizon Europe, for example, and also make sure that if you look into Cluster 1 related to health, hearing loss is then much more addressed in it.
We would encourage further support towards research and the collection of data to facilitate evidence-based policymaking for persons living with hearing loss. And if you talk very concretely, if you look into the program like Horizon Europe, for example, also make sure that if you look into cluster one related to health, hearing loss is much more addressed in it. So, concluding, what needs to be done? Hearing loss must be addressed as a public health issue. There is a need for policymakers to allocate resources and strategically promote access to ear and hearing care, and public health strategies should address prevention, screening, and intervention of hearing loss.
So, concluding, what needs to be done? Hearing loss must be addressed as a public health issue. There is a need for policymakers to allocate resources and strategically promote access to ear and hearing care, as well as public health strategies to address prevention, screening, and intervention of hearing loss. And, obviously, on top of that, there is a need to raise awareness with different stakeholders that's already defined within this intervention.
So clearly, to me, there is a need for a comprehensive hearing health strategy in language, for example, the cancer plan. And with that, I want to conclude. Also, I want to say that we look forward to the discussion.
And, obviously, on top of that, there is a need to raise awareness with the different stakeholders, as already defined earlier, within this intervention. So, clearly, our plea is that there is a need for a comprehensive EU hearing loss strategy, in line with, for example, the Beat Cancer Plan. And with that, I want to conclude. Also, I want to say that we look forward to the discussion. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask you. First of all, on the prevention question, I guess that it really starts from birth.
Stine Bosse
Or how can I understand this? So, when you talk about prevention, is your thought there? Do we have any knowledge of all these ear parts and things that we have, like headphones?
Thank you very much. And I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask you. First of all, on the prevention question, I guess that really starts from birth. How could I understand this? So, when you talk about prevention, what are your thoughts there? Do we have any knowledge about all these ear pods and things we have, like headphones with music and so on?
The second question is regarding countries. Do you have in the report or anywhere else where we can see differences between countries? Because that's often where we gain more knowledge.
You know who's doing well across?
Is that healthy? Is that good? Or is it, on the contrary, something we should be worried about? And the second question is regarding countries. Do you have in the report or anywhere else where we can see the differences between countries?
Your opinion? I would like to start with prevention, and Patrick Glassigan, I'll give an example on inequality of axis and publication that we just made. Prevention. And these actions differ according to the age of the person.
Because that's often where we become more knowledgeable. You know, who's doing well, who could we find inspiration from, and how does that look across the European Union?
Speaker 30
I would like to start with prevention, and Patrick Dasek can give an example on inequality of access and publication that we just made this year, which came out in January 2026. On prevention, there are many levels at which we can intervene. And these actions differ according to the age of the person. There are preventions from birth. There are vaccinations against infectious diseases that have an influence on hearing loss.
There are preventions from birth, such as vaccinations that prevent infectious diseases, which have an influence on the individual. We go to young adults and adults at a distance, so it is important to focus on the prevention of noise.
We did large campaigns with results in Belgium.
When we go to young adults and adolescents, it is important to focus on the prevention of noise. We did large campaigns with results in Belgium, with campaigns on television, and the team members were a little less, at most, not so loud. And there is legislation that limits the output of hearing devices, like AirPods or whatever, for children. This is not the case for adults, but wearing these AirPods or wearables, or whatever, is not a problem in itself. It's how loud they are put, and we have to educate our youth as well.
Limits.
Speaker 30
The output of hearing devices like AirPods or whatever, also. As we see in our statistics, ringing in the ears, which is a sign of overexposure to noise, is theorized to occur in incidents at the age of 14 or 15 years.
So we have to address children under that age to prevent what is possibly happening.
We see in our statistics that there is an increase, for instance, in tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, which is a sign of overexposure to noise, and we see a rise in incidence at the age of 14 or 15 years. So we have to address children under that age to prevent what is possible. At this moment, in France, there's a program running in schools to raise awareness that loud noises harm your ears and can lead to hearing loss by the young adult age of 20. This is mild hearing loss, but we anticipate that these people will get incapacitating hearing loss much earlier, when they are 50. So, these are some of the elements that we can use in prevention.
Awareness that without noises, so.
This is one of the elements that we can do in prevention, due to the limit of time. Raise, definitely.
