When Europe Treats Healthcare Innovation as a Cost, Patients Pay the Price
Europe is running out of easy savings. Budgets are tight. Populations are ageing. Yet, too often, the response is the same: cut costs first and weigh the consequences later. Patients, health systems and economies ultimately bear the burden.
By Christoph Glaetzer
Chief Global Value and Access Officer, Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine
By Christoph Glaetzer
Chief Global Value and Access Officer, Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine
But while governments debate budgets, patients continue to get sick. They cannot wait for that equation to solve itself.
Europe faces a choice: treat healthcare innovation as a cost to be contained, or as a strategic investment in better patient outcomes, stronger health systems and economic growth.
And when health systems consistently treat innovation as a cost rather than an investment, patients pay the price: delayed access today and fewer innovations reaching those who could benefit most tomorrow.1,2
Limited access is never neutral for patients. It can mean avoidable hospital care, time away from family and work, and fewer years lived well.
In health, waiting is not saving. It shifts the burden elsewhere: to hospitals, employers, caregivers and, most importantly, patients.
Across the region, access to innovative medicines remains uneven.
Europe faces a choice: treat healthcare innovation as a cost to be contained, or as a strategic investment in better patient outcomes, stronger health systems and economic growth.
And when health systems consistently treat innovation as a cost rather than an investment, patients pay the price: delayed access today and fewer innovations reaching those who could benefit most tomorrow.1,2
Limited access is never neutral for patients. It can mean avoidable hospital care, time away from family and work, and fewer years lived well.
In health, waiting is not saving. It shifts the burden elsewhere: to hospitals, employers, caregivers and, most importantly, patients.
Across the region, access to innovative medicines remains uneven.
“Even after a medicine is approved, patients wait an average of 578 days for it to become available, and less than half of approved medicines ever reach them.”3
Approval is not the same as access. And access is not the same across Europe.
Access to medicine matters. Health outcomes show it.
The earlier we intervene, the better the outcome. Detect and treat colon cancer early, and five-year survival runs close to 90%. Treat it after it has spread, and that falls to roughly one in eight — about 13%.4
The same pattern appears in haematology. In multiple myeloma, a complex blood cancer, patients often begin treatment with older therapies before moving to newer options.5 A large European real-world study found that survival improved as innovative treatments were adopted. Countries with greater use of frontline anti-CD38 therapies, a newer class of myeloma treatment, also saw stronger improvements in survival.6
Inflammatory bowel disease offers another example. It affects up to three million people in Europe and often strikes in early adulthood.7,8 In a recent European trial, four in five patients given effective treatment from the outset were still in remission and had avoided surgery a year later. With the older step-up approach, fewer than one in six reached the same outcome.9
This is a patient-outcome choice, a competitiveness choice and an economic choice.
The same pattern appears in haematology. In multiple myeloma, a complex blood cancer, patients often begin treatment with older therapies before moving to newer options.5 A large European real-world study found that survival improved as innovative treatments were adopted. Countries with greater use of frontline anti-CD38 therapies, a newer class of myeloma treatment, also saw stronger improvements in survival.6
Inflammatory bowel disease offers another example. It affects up to three million people in Europe and often strikes in early adulthood.7,8 In a recent European trial, four in five patients given effective treatment from the outset were still in remission and had avoided surgery a year later. With the older step-up approach, fewer than one in six reached the same outcome.9
This is a patient-outcome choice, a competitiveness choice and an economic choice.
Germany’s shift on access to medicines is a warning for Europe.
As someone who grew up in Germany and has spent the past 20 years working globally on access, I see Germany’s experience as an important warning signal for Europe.
Germany has long been Europe’s benchmark for rapid access to innovative medicines. It remains the fastest market in Europe, at 128 days from approval to availability, compared with the EU average of 578 days.3 Yet concerns are emerging beyond access. Fewer privately funded clinical trials are an early warning signal that Germany’s attractiveness as a location for medical research and innovation may be starting to erode.
