Read the Conversation
Conversation highlights:
- Health is increasingly part of the economic discussion in Latin America, but the sector still needs to argue its value more clearly in economic terms to decision makers.
- Prevention, early detection, and innovation have the greatest impact on the economy, improving patient outcomes while reducing long-term social and productivity costs.
- Latin America remains a strong growth driver for the life sciences, supported by large unmet patient populations and expanding access in both public and private systems.
- Roche Latam´s focus ahead is on aging-related diseases and data-driven innovation, where demonstrating clear economic value will be critical to secure investment and access.
EF: Looking back over the past decade, what have been Latin America’s most important achievements in the life sciences ecosystem, and what should the region prioritize next?
RH: That is a complex analysis, as Latin America is made up of many very different countries. What we can clearly distill, however, is that health is increasingly being recognized as a priority. It may not yet be at the level we would like, but the pandemic helped move health higher on the agenda. Economic conditions have not allowed full continuity, but at least health is now part of the broader policy discussion. In several countries, governments have recognized the need to treat cancer and rare diseases better by creating special laws for these, particularly in specialized cancer care, driven by new requisition laws. This represents an important step forward, even though there is still significant room for improvement.
Earlier this year, during a conference in Panama focused on finding a path to increasing productivity, what stood out to me was that only two speakers mentioned health as a way to improve productivity. This shows that the health sector has not been very effective at framing its value in economic terms.
A representative from the CAF admitted that they do not evaluate health projects differently from any other projects, but the health sector is often not good at being able to argue beyond patient and social benefits. If the sector cannot present clear economic indicators, it will continue to be viewed mainly as a provider of social benefits rather than as an economic driver. This perception needs to change.
EF: When you speak about health as an economic driver, which indicators matter most, and how should they be measured?
RH: It is fundamentally a question of productivity. The pandemic illustrated this clearly. Without a functioning economy, a health system cannot be financed. At the same time, without a healthy population, the economy declines. Outside of crises, this link is less visible, but it plays out every day due to the productivity losses.
People who could otherwise live normal lives end up falling into disability. This becomes clear in discussions with Social Security institutions. If a person with certain diseases, such as sclerosis, is prevented from entering a disabled status, pension payments and long-term care costs are avoided. That person remains employed, and fewer public resources are required.
A World Bank report developed with McKinsey shows that a one-dollar investment in health can generate a four-dollar return, with productivity gains ranging from two to seven dollars depending on the context.
To make this more tangible, we published studies with the WifOR German Institute estimating the impact of early breast cancer treatment. Treating breast cancer at an early stage can reduce cases by around 24 to 27 percent, equivalent to roughly 210 million U.S. dollars, or about 7,500 lives saved through early intervention. When these effects are considered across different countries and health systems, the economic and societal benefits become clear.
When economic costs are considered, investing in innovative treatments to keep people working becomes the more efficient option. Governments avoid pension expenses, and when this logic is applied across the population, the savings multiply. The more concrete data we bring into these discussions, the greater the impact on decision-making.
Over the next 30 years, the population aged 60 and older in Latin America is expected to double, reshaping the region’s epidemiological profile. At the same time, economic growth prospects remain limited. This makes productivity drivers essential to generate growth and finance rising social spending. This is where the argument must be supported with evidence.
As an economist, I always return to the same question: what is the value of each dollar invested in health? Whether the return is two to four dollars in productivity or up to seven, including indirect effects and prevention, the economic case is strong. Slower growth forces governments to prioritize. The task is ensuring that health remains high on that list.
EF: From your perspective, what is the single biggest issue the healthcare sector in Latin America needs to address today, and if you could fix one thing, what would it be?
RH: Prevention is always the best investment; there is no way around that. At the same time, many diseases are not preventable. If someone carries genes that lead to cancer, or as the population ages and conditions such as Alzheimer’s become more common, these diseases will occur. This reality raises a key question: how can we detect patients as early as possible?
A patient diagnosed in the early stages of breast cancer can be cured. Many of these patients are between their 30s and 50s; they are not elderly. Failing to treat them represents a significant loss of productivity. If detection happens earlier, and if more than 40 percent of those diagnosed at a late stage are identified sooner, we not only extend lives, but in many cases, we can cure the disease. Changing these numbers of changes outcomes, not only for patients but also for their families.
