You should never lose anything from a serious crisis, they say. In terms of crisis, it is difficult to imagine a more severe return to reality than the Covid-19 crisis, from which we have not yet emerged. This crisis has been a tremendous test for our health system. Hospital, healthcare professionals, public/private, vaccine and device producers: the entire healthcare ecosystem has experienced a moment of truth. The French are not mistaken: an IFOP poll carried out before the first round of the presidential elections showed that health was the first concern of the French (71%).
Let’s not be afraid to say it: in spite of admirable efforts that we risk forgetting because linked to too bad days, in many aspects, our health system has shown significant deficiencies. One could think of vaccines, where France has not shone at the height of its past achievements. We could also mention the hospital, the difficulties of which did not arise with the Covid crisis, but of which the latter has shown all the acuteness.
This crisis must be used to draw an uncompromising assessment of the weaknesses and strengths of our health system.
On the side of the weaknesses, the striking examples are unfortunately not lacking. Let us dwell here on one of them, one of the most easily understood for the French: access to new drugs. As it stands, after obtaining the marketing authorization, the marketing of medicinal products implies their prior evaluation by the High Authority for Health (HAS), then by the Economic Committee for Health Products (CEPS). In total, this administrative circuit requires around 500 days (more than 600 for certain anti-cancer drugs) in France, compared to around 100 days in Germany. The European directive governing these procedures provides for a maximum of 180 days.
The capacity of France, and more broadly of Europe, to maintain the highest level in terms of health is not just a health and economic issue. It is also a major political issue
–
–
–
Oncology. As we can see, the economic and administrative challenges are significant. They are also political. Make no mistake about it: the capacity of France, and more broadly of Europe, to maintain the highest level in terms of health is not just a health and economic issue. It is also a major political issue. Because how can we speak of a “social model” if the French had to consider going elsewhere for treatment if, to take the example of medicines, a medicine is not available or after too long a delay? China has understood this well and, faced with the massive aging of its population, has launched with the determination that one imagines into the creation in Shenzhen of what Beijing wishes to become the Silicon Valley of oncology.
To meet these challenges, our healthcare system still has a lot to offer. The first is naturally the quality of people. Even if, there again, we must not be mistaken: as in many other fields, in an open world, France has trouble keeping the best of its researchers and practitioners, attracted by countries that know how to welcome and benefit from the training efforts made in France.
In such a context, what measures should be taken? We could list here a Prévert-like inventory of French health ills: red tape, difficulty in getting the private and public sectors to work together, excessive production taxes, inability to anticipate sufficiently and therefore to develop prevention , lack of consideration for excellence, objectives in terms of R&D resources not met, etc. These are the same evils – partly calling for the same remedies – that explain the decline of our country in many areas.
The scale of the construction sites, in health, is great. It is not only a question of satisfying the legitimate needs of French people who wish to remain the best cared for in the world. It is also a question of understanding that as in energy or in digital, talking about sovereignty or competitiveness in health is good: giving yourself the means is better, and it is urgent.
Bruno Alomar worked in the office of the European Commissioner for Energy.
–