In July, Germany’s parliament passed legislation that will substantially increase mandatory rebates on innovative medicines and tighten a separate rebate linked to medicine utilisation.10-13
From January 2027, the standard rebate under statutory health insurance will more than double, from 7% to 15.5%.10,12
The GKV Contribution Rate Stabilisation Act risks making Germany a less attractive location for medical innovation and slowing patient access to future advances in healthcare. Rather than rewarding innovation, it penalises medicines that demonstrate value through better outcomes and widespread use among patients. In effect, the legislation punishes progress: the more value a medicine provides to patients, the greater the financial burden imposed. That is incompatible with a healthcare system that claims to reward innovation based on value.13,14
This matters beyond Germany.
This new legislation does not necessarily stop a medicine from reaching German patients on day one. The bigger issue is what it does to the incentive to launch, invest and sustain access over time.
When Europe’s largest healthcare market treats innovation primarily as a cost to be contained rather than a value to be recognised, patients feel the consequences first: slower access to innovation, fewer launches and weaker adoption of the best available medicines.1,3
That is not a theoretical risk. It is exactly how Europe loses competitiveness: not all at once, but decision by decision.
Germany has long been Europe’s benchmark for rapid access to innovative medicines. It remains the fastest market in Europe, at 128 days from approval to availability, compared with the EU average of 578 days.3 Yet concerns are emerging beyond access. Fewer privately funded clinical trials are an early warning signal that Germany’s attractiveness as a location for medical research and innovation may be starting to erode.
In July, Germany’s parliament passed legislation that will substantially increase mandatory rebates on innovative medicines and tighten a separate rebate linked to medicine utilisation.10-13
From January 2027, the standard rebate under statutory health insurance will more than double, from 7% to 15.5%.10,12
The GKV Contribution Rate Stabilisation Act risks making Germany a less attractive location for medical innovation and slowing patient access to future advances in healthcare. Rather than rewarding innovation, it penalises medicines that demonstrate value through better outcomes and widespread use among patients. In effect, the legislation punishes progress: the more value a medicine provides to patients, the greater the financial burden imposed. That is incompatible with a healthcare system that claims to reward innovation based on value.13,14
This matters beyond Germany.
This new legislation does not necessarily stop a medicine from reaching German patients on day one. The bigger issue is what it does to the incentive to launch, invest and sustain access over time.
When Europe’s largest healthcare market treats innovation primarily as a cost to be contained rather than a value to be recognised, patients feel the consequences first: slower access to innovation, fewer launches and weaker adoption of the best available medicines.1,3
That is not a theoretical risk. It is exactly how Europe loses competitiveness: not all at once, but decision by decision.
A smarter test for policy: Recognise innovation in health as an investment
There is still time to change course in Germany.
The next few months are critical. Germany faces a projected healthcare financing gap running into the billions, and policymakers are under pressure to identify substantial savings. The question is not whether action is needed, but whether policies designed to generate short-term savings risk creating longer-term costs for patients, health systems and society. Does this policy help patients access the best available care, or does it push it further out of reach?
Cost containment is a tool, not a strategy for healthier societies.
Reducing spending may appear attractive in the short term. But if it discourages innovation, delays access or weakens investment, today’s savings can quickly become tomorrow’s costs, and the costs simply reappear elsewhere. They show up in hospitals, workplaces and families. They show up in poorer patient outcomes, lower productivity and weaker competitiveness.1
This is not a call to spend without discipline: policy that recognises value, not only price, and directs resources where evidence shows better outcomes for all.
Patients should not wait for a disease to worsen before accessing treatments that have already been proven to help.9 The future will belong to countries that give patients timely access to proven innovation and measure success by outcomes, not short-term savings.
That is the Value of Health.
Europe now has a choice: recognise innovation as an investment, or ask patients, health systems and economies to pay the price of medical advances remaining out of reach.
