Tom Philipp has worked as a doctor for decades, and has been active in politics for just as long. Throughout his career, he has remained loyal to KDU-ČSL, and since October 2025 he has served as chair of its parliamentary group. He is a strong advocate of prevention, vaccination, and a healthy lifestyle – topics we discussed at length.
In what condition did Andrej Babiš’s government inherit the Czech healthcare system? Does it have reason to criticize the previous cabinet?
The current government did not inherit a broken healthcare system. In the previous period, significant investments were made from European funds: approximately CZK 23 billion was directed into healthcare through the REACT-EU program alone. In addition, further investments of around CZK 12 billion were opened up through the National Recovery Plan. At the same time, the system benefited from rising insurance contributions from employees and the newly introduced regular indexation of state payments for insured persons, ensuring a relatively stable and predictable revenue framework with an annual increase of around CZK 26 billion.On the other hand, it is true that costs grew even faster and the reserves of health insurance companies declined. So yes, the current government can point to strained financial dynamics, but it cannot claim it inherited a system without investment, direction, or secured revenue growth.
A major issue in recent weeks has been pressure from Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD) and anti-vaccination MPs. How serious a threat is this for the Czech healthcare system?
Yes, I consider it a serious problem. Not because one political force would dismantle Czech healthcare overnight, but because it can gradually undermine trust in vaccination, prevention, and expert institutions. SPD is pushing for a fundamental revision of the national vaccination strategy and is even questioning reimbursement for some vaccines, including flu vaccination and its promotion. At the same time, experts warn that vaccination rates in Czechia are declining for certain diseases, and both the WHO and European institutions caution that weakening trust in vaccination leads to the return of diseases such as measles and whooping cough. The greatest risk, therefore, is not a single loud debate in parliament, but the erosion of trust in prevention, in expert authorities, and in the state’s responsibility for public health.
On the other hand, is it true that last year’s flu vaccine did not match the circulating strain and was significantly less effective? Was it money wasted?
No, it was not wasted money. With influenza, it can happen that the match between the vaccine and the circulating virus is not perfect. And yes, last season there was discussion about a weaker match, meaning effectiveness against infection may have been lower than in other years. However, even in such cases, vaccination reduces the risk of severe illness, hospitalization, and death. That is its primary purpose. Flu vaccination does not prevent every infection, but it protects the most vulnerable and saves many lives. That is precisely what those who casually question vaccination should keep in mind.
Do you follow developments in healthcare in the United States? Do you see them as a clear regression?
In many respects, yes, I do. Not because the U.S. healthcare system was previously without problems, but because Donald Trump’s administration is weakening precisely those parts of the system that should be based on expertise, stability, and prevention. In 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a major reorganization and the elimination of 10,000 jobs across institutions crucial for oversight, research, and public health protection. At the same time, the administration altered certain vaccination recommendations outside standard expert procedures, and serious disputes arose over the independence and expertise of advisory bodies. In my view, this is not modernization, but a weakening of trust in institutions that are meant to protect public health.
With his wife Štěpánka.
The new government has proposed a megahospital project in Prague’s Letňany district. How do you view this plan? It clearly extends beyond the current government’s term. Is there broad political consensus?
At this stage, I see it more as a political declaration than a project with a clear concept. The government has not yet presented an analysis demonstrating that a new large hospital would improve quality of care, accessibility, or economic efficiency. It therefore appears more like the ambition of one prime minister than a well-thought-out, expert-backed plan. There is talk that the facility could eventually take over acute care from some existing hospitals on the right bank of the Vltava and concentrate it in one location. Such a project clearly goes far beyond a single electoral term, which is precisely why broader political consensus would be necessary. In my view, that consensus does not yet exist. There is general agreement that Prague’s hospital network needs modernization and better organization – but not on the specific form of this project. That is why I would be cautious not to turn a legitimate debate about the future of Prague’s healthcare into a mere political billboard.
What would be the benefits of such a project, and what are the risks?
The benefit lies in the fact that building a new hospital complex is often more effective than attempting to modernize outdated facilities at great cost. A new complex allows for better planning of operations, logistics, and technologies in line with modern medicine.However, the location in Letňany raises serious questions. In acute care, minutes matter, and patients will always head to the nearest hospital. There is therefore a risk that patient flows will not change as expected and that pressure on already overloaded central hospitals will increase. Another major risk is staffing. It is not enough to build a facility – qualified medical personnel must also be secured. The potential benefit is a modern, efficiently designed hospital; the risks include poor location and reduced accessibility for both patients and staff.
There is now a new Ministry of Sport, Prevention, and Health. Does it actually deliver on its mandate, in your view?
I have always supported the idea of linking sport, prevention, and a healthy lifestyle. Regular physical activity is a key part of prevention, and the state should do more to help people live longer, healthier lives. However, I must honestly say that so far I see this ministry more as a coordinating body than a fully functioning department. At the moment, it appears to be an “office for the sake of an office,” which has yet to demonstrate tangible results. We will see what this investment ultimately brings – whether it leads to real preventive measures, better coordination of sports support, and measurable improvements in public health. For now, we remain in the phase of promises and ambitions.
KDU-ČSL has struggled since the elections and, following the breakup of the SPOLU coalition, is polling below the five-percent threshold. What is your strategy for recovery?
KDU-ČSL currently has a stable parliamentary group of sixteen MPs, including several new faces with experience in local and regional politics. That is a solid foundation to build on. At the same time, it is clear that the party is undergoing a leadership transition – Marek Výborný has announced he will not seek re-election as chairman, and successful South Moravian regional governor Jan Grolich has declared his candidacy. I see this as an opportunity to combine new energy with political experience and restore the party’s momentum and clarity. We must become more understandable, more credible, and stronger on our own. The party needs to convince voters again that it has something to say about everyday life – affordable housing, healthcare, education, care for the elderly, and life in the regions. That is why we are not currently eyeing a pre-election coalition. First, we must strengthen ourselves. What the situation will be ahead of the next elections, time will tell.
The author is a European editor of Deník
CV BOX
Tom Philipp (born December 26, 1968, in Prague) is the Head of the Rheumatology and Rehabilitation Clinic of the Third Faculty of Medicine at the Charles University and the Thomayer University Hospital, MP, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the General Health Insurance Company (VZP), member of the Prague 12 Municipal Assembly, and former Vice-Chair of the KDU-ČSL.
Following his graduation from the Second Faculty of Medicine at Charles University in 1993, he started working as a physician at the rheumatology ward in the Thomayer Hospital, later serving as Deputy Director (2005–2014). In 2014, he was appointed Deputy Minister of Health, a position he held for four years. From late November 2018, he worked at Agel, a.s., as the First Vice-Chairman of the board and Director of the Jeseník Hospital. He never fully severed ties with Thomayer Hospital and eventually returned there full-time.
He has been a KDU-ČSL member since 2002 and an MP since 2021. After eight years of serving as a member of the VZP Board of Directors, he became its Chairman in February 2022.
Philipp lives in Prague. He is married and has five children. He enjoys hiking, cycling, cynology, and fishing. Politics remains his primary hobby, however.
ad
