Good morning and welcome. It's great to have you all here on the last day of the forum for a very important discussion on a topic whereby the very title of the session says it all. Health is wealth. Just three words, a lot fewer than a tweet, that encompass something very significant about understanding of the importance of health and health costs in our economies. Our company's bottom lines, as well as individual well-being and happiness. In the 20th century, the world has made incredible strides in fighting disease. Smallpox has been eradicated, leprosy has almost disappeared. We have a global average lifespan that went from 31 in 1900 to 70 in 2008. And in the wealthier countries, we see that the average lifespan has gone from 50 to over 80. So significant strides, but huge challenges remain. We have 30 million people suffering from HIV and AIDS. We have 17 million people dying from heart disease annually. And in the United States, just as an example, three-quarters of our health care costs are because of preventable chronic diseases, many of them related to stress. The Belgian philosopher Pascal Chabot called burnout, a disease of civilization. And we see the need in the burnout that's affecting blood pressure, that's affecting the prevalence of diabetes, that's affecting any number of other preventable diseases. We see the need to move beyond simply expensive medical interventions and put health care as opposed to sick care at the heart of the debate. Maintaining health, as everybody has discovered, is a lot cheaper than restoring health. So the good news that there's been a shift in the zeitgeist. And more and more people and governments are recognizing that connection between prosperity and health, between success and well-being. In fact, in Germany, Ursula van der Leyen, who was minister of labor before she became minister of defense, had actually identified the cost of burnout in workplaces as about 10 billion euros a year, and had taken steps to do something in the way that businesses run workplaces. And with two CEOs on the panel, that is, of course, an incredibly important part of our discussion. So right now, we seem to be in the middle of a perfect storm. We have disruptive new technologies that are affecting the delivery of health care. We have a growing desire on behalf of people to take control of their own health care. And we also have scientific findings, many of which were discussed here in Davos this year, including by Professor Richard Davidson from Wisconsin, that show the significance of meditation and contemplative practices, as well as compassion and giving on our well-being and our health, and also, of course, our health care costs. So today, we're going to discuss all of that. We're going to discuss the cost of ill health on the economy, the importance of investing in health as a driver of growth. And we're going to talk about the fact that whether health is a renewable natural resource or not depends on us, on the actions we take as individuals, as businesses, and as countries. So now, it gives me great pleasure to introduce a very distinguished panel, starting with Joe Jimenez, who is the CEO of Novartis. And he is a vocal supporter of the fight to eradicate malaria and has guided Novartis to bring anti-malarial medicine to patients across the world. He's also a navid swimmer and fly fisherman. And I love the fact that in order to encourage his employees to succeed, he adjusts them to openly talk about their failures. Then Mauricio Cardenas, who is the Minister of Finance and Public Credit in Colombia. Mauricio and I have an immediate bond because he has three daughters, I have two daughters, and we both have one daughter named Isabella. And I love the fact that, as I've been following him on Twitter, he takes a break occasionally to tweet beautiful calming photographs of the mountains and the snow in Davos, which I have been regularly retweeting. So Francis Collins is the Director of the National Institute of Health. He was raised on a Virginia farm where his parents run a theater production and has gone on not only to lead the National Institute of Health, putting him at the forefront of medical and health research, but to be a leader in arguing that faith and spirituality have a place alongside science in our conversation. He's in fact the author of a book called The Language of God. Paul Buchel is the CEO of Nestlé and as I grew up in Greece, I was telling him that I was surrounded by Nestlé products. My first cup of coffee was Nesca Faire. And Paul has described Nestlé as a un fort tranquille, which could also be used to describe him. He's a father of three, speaks six languages, and for some reason, he manages to speak them without an accent, unlike me. Has a pilot's license and gets to be photographed a lot sitting beside Nesca Faire mags. And his work to make well-being not just part of Nestlé's products, but of the company's workplace culture. So let me start with Joe. Joe, what are the costs of ill health and the implications for the sustainability of our healthcare systems? Arianna, there are significant costs of poor health and not even related to healthcare costs, but for example, in the U.S. alone, poor health costs U.S. businesses over $200 billion a year just in terms of absenteeism, in terms of other disruptions to the business that are caused. And in the developed world, that's clear, but even in the developing world, there is a significant cost of poor health. For example, there are 100 million people a year who are pushed into poverty because they have to pay out of pocket for healthcare and they're pushed from the middle class into poverty, so that prevents them from being contributors to economic growth in those countries. So I think the way to think about how that impacts the sustainability of healthcare systems, I think historically our healthcare systems have been very transactional where inputs into that healthcare system have been transactional in nature and not really focused on the patient outcomes. For example, in the developed world, there is over $4 trillion a year of spending and we estimate that about 25% of that or $1 trillion is wasted because either the therapy doesn't work on that particular patient or because the re-hospitalization of some patients has to occur, a patient goes