In Latin America, data shows that the impact goes well beyond the individual patient. Families suffer as well, and in some cases, women are abandoned by their husbands after a cancer diagnosis. This creates a high social cost that is rarely measured or fully visible. Breast cancer is one example, but there are many other diseases like it.
A health system focused on prevention, early detection, and the use of innovative treatments is likely to deliver the greatest impact.
EF: Looking ahead to 2026, what developments in the region are you most optimistic about?
RH: In 2025, we made a meaningful contribution to the company’s growth. Our forecasts for 2026 confirm that this trend will continue. This marks the third consecutive year in which Latin America has exceeded expectations in terms of value creation, and that is significant. It reflects the fact that our markets are maturing. Products launched several years ago still address large unmet patient populations, as access was not universal at the time of launch.
In breast cancer, we often note that around 60 percent of patients in Latin America receive appropriate treatment and achieve optimal outcomes. In many other diseases, including hemophilia and multiple sclerosis, that figure is closer to 30 percent today. This gap explains the scale of the opportunity. While we do not expect to reach 100 percent access, it continues to support growth even for products introduced three to five years ago. As a result, Latin America will remain a strong driver of growth for the company.
EF: How do you make the case for investing in Latin America, and what is the key argument you use to attract resources to the region?
RH: My jurisdiction runs from Mexico down to Patagonia, excluding Brazil, which now reports directly. In the end, it comes down to numbers. With a reasonable level of investment, growth can be achieved. The patient population is there; the challenge is convincing payers across different health systems to recognize innovation and ensure patient access. When we have clear policies, we can move forward.
This year, we have been very successful investing in projects in two Latin-American countries, and there is real potential for them to remain strong growth drivers for the company. It ultimately depends on how well the case is structured and whether examples and results can be clearly demonstrated. This is the year of Latin America, because we have the arguments and we can prove them.
EF: How are you preparing the company for the future pipeline, and where do you see the strongest intersection between innovation, physician adoption, and government engagement in Latin America?
RH: This is a broad topic, and it starts with clinical trials. Roche has consistently invested in the region, particularly through three main hubs: Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil, which are major centers for clinical research, with additional support from Colombia, Peru, Chile, and smaller markets. The clinical trial component remains critically important. We need to ensure a global balance in drug development and prepare for the future. Ethical compliance and related requirements are essential, and this has been a key area of focus for us as we continue to expand clinical studies in Latin America.
This is especially important as we look toward future therapeutic areas. If you spend enough time in this industry, you find yourself entering new therapeutic fields every few years, which is one of the most exciting aspects of the work.
In the near term, we expect improvements in existing therapies in areas that were previously underserved. Breast cancer and other cancers remain priorities. We have also recently made progress in treating lupus and multiple sclerosis. Looking further ahead, we are advancing studies in Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and obesity.
From a strategic perspective, the focus is on the diseases that will place the greatest burden on populations in the coming years and decades, particularly those linked to aging. This brings us back to the economic argument. There is no sustainable future for access in this industry unless we can clearly demonstrate value to society. Take Alzheimer’s as an example. The hidden costs are significant, but often not fully visible. The question is how to make them clear. If we can slow the progression of the disease, or even prevent it, the impact would be substantial. Obesity presents a similar challenge, with rising prevalence and a wide range of related conditions and comorbidities.
A healthier population is more productive. Improving cure rates or extending healthy years in an aging population is central to what this field is about. First, you need strong clinical data and physician confidence. Equally important is convincing payers that these innovations represent a sound investment.
I recently spoke with a health minister who understood this point very clearly. When discussing a new specific treatment for lupus nephritis, he immediately made the connection to the high costs the health system has today. Untreated patients may require dialysis or even long-term transplantation, both of which come with very high costs. Delaying or avoiding dialysis for even a portion of patients would significantly reduce spending. This type of understanding enables innovation to succeed in our markets and has a direct impact on patients’ quality of life.
EF: Do you have any final message?
RH: Health systems often frame their arguments mainly around the patient and clinical outcomes. What we need to do, together, is convince the relevant stakeholders that treating patients also delivers clear economic benefits and supports societal progress. The result is a healthier population, higher productivity, and a virtuous cycle.
