EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Ex-post evaluation of the 2nd Health Programme 2008-2013 Decision No 1350/2007/EC establishing a second programme of Community action in the field of health (2008-2013)
Date: 2016-05-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU financing, EU programme, disease prevention, health care, health care system, project evaluation, public awareness campaign, public health

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.5.2016  SWD(2016) 149 final   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  Accompanying the document   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  Ex-post evaluation of the 2nd Health Programme 2008-2013  Decision No 1350/2007/EC  establishing a second programme of Community action in the field of health (2008-2013)    {COM(2016) 243 final} {SWD(2016) 148 final}  
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This document accompanies the Commission's report "Ex-post evaluation of the 2nd Health Programme (2008-
2013)" and sets out its main findings based on a contractor's independent study1 conducted from May 2014 to 
July  2015.  The  conclusions  of  the  evaluation  will  feed  into  the  implementation  of  the  3rd  Health  Programme 
(2014-2020). 

The  2nd  Health  Programme  was  geared  to  a  wide  range  of  broad  objectives  and  priorities.  Given  the  limited 
budget, there was a need to focus and concentrate activities on areas of high relevance for Member States and 
programme  stakeholders  in  line  with  EU  health  policy  priorities  and  the  Commission’s  broader  policy 
orientations, as set out in the Europe 2020 strategy.  

The purpose of the ex-post evaluation of the 2nd HP was to assess the main outcomes and results achieved and 
identify the main problems and solutions with regard to implementation, particularly regarding recommendations 
from previous evaluations.  

The evaluation focused on four main thematic blocks, namely programme management, dissemination practices, 
the impact of the Health Programme and synergies with other programmes and services. It involved a variety of 
quantitative  and  qualitative  data  collection  and  review  methods  and  analytical  tools  to  respond  to  specific 
information needs and requirements respecting the principle of triangulation.  

The contractors were explicitly asked not to repeat earlier evaluation  work that was executed to impact on the 
design of the 3rd Health Programme but to concentrate instead on issues that have been insufficiently explored in 
past  exercises  such  as  the  relationship  with  the  research  programmes,  the  rationale  for  the  programme 
intervention and the effectiveness of new funding modalities such as the joint actions. 

The diversity of Health Programme objectives, topics and mechanisms, the small size of the Health Programme 
in relation to public health spending overall, the lack of Programme and action level indicators and data, and the 
time  lag  before  impacts  (on  health  policies,  systems  or  even  health  outcomes)  posed  a  number  of  serious 
limitations.  Therefore  the  evaluation  assessed  individual  actions  and  outputs  without  being  able  to  extrapolate 
conclusions regarding the overall impact of the whole Programme. 

The evaluation found that the Programme delivered a range of valuable outputs with a clear link to EU health 
policy priorities and national priorities which was achieved through focussing on the financing of Joint Actions 
and projects. Their main EU added value was linked to the exchange of best practices between Member States 
and improved cooperation through networking. Some examples of outputs from the 13 case studies 2 examined in 
the  framework  of  this  evaluation  are:  the  pan-European  cooperation  between  health  technology  assessment 
agencies  and  methodological  guidance  for  assessing  innovative  health  technologies  which  enabled  decision-
makers  to  identify  innovations  that  really  make  a  difference;  the  sharing  of  best  practice  in  the  area  of  rare 
diseases on development and implementation of national plans and the standardisation of nomenclatures which 
have helped Member States in developing their rare diseases policies and improved health professionals' access 
to  relevant  information  on  rare  diseases;  increased  and  extended  laboratories  preparedness  to  detect  highly 
infectious  pathogens;  improving  tools  to  support  the  choice  of  most  cost-effective  prevention  policies  against 
cardiovascular  diseases  through  scientific  data  and  innovative  tools;  support  to  organ  vigilance  through  the 
development of important principles of good practice and standard evaluation tools. 

The implementation and programme management improved, drawing on the recommendations of the evaluation 
of  the  1st  Public  Health  Programme  and  the  mid-term  (2010-2011)  evaluation  of  the  2nd  Health  Programme. 
Even though the establishment of the  CHAFEA (Consumer, Health,  Food and  Agriculture Executive  Agency) 
database lead to an improvement of monitoring of the programme's actions, the evaluation points to weaknesses 
in the monitoring of results of the funded actions and their analysis, which limits the assessment of the overall 

1  

2   

Coffey International Development and SQW, Cemka-Eval, and Economisti Associati,  
"Ex-post Evaluation of the Health Programme (2008-2013), July 2015. 
Respectively EUnetHTA, EUCERD, QUANDHIP  Joint Actions; EUROHEART II and  EFRETOS Projects 

 
 
                                                           
 
 
programme  performance.  The  dissemination  of  action  outputs  varies,  thus  it  is  not  systematically  ensured  that 
key stakeholders are reached, or that outputs can be taken up and transformed into results and tangible impacts. 
While  synergies  with  the  EU  research  programme  have  been  shown,  there  is  still  room  for  improvement  in 
particular in relation to other EU funding instruments such as the structural funds.