into the hospital, then out, they're not well and they go back into the hospital. So think 25% of a trillion dollars of waste. We're talking here at the forum about how to shift away from a transactional approach to an outcomes-based approach where we define the outcome that we want for that patient that enters a healthcare system and then if you focus on that outcome and measure that outcome, I think we can eliminate a lot of waste and build sustainability. Thank you. Mauricio, what do you see as the importance of health and economic growth, especially in developing countries? Oh, thank you, Arianna. Well, I was thinking why a minister of finance in a health panel? And I think the answer has to do with the way we think about health. Health doesn't just make us happier and improves our living standards. It also helps economic growth. It helps societies to grow faster. So we have to think about health as an investment decision, as an investment for society, as an investment in our lives. And that forces us to think about not just treatment, but prevention. Because if we invest more in health prevention and we have healthier populations, our societies can grow faster. So I like the title of the panel. Health is wealth. But at the same time, we have to make sure that in our societies, to have health, you don't have to have wealth. You have to have access to health, even if you don't have the resources at the individual level. So societies like ours, that are growing, but where we still have a large number of a population under the poverty line, our societies that have this tremendous challenge of providing health to people that do not necessarily have the income to do it themselves. And that's a major challenge for ministers of finance. Because it means collecting taxes to make sure that you invest in the health of the people that are under the needs of support from the government. Thank you. Now Francis, of course, in your job at the National Institute of Health, you are at the forefront of documenting and providing data for different forms of intervention in the health field. And you are very, very vocal about the importance of documenting instead of simply attempting things without trying to understand fully what the impact has been, both in the developing and the developed world. That's correct. And it's a pleasure to be on this panel and to be here at the World Economic Forum talking about this topic. And it's really a very wonderful thing that this particular year, the focus on health has been so strong I hear in Davos. Yes, NIH is very much invested in trying to generate evidence that will guide the decision making that everybody is seeking to do in the best possible way to try to benefit people in terms of applications towards improving health. With regard to the developing world which Mauricio has already introduced, I think the evidence there is very strong that there is a bi-directional flow between wealth and health. Many people think that in the developing world, well, if you can improve the economy, then a secondary consequence of that ought to be that people's health will get better because there'll be more resources. But it actually works in the other direction maybe even more effectively. And this has been well documented now over some 40 years, starting with Samuel Preston and the famous Preston Curve which showed that if you plot basically the wealth of a nation and its longevity, there is a very predictable curve. But that again may have suggested that it was the wealth that was the driver. But think about it. If you have an opportunity to improve the health of a nation, what does that mean? That means you have more opportunities for productivity. Therefore, economic growth is more likely. If you are able to reduce premature deaths, particularly in childhood, there is this demographic dividend which is well observed, which is in fertility rates fall. And that means that the proportion of the population that's in the workforce as opposed to being dependent because their children improves. And again, productivity goes up. So if you were seeking to try to improve the economic status of a nation to focus on health as a primary goal and not expect it to come along afterwards is a very wise and compelling bit of evidence. And people like Jeff Sachs have made this argument, I think, quite effectively. So that's certainly the case in the developing world. As far as more mature economies, I think there is growing evidence. And I like the way that Joe just described the shift here from transactional approach to looking at outcomes that there are interventions that employers can implement that clearly show benefit. But again, we have to look at those and try to figure out what is the evidence for success. And one other thing, I think one thing that we are increasingly aware of and increasingly able to deal with is that we're all different. And that a intervention that might work for me might just be awful for you and vice versa. And if we're really going to be successful in this business of trying to practice better prevention and better health in general, you have to personalize it to some degree because the one size fits all is just not the nature of humanity. We are different people. You wouldn't go to the shoe store and just pick any old pair of shoes off the shelf without checking the size. Well, likewise, if you're gonna plan a program of prevention in the workplace or wherever, you need to think about whether that person is going to fit that plan or whether you need to do some individualizing and one approach may work for one person and another for a different person. We need more data about that as well. Thank you. Paul, there's been a tremendous emphasis in the last few years on the role of business in improving the health of its employees with using healthcare costs and therefore having a direct impact on the overall health of the population and the healthcare costs of governments. And how do you see that and what have you done at Nest led to along these lines? Well, first of all, I must say I'm a whole happy or express how happy I am that in the World Economic Forum, health has got this preeminence which was basically not so much the case before. And we had actually yesterday together with Joe also, the health summit where we