CVD Agenda: Unpacking the EP’s CVD Report

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death and disability across Europe, claiming over 1.7 million lives in the EU each year. Beyond lives lost, the disease presents a significant economic and social burden driven by premature morality, lost productivity and high healthcare costs- adding up to more than €282 billion annually.

Late last year, the European Commission published the Safe Hearts Plan to support Member State action on CVD with a focus on prevention, screening, treatment and care. Complementing the plan further with their own views on how the EU can tackle this burden, Members of the European Parliament weighed in with an own-initiative-report on an EU cardiovascular diseases strategy, approved this week in plenary.

Our team of cross-sector experts has reviewed both texts to identify where they align and diverge, and what this means for implementation. While neither text is backed by legislative weight, both the communication and the own-initiative report signal the direction of travel for upcoming legislative and non-legislative policy decisions at EU and National levels, particularly as Member States continue to develop and introduce their own national CVD plans up through the end of 2027.

As this implementation continues, our team has considered what aspects of the European Parliament’s (EP) report are likely to have real, lasting impact.

Prevention front and centre

Prevention is the leading theme for both the Commission and the EP in their visions for EU-level action on CVD. Highlighted as the most effective approach both in terms of impact and cost, this prevention-first view focuses on behavioral risk factors and calls on the EU to protect consumers from corporate motives. The EP specifically wants health-related claims included in the upcoming Unfair Commercial Practices Directive review, broadening it beyond economic interest to include consumer-health issues.

On tobacco and alcohol, the EP has called for more ambitious measures than the Commission. For tobacco this includes expanding the Tobacco Products Directive to include nicotine pouches, smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes while also expressing concern over the delay to the revision of the legislative framework on tobacco control. As a reminder, this was initially outlined in Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP), introduced in 2021, and reintroduced in the Safe Hearts Plan. On alcohol, the EP calls on Member States to strengthen alcohol excise taxation and revive mandatory health warnings on labels, a measure which was also outlined in the EBCP but never introduced.

On the issue of ultra-processed food, the divide between the Commission and EP is even sharper. The Commission favors a sequential path: build the evidence base, establish a classification system, and only then potentially move towards labelling/reformulation measures. Measures related to the taxation are replaced by a softer commitment to a future assessment of appropriate fiscal measures once a study on the definition of UPFs is released later this year.

The EP, instead, wants immediate mandatory front-of-package labelling, binding salt/sugar/fat targets, and marketing restrictions to children. To encourage healthier choices, the EP calls for stronger public procurement rules favoring healthy meals (including in the upcoming Public Procurement Act) and improved affordability and accessibility of healthy foods options. While both institutions aim for the same objective, they fundamentally diverge on whether voluntary approaches can deliver.

Implementation consideration: Across all prevention areas, the EP shows greater ambition than the Commission, but its proposals generally lack concrete timelines and mechanisms, so near-term EU action is likely to track the Commission’s more cautious pace rather than the EP’s bolder vision. As such, while prevention will continue to dominate EU action as the most cost-effective option, it is unlikely that existing legislative ambition will be fundamentally sped up or expanded in the near future.

National level plans in process

The Safe Hearts Plan’s most awaited action is the Commission’s call for national-level CVD plans in every Member State by the end of 2027. While announcing the “EU Cares for Your Heart” programme to support the roll out of these national plans, the Commission was light on details as to what the plans or the initiative will entail, including no insights related to funding, measurement and enforcement.

Helping to fill in these gaps, the EP has indicated each plan should cover the full pathway from prevention to long-term care, accompanied by implementation guidelines, funding proportional to CVD burden, clear targets, and a four-year evaluation report. This also includes a proposal for a standing EU-level task force to help coordinate delivery across Member States.

Implementation consideration: Without EU-level governance or funding, Member States will likely selectively incorporate European ambitions in national plans, advancing actions according to national capacities and priorities rather than fully delivering the comprehensive overhaul as envisaged by the Commission. This is evident in the recent adoption of the French national strategy, adopted in July 2026. While remaining narrow in scope overall, the plan delivers concrete requirements for early cardiovascular screening from age six, delivery by specially trade physicians, and a three-year reporting deadline to assess implementation and economic impact.

Expanded scope for screening and early detection

Screening and early detection are points of strong alignment between the Commission and the EP. Supporting the proposal for a Council Recommendation on CVD health checks, the EP outlines additional expectations related to concrete age thresholds and funding according to the national-level burden. Pointing to the digital health flagship and its relevant grants, the EP encourages Members States to use existing funding and innovation tools to relieve pressure on healthcare systems and to strengthen primary care infrastructure related to screening and early detection.

Implementation consideration: While there is a lot of buzz around the forthcoming recommendation, the non-binding recommendation is likely to be narrowed at the national level according to need and will have limited impact unless further implementation resources are provided.

Funding remains illusive

The key roadblock to the EU’s ambition for CVD will be the question of funding. Rather than devoting a single, dedicated budget line to CVD action, the Commission has chosen to work through existing instruments (e.g., Horizon Europe, EU4Health, cohesion funds), despite the fact that the  future of many of these programmes is yet to be determined as negotiations are ongoing for the EU’s budget as of August 2026.

Rather than challenge this lack of budget, the EP asks the Commission for greater transparency and accountability in delivery of the funding programmes. It calls for a four-year evaluation report tracking how funding translates into outcomes and calls for financial support proportional to the national CVD burden in each country, further tied to the national-level implementation of the Council recommendations on health checks.

Implementation consideration: The conclusion of MFF negotiations are expected to provide clarity on the future of health funding, however signals indicated limited change should be expected. Health spending will remain deprioritized, including the definitive end of the standalone EU4Health Programme, which will leave concrete action to Member States   

Up next on the agenda

Across all actions outlined, the EP proves more ambitious than the Commission, however its position will have limited impact in reality.

Despite sending political signals, the report carries no legal weight, and Member States are not bound to act on the text. With health remaining a Member State competence, the EU can only provide guidance and recommendations for national-level actions and plans, rather than fully prescribing future contents. This is further compounded by the nature of prevention itself, an issue which cuts across policy areas including food, taxation, environment, education, urban planning. Other themes, including treatment, lack of substance and rely on two additional Council Recommendations (on personalized treatment and monitoring in 2027 and vaccination against respiratory infections by 2029) as main vehicles.

To some extent, the EBCP provides an indication of what we can expect from the Safe Heart’s Plan. While bold targets and flagships were set, limited accountability and follow through question the lasting impact of this strategy beyond the short-term successes already delivered.

Ultimately, the real test for Safe Heart’s won’t be decided in Brussels. It will be decided by what ends up in national plans, how faithfully they reflect EU-level ambition, and whether funding, at EU and national levels, puts money where the policy is.