The next few months are critical. Germany faces a projected healthcare financing gap running into the billions, and policymakers are under pressure to identify substantial savings. The question is not whether action is needed, but whether policies designed to generate short-term savings risk creating longer-term costs for patients, health systems and society. Does this policy help patients access the best available care, or does it push it further out of reach?
Cost containment is a tool, not a strategy for healthier societies.
Reducing spending may appear attractive in the short term. But if it discourages innovation, delays access or weakens investment, today’s savings can quickly become tomorrow’s costs, and the costs simply reappear elsewhere. They show up in hospitals, workplaces and families. They show up in poorer patient outcomes, lower productivity and weaker competitiveness.1
This is not a call to spend without discipline: policy that recognises value, not only price, and directs resources where evidence shows better outcomes for all.
Patients should not wait for a disease to worsen before accessing treatments that have already been proven to help.9 The future will belong to countries that give patients timely access to proven innovation and measure success by outcomes, not short-term savings.
That is the Value of Health.
Europe now has a choice: recognise innovation as an investment, or ask patients, health systems and economies to pay the price of medical advances remaining out of reach.
-
By Christoph Glaetzer
Chief Global Value and Access Officer, Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine -
Transparency statement
Click here for the Transparency Statement
References
References
- EFPIA. Europe’s Choice. Accessed Aug. 7, 2026. efpia.eu/europes-choice
- OECD/European Commission. Health at a Glance: Europe 2024: State of Health in the EU Cycle. Nov. 18, 2024. Accessed Aug. 7, 2026. oecd.org
- EFPIA/IQVIA. EFPIA Patients W.A.I.T. Indicator 2025 Survey: Access to Innovative Medicines in Europe. July 2025. Accessed Aug. 13, 2026. iqvia.com; efpia.eu
- American Cancer Society. Colorectal Cancer Survival Rates. Reviewed January 2026. Accessed August 7, 2026. cancer.org
- Gay F, Zamagni E, Cole CE, et al. Clinical outcomes associated with anti-CD38-based retreatment in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a systematic literature review. Front Oncol. 2025;15:1550644. doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2025.1550644
- Hájek R, Price M (Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine). Harnessing Europe’s Data Potential: How HONEUR Can Help Improve Patient Outcomes. Euractiv, 13 Apr 2026. https://www.euractiv.com/opinion/harnessing-europes-data-potential-how-honeur-can-help-improve-patient-outcomes
- Burisch J, Jess T, Martinato M, Lakatos PL; ECCO-EpiCom. The burden of inflammatory bowel disease in Europe. J Crohns Colitis. 2013;7(4):322-337. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Odes S, et al. Cost Analysis and Cost Determinants in a European Inflammatory Bowel Disease Inception Cohort With 10 Years of Follow-up Evaluation. Gastroenterology. 2006;131(3):719-728. sciencedirect.com
- Noor NM, et al; PROFILE Study Group. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024;9(5):415-427. thelancet.com
- Deutscher Bundestag. Nach hitziger Debatte: Bundestag verabschiedet GKV-Finanzreform. July 10, 2026. Accessed July 30, 2026. bundestag.de
- Bundesministerium für Gesundheit. GKV-Beitragssatzstabilisierungsgesetz. Accessed July 30, 2026. bundesgesundheitsministerium.de
- vfa. BStabG: Eingriffe bei Arzneimittelpreisen gefährden Versorgung. Accessed July 30, 2026. vfa.de
- Preis-Mengen-Regelung: Sondersteuer für neue Arzneimittel. Pharma Fakten. 2026. Accessed July 30, 2026. pharma-fakten.de
- Lauenroth VD, Stargardt T. Pharmaceutical pricing in Germany: how is value determined within the scope of AMNOG? Value Health. 2017;20(7):927-935. valueinhealthjournal.com
September 2026
CP-600253
CP-600253