discussed all angles of how health as well, how health has to be cared for and the impacts on the economy and all that. So, and it is definitely something that is multi-stakeholder. Now, back to your question. Nestle, we are a food and beverage company that is definitely positioning itself as a nutrition health and wellness company because the best inducer of health is good food and good nutrition. And that is a very, very broad agenda that the company has taken up, quite ambitious. And it is linked up with different stakeholders. And it starts actually, as you said, it starts with your own employees, that looks like. And therefore we have education, nutritional education is a deficit in society that is tremendous. I always remember in my school years, we never had one hour of education so it starts with education with our own employees but then also creating the work conditions for our employees, awareness building, et cetera. Then our company can do more in a sense also of bringing nutrition, more nutritional values and arguments into our products and that is what we do too and that's where we have the whole R&D setup to do that to link or make this relation between nutrients and the human body, the organism and how it impacts on health. But there's one thing that I wanna express here is health as well. Now, what's the value of health? And it's tremendous experience that actually you only give it some value when you lose it. So that's an equation. And as we speak with health care, actually we speak about sick care. We normally go after health when it's too late and yet the inducing, if we are aware how we can organize our society in such a way that all players are abusive to health and it starts actually with kids the first thousand days that you start hearing more and more and how can a company like ours who is so much linked with children and through its product, how can we play their information we're doing studies now in many countries. The United States was one of them. We called them fit studies where we go and see what is actually the diet of kids, of infants. And then you see amazing things. Like in the United States, the first vegetable that is classified as the first vegetable for children is French fried. Then you start saying there's something happening. It's with that information that you look into how can we as a society government, be it companies, be it whoever is playing civil society how can we induce really health and it starts with awareness.  Developing world we have a physical presence there. Nestle has been in so many markets before. Again, children, there's two billion people in the world who are not well nourished. One billion more or less under nourished. Micronutrients deficiencies. We know we have plotted the world. We can use our products to give out, carry these micronutrients. And then also again, do studies. See how it impacts. There's actually a virtual circle. If you have healthier kids from the start, that goes through whole life. We know that. So that's why you have to really focus on the start. Healthy kids before better in school are more productive as adults. Create more economical value. Allows better nutrition and the circle goes on. So actually it is how can we start that virtual circle? It is measured that $1 invested at the beginning for healthier kids has an effect of 20 times more of productivity in society. So it looks like a very, very inviting equation. Paul, you mentioned how many kids are undernourished, but also obesity is now emerging as one of the biggest problems we're facing with 380 million people at the moment suffering from diabetes, which is very connected to obesity. And this is both connected to nutrition and what are people eating and what are people having available to eat in many places which are deserts for good food. So any one of you wants to go first. We're going to keep it very free flowing and dynamic here. And any solutions to that? Arianna, I think it's very interesting. Like Nestle at Novartis, we've worked on improving the health of our own employees. So we have 130,000 employees. And about three years ago, we started a program called Be Healthy where we taught our associates how to eat better, eat well, and provide nutritional information. And then in all of our canteens around the world, we offer the healthiest meal at the lowest cost, meaning it's the one meal in the canteen that is the lowest cost. That together with helping our employees understand how to check their blood pressure, how to check their cholesterol levels and providing incentives for exercise. So for example, we subsidized their joining a gym or a health club. And we've been able to track over time how that has improved health. So you think if you can do that in a company, why can't we do that on a broader scale from either a city or a, let's say a state or canton or a country level? So obviously this is an enormously important public health problem when you consider that at least in some countries, including the United States, there are predictions if we don't get a solution soon to the obesity problem, our gains in longevity may start to slip because diabetes will become so common and so devastating in terms of its consequences. So you could hardly overstate how important it is to understand the causes. I think one thing that we should avoid though is to say, well, it's just this one thing. And if we fix that one issue, then it'll all get better. Obesity is this enormously complex problem that goes everywhere from what happens in the home in terms of kids and how they are modeled in terms of food behavior by their parents, in terms of what happens in the schools. We still have a big problem in the schools in terms of what kind of nutrition is offered there, which is where a lot of kids are going to start to get into trouble in terms of obesity, in terms of how the built environment and the community encourages or discourages the access to healthy food and the opportunity to do exercise. In terms of employers, what kind of opportunities they provide, not all of them are as forward-looking as what Joe just described for Novartis or what other folks here at Davos are talking about. And then their policies in terms of what the governments are doing that may or may not encourage people to practice