If you look into inequalities, I would like to make a difference then. You see that in hearing loss, there would be neonatal hearing screening programs in place. Most of the member states, I would say, and then based on that, the appropriate health care, so to speak, will be provided.
But, due to the limit of time, I give now the work to Patrick Dase on inequality or examples of inequality.
Speaker 1
Yes. So, thank you very much for the question. I think it's a very important issue to raise, definitely. If you look into inequalities, I would like to make a distinction between the pediatric and the adult population. So, if you look at children, pediatrics, then you see that in hearing loss, you would have neonatal hearing screening programs in place in most of the member states, I would say.
Whether it's for hearing aids, cochlear implants, or whatever. So, I think pediatrics is fairly well covered.
You see some differences in member states if you talk about the provision of unilateral or bilateral health care, which normally depends on these reasons. As well. I think the bigger problem lies in the adult population.
And then, based on that, the appropriate help, so to speak, will be provided, whether it's for hearing aids, cochlear implants, or whatever. So, I think pediatrics is fairly well covered. You see some differences in member states if you talk about the provision of unilateral or bilateral help, where normally, obviously, you would consider bilateral help because you have two ears for very medical and scientific reasons as well. I think the bigger problem lies in the adult population. So I said there's no adult hearing screening in place, so we don't know who is affected by it, effectively, so to speak.
As said, there is no adult hearing screening in place, so we don't know who is affected or when. You look at the people who are, by means of medical and audiological perspective, eligible for a device, whether it's a hearing aid or cochlear implant, and you see large differences.
In the EU, like 40% nowadays who need a hearing aid will use one. So there's 60% missing out there. If you look at implantable devices that cover implants, you can see that even for high-income countries within the EU, less than 10% of adults will get one.
But what you see is that when you look into the people who are, by means of medical and audiological perspective, eligible for a device, whether it's a hearing aid or cochlear implant, you see large differences. In the EU, nowadays, about 40 percent of people who need a hearing aid will use one. So there's 60 percent missing out there. If you go into implantable devices like cochlear implants, you see that even for the high-income countries within the EU, for adults, less than 10% will get one, even if they are medically and audiologically eligible. And then I really talk about the Western European member states.
And then I really talk about the Western European member states. If you look more into Eastern European member states, you see that the diversity is even much greater. And unfortunately, very often, adults will not get propranolol.
Thank you very much. And then on to Dennis Advocates.
If you look more into Eastern European member states, you see that the diversity is even much larger. And, unfortunately, very often, adults will not get the appropriate help.
That.
Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
You presented this manifesto to us and proposed four pillars. In the sense of social inequality.
Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
I would like to ask a question in Lithuanian. It's extremely important that you presented this manifesto to us and proposed four pillars on which it is based. To me, it is obvious that the issue you are raising is very acute, not in the sense of social inequality, but for the older population, especially in Central and Eastern Europe. They face several problems at once: hearing loss, dental problems, and sight problems. It's a whole complex of problems, the problems that come with aging. And this makes everything more acute, not only hearing, but also because we know that these different issues come together.
Dental. Problems and site problems: it's a whole complex of problems. The problems that come with Asia make everything more acute.
Prosthesis. Hearing loss problems and the compensation are making the problem more acute.
So prostheses, hearing loss problems, and their compensation are making the problem more acute. Inequality is huge. Of course, compensating for hearing aids is very complicated in many countries, and the compensation is only partial. So the issue is, shouldn't we think about the strategy concerning hearing aids, which would go hand in hand with dental prostheses and lenses for seeing, as a complex aid to ensure better quality for the aging population? I think we could perhaps think about a general strategy concerning these three problems.
Concerning. The hearing aids, which would go hand in hand with the dental professions and lenses for seeing, would be a complex stage to ensure the quality for the aging population.
I think we have. Difficulties in compensating for these statements.
Now, we know that there are newborn babies with hearing loss. And the later it is diagnosed, the bigger the problem is. But then there is huge inequality in compensating the treatments of these situations? Perhaps we could work out a program to help the countries that have difficulties in compensating for these treatments, especially among newborns.
On. To Laurence Castillo. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much indeed.
Stine Bosse
The. Excellent presentation on World Hearing Day.
Then I will give the floor back to you for your final comments and answers. On to Lawrence Castillo. Thank you.
