Interview with EHA’s European Affairs Committee Chair, Frank Leebeek

After several years serving on both the EHA Board and the European Affairs Committee (EAC), Prof. Frank Leebeek now steps into the role of chair alongside Prof. Raffaella Colombatti, as vice-chair. Frank is Head of the Hematology Department and Principal Investigator at Erasmus MC, where he leads work on hemostasis and thrombosis. In this interview, Frank shares what drives his commitment to EHA’s European Affairs work, why it matters to hematologists, and what challenges lie ahead.

Why did you take on the role of chair of the European Affairs Committee?

I’ve served on the EHA Board for nearly five years, and during that time it became clear that European Affairs is one of EHA’s most impactful areas of work. Advocating for hematology at the European level is essential. Decisions made in Brussels impact patient care, research, and access to innovative therapies.

The EAC plays a crucial role in ensuring hematology has a strong voice in EU policy discussions, and I’m looking forward to strengthening that influence and helping secure better access to high‑quality care for patients across Europe.

It’s a very interesting committee because you learn a lot about legislation and regulation in Europe, but also about the state of play in different countries. It’s also worth mentioning that the EAC is extremely well supported by the EHA office—namely, its European Affairs team.

Do you think hematologists are aware of how EU legislation affects their daily work?

No, knowledge is very limited. That is why it is important to have a group of people dedicated to this and who are trying to have an impact for the hematology community.

Clinicians are mainly focused on patient care and/or research, and they understandably cannot follow all policy and regulatory developments closely nor foresee their consequences. Yet EU legislation influences everything from clinical trial rules to the availability of and access to new therapies, for instance through its legislation on clinical trials and pharmaceuticals.

Regulations are often drafted by people who do not treat patients and may not fully understand clinical realities. The EAC ensures that hematologists are recognized as stakeholders and that EU policymakers hear from those who understand patient and clinician needs. Our role is to advocate for policies that support high‑quality patient care and research, and protect access to innovation.

Which European Affairs topic are you most passionate about?

Drug pricing and access remain major concerns, as innovative hematology treatments are very expensive. Even the wealthier European countries currently struggle to reimburse advanced therapies because of cost‑effectiveness ratios and high prices, coupled with shrinking healthcare budgets. For example, despite being one of Europe’s richest countries, the Netherlands ranks only 22nd in patient access to ATMPs.

To address this, we must engage with all stakeholders, including health technology assessment (HTA) bodies, industry, payers, and patients. Patient preferences, in particular, need more weight in reimbursement discussions.

You are involved in the ASCERTAIN project. What is it about, and how does it benefit the hematology community?

EHA is a partner in ASCERTAIN, an EU‑funded project aiming to improve the affordability and sustainability of innovative health technologies. Together with other stakeholders, we’re creating a publicly accessible support tool to improve access.

The ASCERTAIN tool will include new models for pricing, cost‑effectiveness, and reimbursement. This will contribute to more transparency and accountability in decision‑making, reduce uncertainty for stakeholders, reward innovation in areas of high unmet need, accelerate access for patients, and support long‑term sustainable planning.

My contribution has been to provide the clinician’s perspective and to share examples of promising therapies that fail to reach patients because of HTA and cost-effectiveness challenges. The project is expected to conclude this year, but its work is not finished. A follow‑up initiative is needed to further refine the models. Ultimately, better HTA tools mean better access for hematology patients.