better healthy behaviors as well as the food industry. So if we really wanna get our mind around all of this in a way that gets somewhere, it's gotta be thought about in that multi-component way. I actually think mayors of towns and cities have emerged in important ways as having an opportunity to try to pull some of those things together. And one should look at some of those examples as ways in which to get the community involved. One thing we must not do is to blame the people who are in themselves experiencing this problem. And that's all too easy to do. Oh, if you just had a little more free will, you would be able to tackle your weight problem. That is not going to get us where we need to go. Certainly it's clear that input from colleagues doing things in a team-based approach is a lot more successful than the lonely efforts of people without support to try to tackle a very difficult problem. If I could add something, Ariana, I would say that going back to the question of prevention, a lot of our interventions, social programs, have to include the element of preventing disease. So for example, in a country like Colombia, when we launch a major initiative for early childhood, we make sure that kids between zero and five years of age get good nutrition. And that's a big basic element so that they have a healthier life. When we transfer resources through programs that are part of the conditional cash transfers program, we make sure that we measure the health of the kids in those families receiving those transfers. And that's fundamental because prevention is the combination of good education, good nutrition, physical activity. Make sure that we promote sports, that we spend resources encouraging the population to engage in sports. And that ultimately has a tremendous return in terms of a healthier population. But I would also add to this another dimension. The world today is growing mostly because of the emerging economies. And that's where markets are providing the biggest opportunities for companies in the drug businesses, in the pharmaceuticals, in food industries. I think those companies, those major corporations should not repeat in emerging markets the mistakes that were made in the developed world. So that means we have to be a lot more cautious and concerned about issues related to the type of products we're selling to the population. So we don't repeat mistakes from which we already have learned in the developed world. But in a free market, what role can the government play in what products are being sold by different businesses? Well, regulation. Think of this. Mexico, for example, has recently passed legislation taxing the soft beverages industry. Think about, for example, in another dimension, but it's a very important one, the price of pharmaceuticals. I think we have to be a lot more careful about what prices are being charged in emerging markets so they're not differences. For example, we have treatments that in places like Colombia cost more than the developed world and it's the same product, the same, so we then were forced to regulate. But of course, it would be better if you don't have to take those steps. If you don't try to get as much return from the emerging markets as the market itself would suggest. I think this is for corporations to think about. May I, I think authority should, as you can imagine, the company, we don't like to hear too much regulation, ex-ficiating regulation. I think I like the word framing more. And we have been speaking about obesity and the non-communical disease in general and how actually this is not a privilege of the developed world. There's so much happening also in the developing world and the double burden of malnutrition is there. And we have spoken about how different dimensions or different initiatives or different framings have to induce, be it sports, be it education, be it et cetera. And then they have industry. And yes, indeed we have products and these products do have calories. And what do we do about that? So framing definitely is something that is putting a level playing field for all actors. It's putting also knowledge and understanding into that framing. But there is also, and I must say, we assume our responsibility as an industry. And actually we do have organizations where we come together and talk about these things and to assume our responsibility. That is, we can do so much in reformulating our products. We can do so much in educating and putting transparency through our products. We're not hiding from that. And it should be that relationship of trust that should be, I would say, an initial starting point. I don't think that society is served if we have obesity and there is only one actor in society who is responsible for that. I think that would lead us to, I would say, over our own regulation. You cannot self-regulate yourself to health. It is so complex. And so I think by accepting that open discussion is already a good starting point. That's where you then start to really, as industry, assume our responsibility. And our responsibility is linked with research and knowing and how we can do better products, portionability, transparency, communication to the right people and not overcommunicate to kids, et cetera. And we want to assume that very responsibly. Why? Well, because we want to be there in a healthy society. We cannot be a healthy business in an unhealthy society. And that's the premise I feel, that trust relationship of understanding. Paul, that really means that businesses need to include other priorities beyond profitability and quarterly earnings in their decision making. Look there again, profit is not per se killing healthy attitudes.  