As European Union countries negotiate funding allocations for the bloc’s next long-term budget, cancer organisations fear that projects spanning from research to personalised care and patient support could be discontinued, weakening cancer care across Europe.
The European Union’s next long-term budget, covering the 2028–2034 period, will determine how the bloc allocates funding across its policy priorities, including health.
Under the European Commission’s proposal, health funding would share a common pot with biotechnology, agriculture and the bioeconomy, all placed under a broader European Competitiveness Fund. EU countries have adopted a partial negotiating position on the proposed fund, although its final structure and specific funding allocations remain subject to negotiations.
Cancer organisations fear that not having a dedicated pot for health risks losing financial backing for already ongoing cancer projects, which span from cancer prevention and vaccination to research into new diagnostics and patient support.
Moreover, projects are funded as part of the EU’s Beating Cancer Plan and Cancer Mission — Europe’s cancer-fighting initiatives backed by a standalone health budget and the EU’s research fund Horizon Europe — both set to run until 2030, overlapping with the first years of the next long-term budget, which will run from 2028 until 2034.
As the agreement on the next long-term budget between the countries is expected by the end of the year, organizations are using one of their last windows of opportunity to lobby for more.
“Projects that are making a real difference – training doctors, giving young people with cancer a voice and developing treatments where options are limited – now face an uncertain future,” Isabel Rubio, president of the European Cancer Organisation, told Euronews.
One project bracing itself for uncertainty is ECHoS, which works to support the implementation of EU cancer actions at the national and regional levels.
“We navigate the uncertainty, always hoping for the best but in a way preparing for the worst,” Hugo Soares, ECHoS co-coordinator, told Euronews.
Soares said it would be a lost opportunity to stop investing in projects with promising technology, therapies or developments.
“We don’t expect it to be sustained by the Commission forever, because it’s not doable and you have other priorities, but this is something that you should have a phase-out strategy, rather than getting to 2030 and cutting everything,” he said.
However, a Commission spokesperson told Euronews that under the Commission’s proposal, measures currently financed through EU4Health — EU’s standalone health budget — would “generally be eligible” to seek competitive funding under the next long-term budget, “offering a route to support relevant health actions in the next funding period and ensuring a smooth transition”.
National and Regional Partnership Plans would support national healthcare systems, the Competitiveness Fund would aim to foster innovation and competitiveness in the health sector, and Horizon Europe would continue to fund research, the spokesperson said.
That is also backed by countries — which have the final say on the next budget.
Germany’s Federal Ministry of Health told Euronews that all projects previously eligible for EU4Health funding should remain eligible under the new budget, adding that the new structure allows strengthening the “Health in all policies” approach at EU level.
Currently, the Commission’s proposed Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for the next seven years is in countries’ hands. In June 2026, theyagreed to keep the Commission’s proposed structure. Negotiations are aimed at reaching an agreement by the end of the year, the Council told Euronews.
Countries have already reached a provisional agreement
Not all countries that Euronews spoke to are sharing Germany’s optimism.
Some countries, such as Spain, have unsuccessfully pushed for a standalone health programme under the new long-term budget.
Spain has defended operating grants for civil society health organisations and argued that health “should have a role separated from a Competitiveness Fund,” Javier Sanchez Padilla, the country’s Secretary of Health, told Euronews. However, he acknowledged that the trend is “putting everything in the competitiveness basket.”
Luxembourg’s Health Ministry told Euronews it is worried about the visibility and continuity of EU public health funding, particularly for prevention, health promotion and the exchange of best practices between health authorities, while Slovenia has asked for safeguards to guarantee health investment.
Estonia argued that the key safeguards will lie in the fund’s multiannual work programmes, which will determine allocations, supported activities and co-financing rules.
What does the Parliament say?
Members of the European Parliament have also raised concerns about the proposed structure.
Vytenis Andriukaitis, a member of the Socialists & Democrats group, told Euronews that the Competitiveness Fund was more focused on industry and that prevention programmes risked receiving less attention.
“The Competitiveness Fund is targeted more at industry. It is for the health industry too, but prevention programmes will be far from the attention, and it is clear that we will have huge challenges because of that,” he said.
Parliament’s public health committee has called for EU4Health to remain a standalone programme and for Horizon Europe to receive more funding for healthcare prevention. In a report adopted on 28 September, it called for at least €10.05 billion for health in the 2028–2034 EU budget, including €2.5 billion specifically earmarked for cancer action.
Parliament cannot amend the long-term budget text but holds a veto: the Council can only adopt the regulation once Parliament has given its consent by an absolute majority.
The European Cancer Organisation is making a similar call. It says the next EU long-term budget must allocate at least €10 billion for health, including at least €2 billion for a dedicated cancer fund. It also wants the money protected from competition with industrial and commercial priorities, and long-term funding commitments.
“It makes no sense for Europe to invest millions in programmes that save lives, only to let them disappear because we’ve allowed the funding to dry up,” Rubio added.
Source: www.euronews.com