Laurent Castillo
It's a great pleasure. I am an ENT specialist at the University of New York. So I was there this morning. Now we have seen that the very best of what Europe has to produce, and a constantly high level of ambition, we are committed to ensuring innovation has concrete results for the patients.
Thank you very much, indeed, Chair. Colleagues, firstly, let me thank you for the excellent presentation on World Hearing Day. It's a great pleasure to see you here today, to welcome you as an MEP, but not just an MEP, as a doctor myself, as an ENT specialist at the University Hospital of Nice. I was there this morning. Now we have seen the very best of what Europe has to produce: the research centers of excellence and a constantly high level of ambition. We are committed to ensuring innovation has concrete results for patients.
Your work on "We are not just talking about technology here," we're talking about patients, the quality of their lives, their autonomy, their social connections, their language, education, and job prospects. We're talking about their lives, the lives of our citizens.
Your work on cochlear implants has shown that we are not just talking about technology here. We're talking about patients. We are talking about the quality of their lives, their autonomy, their social connections, their language, education, and job prospects. We're talking about their lives, the lives of our citizens. Doctor De Eze, now you are wearing two hats here.
Laurent Castillo
Also had one eye on social policy and developed by cochlear implants and the development of industrialization. Clinical use and reimbursement for the patient. It's a very long road, and some people may end up giving up.
You're a clinician, a surgeon, but you also have one eye on social policy and the role played by cochlear implants in development in Europe. And it's important along the chain going from discoveries, industrialization, clinical use, reimbursement to, for the patient. It's a very long road, and some people may end up giving up. But this is where the EU must assume its responsibilities and do what your colleague said. We have to ensure our scientific excellence is not restricted to a handful of centers, but is distributed throughout the EU.
But this is where the EU must assume its responsibilities and do what your colleague said. We have to ensure our scientific excellence is not restricted to a certain handful of centers, but is distributed throughout the EU.
So I have two messages: hearing loss is not a minor inconvenience. It is a serious public health issue. It has impacts on isolation and mental health. On school achievement, on employment, and on aging in good health.
So, I have two messages. Hearing loss is not a minor inconvenience. It is a serious public health issue. It has impacts on isolation, on mental health, on school achievement, on employment, and on aging in good health. We believe that we need to focus on prevention above all.
We believe that we need to focus on prevention above all. My second message would be that innovation should be facilitated and made more secure in an intelligent manner. We need a clear framework for safety, traceability, and robust clinical results, yes, but we also need simplicity.
We need to simplify access to these new treatments. I'll conclude it, Jack. With a question? According to you, what would be the minimal European package we should adopt for hearing diagnosis, care, and accessibility for patients, taking an integral and holistic approach as a competence for health care provision? Once again, thank you for your contributions here in the European Parliament.
My second message is that innovation should be facilitated, made more secure, and assessed in an intelligent manner. We need a clear framework, safety traceability, robust clinical results, yes, but we also need simplicity. We need to simplify access to these new trait treatments, including implants. And I'll conclude, Chair, with a question. According to you, what would be the minimal European package we should adopt for hearing diagnosis, care, and accessibility for the patient, taking an integral and holistic approach, bearing in mind, of course, that member states have competence for health care provision?
You should bring the center of excellence closer to you. Presentations. And we have one more subject on our agenda. Thank you. Well, we are very happy that you are a partner in our company.
Once again, thank you for your contributions here in the European Parliament. You should bring in a center of excellence closer to the political decision-making houses of the EU. Thank you.
Speaker 34
When we look at different ages, each age has a specific purpose in hearing. Small children are to get and develop a language. For young adults and adolescents, it's learning. For the middle age category, it's important for your work, and for the older category, it's important for their mental health. And, indeed, there is a big gap between what we can do.
Stine Bosse
I will give you four minutes to answer and to round up your presentations, and we have one more subject on our agenda. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Well, we are very happy that you are a partner in our company. When we look at different ages, each age has a specific purpose in hearing. Small children are to get and develop language. For young adults and adolescents, it's learning. For the middle age category, it's important for their work.
What is available, what we know, and what, in reality, is realized, is offered to the patient. How can we transfer the knowledge at risk to a patient seeking help to explore possibilities? This is a concern. This is a concern of education and raising awareness; therefore, we would like to have these big campaigns.