It's actually what we want to do, what we want to sell. That is what is going to be our success. It's based upon that. It is not much smarting out things of short termism that we call that actually creating shared value. It means a company like ours or the economical activity of business should be done in such a way that it is framed over time. And we have a principle of respect for society, respect for itself, so that they actually also create value for society. Well, health is wealth. That's value for society. And we want to be part of that. Paul, let me ask just to make this more specific in terms of how the industry tries to balance the need to make profits and the need to focus on issues that are going to be important for the population health. I have grandchildren now, so I get to watch on Saturday morning sometimes the cartoons that are put up for their enjoyment. And I can't help but notice the advertisements that go along with this. And certainly, many of those are putting forward in very visually appealing ways breakfast cereals that seem very heavy in sugar and sort of clear intention here to get the kid to go to mom and say, I want you to buy that for me. And I'm sure those are very profitable products. And they actually taste pretty good when I've sampled them myself, although I know they're probably not so good for me. So how does the industry approach that issue? Given that we all agree, this is a really vulnerable time for kids to define what maybe what their lifelong habits are going to be as far as food selection, how do you deal with the need to try not to feed into an unhealthy sort of future for these kids at the same time making a profit? Well, there are various angles to that. First of all, out of that awareness, there should be reaction of industry. If something is known, people should react to that. And I think that's done in the sense of, for example, reformulation. You can reformulate products, take sugar out, and you can do more, you invest in more research on things. You can also do transparency on products so that people can make responsible decisions on that. And then we have also said, as an industry, we don't put advertising to kids till six years. And that is done and monitored. Now, how far do you want to bring that? That is not worldwide. We, as a company, we do it worldwide. We're not going to have a norm in one country and not another, not to advertise products that are quite caloric dense to kids under six. You can actually extend that to 12. That is an awareness building that industry has taken up and is assuming. And we have monitored that. There is actually international food and beverage alliance that is committing also with the WHO to just do that, reformulation, transparency, workplace. We have mentioned that to start with our own people. We have also, for example, in the Consumer Goods Forum, which is an alliance of retailers, because you have to integrate the whole supply chain and food into society. So retailers and manufacturers. And one of the pillars, one of the strategic pillars that we decided, and it's a huge organization. If you add all the retailers and all the manufacturers that are in that association, you come to something like a 2.5 trillion equivalent sales. So you have to have huge retailers, manufacturers like Nestle are part of that. We have that pillar and say, we're going to commit to be part of solution to these non-communical diseases. I'll help Paul out here for a minute by deflecting from food to pharmaceuticals. Mr. Minister Cardenas made the point about pharmaceuticals in developing countries and how important it is to allow affordable access. And I think if you look at a company like Novartis, we believe very strongly in innovative medicines, and we do research and development on innovative medicines, but we also have a very large and important generics division. And the role of that division is to help improve access to very high quality but low cost generics across all markets, but particularly the role in emerging markets. Because this is where you're talking about basic antibiotics or basic pain medication that for very low out-of-pocket expense, we can increase access to markets and improve overall health care. It doesn't substitute innovative medicines because that's how medical science progresses. We have unbelievable breakthroughs in cancer around the world because we're investing in R&D and we have to get a return for that investment somewhere around the world. But we really do look at our business globally and think about the role of inexpensive generics in helping to build health within emerging markets. We talked about advertising for food. Of course, in many countries, advertising for pharmaceuticals is also a big business. And especially when it comes to certain pharmaceuticals that have to do more with depression or mood-altering drugs. And we now are seeing an epidemic in the increase of antidepressants and in the increase of attention deficit disorder medication for children. How do you see the responsibility of business and of governments here in terms of what is available to children especially, but also to adults? It's a very complex and interesting issue. Really, the United States is the only country in the world that allows direct-to-consumer marketing in the way that it does. So you're exposed to something in the US that is quite unique and different than the rest of the world. I think we have to think about the industry in terms of pharmaceuticals is what we do at our core is we discover and develop new and innovative medicines that can treat disease. And we look at least in our company, we make resource allocations in research and development based on the level of unmet need in a particular disease, not how big the market is. So we don't start with how big is this market potentially and how can we develop a new drug. We look at the science and the disease and if we can unlock a disease that only has 1,000 patients around the world that will never be marketed like that, we're going to still invest in it because we believe that if you create a breakthrough in a rare disease where there is a small number of patients, typically those patients are very homogeneous genetically and you can find that there are other diseases that that medication or that therapy will also have application. And so I think the whole world in pharmaceuticals is changing away from the big broadcast blockbuster towards more of a targeted therapy around particular rare diseases. What is here? Yeah, Ariana. We're discussing now in Colombia and Congress a major, very comprehensive health reform. We already have 95% of our population covered. There are a number of topics that arise in a society, in a democratic society when you start discussing health. And one of the areas is touching on the point you just made on advertisement. And it's not just advertisement in the regular media, it's also the way