Slide 5 — Problem

What this slide is

The macro thesis. Three columns of three data points each, plus a closing argument and source citations. The structure is a triptych: Demand × Supply × Outcomes — every stat ladders up to one of those three axes.

Why it’s here

This is the bear case that justifies the bull case in slide 6. Without a real problem, there’s no real opportunity. LPs evaluating a HealthTech fund need to be convinced that European healthcare is a market in active failure — not just a slowly-evolving sector.

The three-axis framing is rhetorically tight: Demand exploding (you can’t slow aging), Supply collapsing (you can’t conjure clinicians overnight), Outcomes deteriorating (it’s already getting worse). All three are bad and all three are getting worse. That sets up: technology must close the gap.

The €1,720B industry size + “least digitized in the economy” framing is the wedge: the bigger the industry, the bigger the opportunity if digitization happens. Saying it’s “least digitized” implies the most upside.

What’s most important to surface

The three column titles are doing the rhetorical work. Demand is exploding / Supply is breaking / Outcomes are getting worse — those should read as three blunt statements, not as headings.

Two stats are most LP-resonant:

• 200K avoidable cancer deaths per year — emotionally vivid, operationally concrete.
• 55% of HCPs’ time spent on admin — directly investable. Every back-office automation startup justifies itself by this stat.

The €1,720B + “least digitized” line is the punchline. It belongs visually emphasized as the closing of the slide, not buried in a footer. This is the hook for slide 6.

The third axis (Outcomes) matters because it’s morally weighted. Demand and supply are economic; outcomes are ethical. The maternal-deaths-rose-85% stat is the most sobering on the deck. It also sets up FemTech relevance later (slide 15).

Source citations matter for institutional LPs. Eurostat, WHO, OECD, EFPIA — those are the right names. They should be visible, even if small.

Composition risk

Nine stats in three columns is data-heavy but the trifold structure makes it scannable. The source-deck design uses very visible column headers (dark navy bars) and dotted-line cards per stat. The visual hierarchy works because the column headers are the signposts; the eye picks one column at a time, not nine items at once.

Visual hierarchy I’d suggest

1. “Problem” headline
2. Subhead — the rhetorical setup line
3. Three column headers (visible, bold)
4. Stat-bolds within each column (the numbers)
5. Stat bodies (small)
6. Closing argument (visible, near footer)
7. Source citations (smallest, footer)