And for the older category, it is important for their mental health. And indeed, there is a big gap between what we can do, what is available, what we know, and what, in reality, is realized and offered to the patient. How can we transfer the knowledge that exists to a patient seeking help to explore all the possibilities? This is a concern. This is a concern of education and raising awareness, and therefore, we would like to have these big campaigns.
And indeed, we can get more efficacy, for instance, in screening. In research, we would join with visual habitats.
That. We can gain efficacy in that. And so, to me, the inequality between the different countries in these screening programs, and also the screening program itself. It's not enough just to screen.
And indeed, we can get more efficacy if, for instance, in screening, we would join with visual handicaps for sure. I agree with the first speaker that we can gain efficacy in that and so spend less money. But there is mainly inequality between the different countries in these screening programs. And then also the follow-up of the screening program. It's not enough to just screen and say, "Oh, we think you have a hearing loss," but we have to guide them throughout this trajectory. Between the time the patient or person perceives hearing loss and goes through all the steps of getting a diagnosis, a proposition, and a hearing aid, on average, there is a gap of 5 to 7 years.
Speaker 30
Or. The person perceives hearing loss. And goes through all the steps of getting a diagnosis, a proposition, and obtaining the immunogenes. On average, it is 5 to 7 years. This gap is far too long.
So at each of the steps, we have to be able to intervene and integrate the disease by broad strategy. So, first of all, for your questions and your comments.
Speaker 1
I think that relates to the questions of other priorities. What I would like to say also is that you should be clear about what the Asian population is. Very often, it is seen as old adults who are retired. I mean, it is not the case once you have a poor child, because I think when we talk about adults, we also still have a part of the population which is professionally active and wants people to work longer, clearly, and contribute to society.
Speaker 30
This is far too long. So at each of the steps, we have to be able to intervene and integrate it into this whiteboard strategy. Patrick, do you have any additional comments on that?
Speaker 1
Thank you. So, first of all, thanks for your questions and your comments. I think that, related to the questions of MEP undercities, what I would like to say also is that we should be clear about what the aging population is. So very often, and too often, it is seen as old adults who are retired. I mean, this is not the case.
So know that hearing loss can have its impact from 55 onwards, and now you will also need to get screening from that age onwards. So, I think it's not just an old people's problem. I think that needs to be clear.
One should watch out for it. I think when we talk about adults, we also still have a part of the population which is professionally active. We want people to work longer clearly and contribute to society and such. So, now that hearing loss can have its impact from 55 onwards, the WHO also pleads to get screening from that age onwards. So, I think it's not just an old people's problem.
Definitely. And I think of coming up with a joint strategy with other age-related challenges, like, for example, dental care with dentists as well.
Changes. It happens that they get implemented. It should be linked to, for example, other senses if we are sure that it is like that in the member states or in the EU. It improves things, let's say.
I think that definitely needs to be clear. And I think of coming up with a joint strategy with other age-related challenges, like you were saying, with lenses, for example, or dental care. So, I think we're very open to it. I think, for us, the most important thing is that changes happen and that they get implemented. And if it should be linked to, for example, other sensory impairments or so, I think we are clearly open to that.
Yeah. And maybe just concluding them, I think, clearly, what we plead for is that hearing loss is a disability. It needs to be addressed as a public health issue.
And in that sense, I would also like to thank everybody here for getting this done. But please also know that tomorrow is World Hearing Day, and we also believe that it's not just about tomorrow. I think it's not with one day per year that we can make a difference.
If we assure that like that in the member states or in the EU, it would improve things, let's say. Yeah. And maybe just concluding then, I think, clearly, what we plead for is that hearing loss is a hidden disability. It needs to be addressed as a public health issue. And in that sense, I would also like to thank everybody here for getting this floor.
I think now it is time to take action, and over the next couple of weeks or months, we should talk with different stakeholders and see what can be done.
But please also know that tomorrow is World Hearing Day, and I would also plead that it's not just about tomorrow. I think it's not with one day per year that we can make a difference. I think now it is time to take action. And over the next couple of weeks or months, we should talk with the different stakeholders and see what can be done, whether it's an approach with hearing loss by itself or a combined approach with other sensory impairments. We're definitely open to that.
Again, thank you very much. In quarter three of this year, there will be a publication in The Lancet on the Lancet Commission. I'm one of the members working on the 30. It's a very comprehensive document addressing all the aspects we touched on today, and we hope that from the European Commission, we can also get support to better implement all the recommendations and aspects in this very comprehensive program.