pharmaceuticals influence physicians in their prescriptions. So the Colombian Congress, for example, has been very strongly proposing that there's some restrictions on the way the pharmaceutical industry influences physicians. For example, through trips, invitations to conferences in sunny resorts. So those things, in my view, have to be restricted so that you don't have that type of influence over the prescriptions. Because maybe you don't prescribe that generic that Joe was mentioning, but you prescribe medications that are overly expensive for the needs of the treatment of that patient. So it's advertisement plus other things. But Francis, there's also been an enormous amount of research recently, some of it done by the NIH, about the significance of seeing the human being as a full being of body, mind, spirit, and not just as a body. And in fact, incredible research. Again, some of it was shown here during this week of the power, say, of meditation on reducing pain or dealing with addiction, which is another epidemic, both to illegal and legal drugs. How do you see that developing in the future? And what do you see the influence, potentially, of what could be seen as almost miracle drugs, except they are not drugs. They are practices that individuals can adopt. So it is a very interesting time for researching some of these interventions. And it's nice that at Davos, those have been talked about in several sessions, including ones that you have led. Tom Insel is here, who's from NIH, the director of the National Institute for Mental Health. We have an entire component of NIH that focuses on complementary and alternative medicine that looks at what are the evidence basis for interventions involving yoga or meditation of various sorts, or mindfulness. Mindfulness, a term which seems to mean different things to different people, but I think we are all sort of aware that there's a growing body of evidence that practicing those kinds of meditative experiences is a way, in many instances, of being able to relieve stress, to be able to do something about chronic pain. But obviously, a one wants not to extrapolate too broadly from that without being quite sure about what is the application and what is the specific intervention, because there's so many different alternatives and variations here. I think it's a very exciting time to figure out how this all fits together with what's going on in the brain. And in the United States and in Europe, just this year, we're really launching a major, probably decade-long effort to try to really understand how the brain works in real time. We have major advances that have happened in the last five years in terms of imaging, being able to see which parts of the brain are activated during particular activities, how the brain is all connected, how the wiring diagram works. And we can look at individual brain cells, neurons, and see what they're doing if you stimulate them. But there's this big space in between of circuits. And we don't really understand how those work to do simple things like recording a memory or bringing it back out again. We have a chance, if we work hard at this and have the appropriate smart people working in the right resources to begin to make sense of that. So I bet if we were talking 10 years from now about this whole issue of mind-body, it would be a very interesting and different discussion because it would be built upon a much better sense of the neurotransmitter electrical system that is the most complicated structure in the known universe, namely the human brain. Well, especially because we are really now getting the evidence and the data. This is not just an anecdotal. Mark Bertolini, the CEO of Aetna, which is the third largest health insurance company in the United States, has been here in Davos talking about the evidence he has collected when he made meditation, yoga, and acupuncture available to his 50,000 employees. And he brought in Duke University to look at the results and found a 7% reduction in healthcare costs and a 69-minute improvement in productivity. So I think that is what is so fascinating now, that we're not just talking about it, we are trying to document it. May I actually go back to one basic thing, that healthcare costs in society. And the United States is hitting the 20% of GDP almost and growing, and Europe give and take 11%. And we have now a phenomenon in the world, which is developing, world is developing. They're building their middle class, which is good. 80% of the world population is starting to build social structures. And with that, healthcare costs or healthcare structures are going to be built. What are they going to build? What are they going to copy if they want to copy? And before they did, now they're cooling off and trying to do what, for example, the United States as a system has. Why? Because you can just not finance it. So what is the equation? What is the discussion that society, government, business too, and all interest, civil and interest parts, are what are we going to set up in the world as a healthcare system? That's actually the discussion that we should have. And then you have a very clear relationship of keeping health is actually the most and the cheapest way to do that. And how then also, and I'm speaking a little bit for what we know so well, it's nutrition. Actually the Chinese, they have a very good view on that. They always say the best medicine is food. But then you have to really start understanding much more and deeper relationships between food and health. And that's actually where we then invest as a society, as a company in society. And being part of that discussion is, I think, what a company like Nestle can do is to be a really meaningful part with the healthcare sector. And that's why we also work together now on these platforms, putting up a pledge actually, saying we want to be as a society, part of a society that thinks about that. Because as we are doing it is not going to work economically and also for health per se. Because we are so focusing on corrective health when it is too late. And we should see more the force of induced health. And I think the voices that you hear, the voices that you hear against everybody taking part of responsibility, the pushback on industry is actually, well, it hurts us, but it provokes