In 2010, the Commission launched in parallel the mid-term evaluation of the EU Health Strategy 2008-2013 and the mid-term evaluation of the EU Health Programme 2008-2013. Through interviews with different stakeholders, the evaluation explored the effectiveness of financial mechanisms, the management of funds; and the dissemination or results.
The Mid-Term evaluation found that the funding of actions is not spread equally over the three main objectives of the Health Programme, and is not targeting the priority areas to an equal extent. More transparency / explanation is needed why certain objectives receive more funding than others. In addition, stakeholders viewed the programme had too many priorities, which causes inefficiency.
From 2008-2010, there has been a reduction in the amount of money allocated to projects from 62% to 35%. There has been an increase in Jont actions from 5% of actions funded to 34%. Funding for tenders, operating grants, and conferences have remained largely stable.
The evaluation emphasied that most actions would not have taken place or would have been undertaken with a less ambitious scope in the absence of Health Programme funding.
Five recommendations
–1.Health Propgramme objectives should be more tangible and focused
The evaluation recommends that DG SANCO refine the objectives of the Health Programme for them to be focussed on certain public health issues, especially those that are difficult for Member States to reach individually, and for indicators to measure how objectives are achieved.
–2. DG SANCO should develop a plan for long-term targets
Longterm tagets can help ensure an effective implementation of the Health Programme. In conjunction with other policy implementation tools, appropriate priority actions could then be set, financing mechanisms selected and an appropriate spread among the objectives and priorities ensured. This process should be transparent with ratonale / justification behind varying levels of funding for each objective.
–3. DG SANCO / the Executive Agency for Consumer and Health to provide clearer guidelines at proposal stage
DG SANCO and the Executive Agency should provide clearer guidelines
at proposal stage and encourage / follow-up their usage, for example: definitions and very clear examples of Inputs, Outputs, Results, Outcomes and Impacts of an action; to how to set SMART objectives in order to effectively measure progress; to definitions of what is required in certain sections of the application form,
–4. EU added value of actions should feature to a greater extent in the application process
The EU added value of actions should feature to a greater extent in the application process. Applicants should describe the type of EU added value their action will bring, potentially making use of the seven EU added value criteria developed by the EAHC and used as part of this evaluation. The template used for assessing EU added value, developed as part of this evaluation, might be considered a starting point for the future assessment of EU added value in proposals.
–5. Actions and their results need to be built into a regular reporting system
In order to ensure the dissemination of results by actions themselves, the evaluation recommends that actions allocate parts of the EC funding to dissemination, and to clearly outline this in the financial statements of proposals. Once actions come to an end, it is recommended that DG SANCO makes better use of its dissemination channels, i.e. the Public Health website, DG SANCO publications, newsletter etc.
In order to reach national policy makers, DG SANCO and the EAHC should start disseminating HP project results systematically, i.e. in the form of short summaries, to inform Policy Committee members. In addition, the reports to the European Parliament, Council and Committee of the Regions that DG SANCO prepares annually could integrate summaries and references of previously done result dissemination and communication activities to further disseminate and promote the Programme.
This evaluation will be used to make changes to the Health for Growth programme.