But again, thank you very much.
Speaker 30
Probably in quarter 3 of this year, there will be a publication in The Lancet on the Lancet Commission on Hearing Loss. I'm one of the members, whether we're 30 or 40 people working on this document. It's a very comprehensive document addressing all the aspects that we touched on today. And we hope that from the European Commission, we can also get the support to better implement all the recommendations and all the aspects in this very comprehensive project. But I thank you for your interest in the topic.
But I thank you for your interest, and we thank you so much for attending our session today, both Professor Van de Hynem and Doctor. Thanks for your presentations. And we will, of course, follow them closely. So, thank you very much, and thank you also for the call.
Stine Bosse
So, our final point today. Improve health outcomes in Europe and beyond.
And we thank you so much for attending our session today, both Professor van der Hainen and Doctor. De Haas, thank you for your presentations. And we will, of course, follow the subject closely. So, thank you very much, and thank you also to the colleagues. So, our final point today is our good colleague, Meb Dostal.
Please, the floor shows.
Speaker 32
But I need to raise an uncomfortable point.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, colleagues, for sharing a minute of the time of your life for an important topic of global health. Across political lines, we work to make health care accessible, support basic vaccinations, and improve health outcomes in Europe and beyond. But I need to raise an uncomfortable topic. Around the world, people are dying not because medicine doesn't exist, but because they cannot get it.
Because of the new military sanctions that we imposed, the forces were reduced.
Hospitals have no supplies. Pharmacies run out of basic medicines. Often, this is not because of natural disasters or corruption, but because of unilateral sanctions that we impose, enforce, or fail to oppose. A few weeks ago, I hosted a conference with a UN special reporter, Professor Elena Duhan. Diplomats from over 40 countries shared heartbreaking stories about canceled medical shipments, about children in severe pain because life-saving medicines couldn't reach them, and about hospitals forced to decide who they could treat and who they would turn away.
Access to reproductive health services and rising maternal mobility are ongoing issues.
Economic sanctions severely exacerbate gender inequalities in health by shrinking public budgets, reducing access to medicines, and weakening medical infrastructure. Women bear the brunt of these impacts through increased poverty, reduced access to reproductive health services, rising maternal mortality, and higher risks of violence. Research, medical research confirms what they told us. A study in The Lancet found that sanctions worsen health outcomes, and over 500,000 people die each year linked to sanctions. Half of these deaths are children under five years old. We must be honest.
Half a million people die each year linked. Thank you.
If a policy causes so much suffering, we need to rethink it and do something about it. In April, I will go to Geneva to once more listen to Professor Duhan, the special reporter, and I will also want to speak about the WHO. In this house, my formal procedure possibilities are limited. But please, colleagues, if any of you would be willing to adopt this topic for a discussion at Sandd, I would be very welcome, and not only me, but people all around the world. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Does anybody want to take the floor on this topic? Most.
Stine Bosse
Thank you very much, Dostel. Does anybody want to take the floor on this topic? It doesn't seem to be the case. Yes. Please.
Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
Would it be I? I think our generous chairman allowed you the speaking time also outside of any other business point. But the matter of sanctions really rests with the intergroup and the asset group.
I'd like to support this initiative. I think that the committee could arrange a debate on humanitarian aid and, in the context of different conventions, discuss what sanctions should not be applied so as not to hurt the provision of medicines, necessary equipment, and hygiene products. This is a very serious issue, and we could debate it. If the colleague could present his material in a general sense, we could see how we could involve the committee in this debate because it's also the duty of the European Union in the area of humanitarian aid. I think this is a very important issue.
Stine Bosse
But of course, we can all have our concerns and our opinions and so on, but I will leave it to the chairman to thank you for bringing Papilla up.
Both of you. I think our very generous chairman allowed you the speaking time also outside of the any other business point. But the matter of sanctions really rests with the Intergroup and the Efet Group. But of course, we can all have our concerns, our opinions, and so on. But I will leave it to the Chairman to take note of your comments.
And then on to any other business, no? Okay. Then, it's only for me to say that the next meeting with your colleagues will be in March. And thank you very much
Stine Bosse
So, thank you very much, and thank you for bringing it up. And then on to any other business? No? Okay. Then it's only for me to say that the next meeting, dear colleagues, will be in March.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.