us to really engage in a meaningful discussion with society on these issues. And I think that's a good starting point, really understanding that everybody is part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. So let's now open it up to questions. And if you can please identify yourself. Yes. My name is Jordan Casillo. I'm a Schwab social entrepreneur. David Landis wrote in his book, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, about five inventions that change the course of economic development in Europe. And one of those inventions were eyeglasses. Yet 700 years after their existence, a billion people don't have access to that product. And we estimate that results in about a trillion dollar loss to the global economy. And it could be solved with an investment of about $25 billion. The question is to the Minister of Finance and to Mr. Jimenez, what can we do to bring this very low lying issue to the attention of the Ministers of Finance and to the corporate leaders who have interest in vision and versioned services around the world? You undertake it, Marisa? I'll take it. I would just say that, of course, we have to include that in the basic plan, the coverage we offer with universal access to the entire population. That includes, of course, the visual component. And that's, I think, the bottom line here. It's part of the basic coverage plan. But if I could make a point, following a little bit on what Paul said, about the way we think and we structure the health system, which connects with your question. We, in many emerging countries, and I think this is something that happens also in the developed world, have thought that the best way for paying for the health system is through payroll taxes. And we have changed that paradigm. We think that's not a good idea because that has forced a lot of people into the informal sector to avoid payroll taxation. And when you are in the informal sector, you don't have coverage and you don't have a lot of the benefits of social security. So we changed that paradigm. We just passed legislation in Colombia. We're paying for health. Not with payroll taxes, but with corporate income taxes and with personal income taxation. That's different so that then we have more people in the formal sector, and when people are in the formal sector, they're more productive and they have more access to benefits like this. And I would say, I would just add to that, that vision is one of the big issues for the next 10 to even 20 years, not just for those that need vision correction today who don't have access to prescription glasses, but also if you think about the aging population and what that's going to mean for cataracts and cataract surgery, there are many people in developing nations that don't have access to good eye care. So I think it's going to have to be a multi-sectoral solution. It can't be just the pharmaceutical business or it can't be just the governments by themselves. I think we're going to have to work together in public and private partnerships to really go after vision care around the world. Another question. Yes. I'm Prakash Hinduja. We have a Hinduja hospital, which is a non-profitable hospital in Bombay, and we received a CNBC award by surveying several hospitals in India. We do work with Novartis. We do work with Nestle. We do work with NIH. And I see a great programs about home remedy medicines which are alternative medicines which are being practiced in India and in China in a big way. There are people in the villages which I have experienced myself that they believe that diet, any child as you said right now, the Nestle is trying to keep foods for the children, the dietitian, the doctors, they recommend that what type of food they should give to the children and where Nestle can prepare a food according to the recommendation of the survey of the children requirement of the meals of each country's requirement because the weather condition, the different doctors, dietitian, and the genes. The genes plays a very important role in the health care program at all. Sometimes some medicines which do not help due to some nuts, allergy problems or something or the other. So I would recommend to the panel that if a yoga programs, which I met the other day, the chairman of the Aetna, he said he practiced yoga for one and a half hours every day. And for mind, body, and soul, sometimes yoga practice, replacement of all medicines and food itself. And that is growing in a bit. Thank you, thank you so much. So this is why I want to sum up the whole thing of all the panel what we have done. And coffee, coffee in Columbia is the best one. That X place, that X place for real medicine. For example, here, for example, in Davos, when you work from seven to the 12 in the night, one cup of coffee is enough for you. Thank you, thank you so much. Coffee is a healthy choice, isn't it, Paul? Absolutely. No, it takes like a medicine again. It's very healthy. Thank you so much. It takes like a medicine. Thank you very much, panel. Thank you. But again, may I answer on this? At the end of the day, you spoke about adapting nutrition to the needs of specifics, et cetera. So much has to be invested still in knowing and knowing how people eat what they eat and knowing also the science, nutrients, human body. And I think that's where society and we being part of society as a company are investing quite heavily in these knowledges. It is also education. And I think the best health is also harmony and balance and bringing balance in diet. So for me, there is so much self responsibility in this whole thing. Health and then bringing back the self responsibility to people that they own their own health is also a very important thing. So it has to do with a little bit more than just a few easy relationships. It's a little bit more societal deeper to think through. And I think the fact that we discussed this here, the fact that we started to have what we just had yesterday, the health summit where different angles of society were sitting together and say, let's talk health, honestly, and try to bring something that at the end of the day is the most costly dimension. It's no health of society. And I think that's the right priority. Thank you, Bob. Yes. Tom Insol from the National Institute of Mental Health in the US, I actually worked for Francis in the spirit of full disclosure. I wanted to revisit your question, Ariana, about the epidemic of antidepressants and the way that they're marketed. And I think that's a challenging issue because on the one hand, I think we all have the concern about the overuse or misuse of medications. On the other hand, when we look at depression as an issue about health and wealth, this may be one of our biggest challenges. We know that depression is one of the largest costs to large employers that in the studies that we've supported for every 1,000 employees, companies are hemorrhaging about $250,000 for this one disease. Most people with depression, in fact, are never treated. We know this from population-based studies where more than 50% of people are never diagnosed and only 50% of those who are diagnosed ever get treated adequately. So we have a huge unmet medical need at the same time. We have a perception that there's an epidemic of the use of the medications which are appropriate for this illness. So how do we square those two things? I'd love to get some thoughts about that apparent gap. Paul, do you want to take that? Since I suppose we can't go to Francis. Or Joe, you mean? Yeah, I would say that unfortunately, the brain is the most complex organ in the body. There is a lot that we don't understand about it. And when you think about developing new medications for depression, it's a very difficult thing to do. So there are many drugs that are currently on the market to treat depression that you would argue at the very edge of effective. Because we haven't really been able to deeply understand elements of depression and how we can specifically go after and develop new drugs that will treat with minimal side effects. So I think we have to, as an industry, continue to study the brain. Right now with the explosion of technologies that are occurring, our ability to understand what happens in the body is unprecedented. And then in the next 10 years, you're going to see medical breakthroughs that I think we've never seen in the history of mankind. And I think we need to commit to understanding the brain better and understanding the elements of depression so that we can treat. Great, and as we are running out of time, I'd like to ask each one of you, what would be based on this conversation and all the other conversations that you have had here, what is the biggest insight that you want to leave our audience with? What is the biggest recognition, new realization, new understanding that you have come up with that you want to share? Francis? Well, I think the fact that we're here in Davos and that this topic has been so heavily featured this year is the big story of this particular meeting. And let me say next year, I would like to see even more of that kind of featuring. Because I don't see how you can talk about world economics with the evidence that's now in front of us without considering the role of health, both in terms of prevention and in terms of diagnosis, in terms of treatment, that whole complicated dynamic. And let's be clear that that is all about every country, not just the most mature economies, and that this gathering provides an opportunity, not just to talk about it, but to actually take actions that will result in a better outcome for people who need that from us. So it's- For me, the point was that this is a very complex topic. For us to improve the health of populations around the world, we're going to have to bring all the actors together. So it's governments, it's the private industry, it's NGOs. We're going to have to set some objectives in terms of what is that outcome that we want to deliver. Use the data, as Paul said, what works and what doesn't work in terms of moving ahead healthy populations, and then working as a society together to help deliver it. Thank you. I would say all that, plus the importance of good nutrition in the early years of life is the best base for healthy people later on. So it's also the nutrition in the first thousand days. Mauricio? Health is a good economic strategy. Health provides economic growth. We're probably under-investing in health, but we're probably at the same time paying too much for some aspects in the health sector. So this is a dialogue between government, business, academia, so that we invest more in the aspects that give us the greater dividend for economic growth and we spend less on aspects that are not that necessary or we could save money. My conclusion is that despite the huge challenges that we are facing, what this panel demonstrated and what, as Frances said, the presence of so many panels centered on health demonstrates is that we are at the tipping point of recognizing that health is wealth and I think the presence of a finance minister on a health panel is very significant. We are also recognizing much more the responsibility of businesses to move beyond profitability and integrate what is good for society and that ultimately there is no real trade-off between profitability and public good because as Paul said a few times, no company wants to operate in an unhealthy society. And the comment from India, from our friend in India about ancient wisdom, and I thought it was also very significant because a lot of very modern research on the brain is actually validating a lot of ancient wisdom so there is a real convergence happening. So the scientific findings and the fact that new technologies allow us to have real data about certain practices is a very significant moment. So I want to thank you all for being here. I want to particularly thank our panelists and before we give them a round of applause as a member of the media, I want to stress that the media also have a big responsibility to bring out to the public correct information and the latest scientific findings as well as what each member of the public can do to improve their health, taking on more personal responsibility for our own health and as you can see from the background at the Huffington Post, we certainly tackle this issue relentlessly because we believe that there's tremendous need for the media to move beyond a certain superficial approach to the subject and treat it as something really central to our wellbeing. So thank you so much and please help me in thanking our panelists. Thank you.