Population health is widely regarded as a key indicator of national prosperity and strength. The 15th Five-Year Plan (FYP, 2026–30) period represents a critical stage for achieving the long-range goals of the “Healthy China 2030” initiative. Building a Healthy China is increasingly seen as a foundational undertaking supporting high-quality population development, advancing the modernization of national governance, and improving public well-being. Recently, CSST interviewed several scholars regarding the Healthy China strategy outlined in the 15th FYP for national economic and social development.

From treating illness to promoting health

Demand for high-quality health services will continue to rise during the 15th FYP period. Guan Xinping, director of the institute of social construction and management at Nankai University, said that the core of the Healthy China strategy lies in concentrating resources and advancing systematic reforms to ensure timely achievement of the 2030 goals, thereby laying a solid foundation for long-term public health development.

China is also shifting from a traditional population dividend based on quantity to one driven by demographic quality, observed Wang Zhen, a research fellow from the Institute of Economics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Integrating Healthy China into population development strategies accords with the objective laws of demographic transition and meets the internal requirements of high-quality economic development.

Health governance is gradually moving from a treatment-centered model to one focused on health promotion. Hu Qingshan, dean of the School of Physical Education and Sports at Central China Normal University, believes this shift treats health as a dynamic, continuous, and systematic project. In response to diminishing marginal returns in the face of high chronic disease prevalence, he emphasized the need to move interventions upstream—shifting from reactive treatment to proactive health management, from fragmented “repairs” to full-life-cycle management, and from a biomedical model to a socioecological approach.

The healthcare development path with Chinese characteristics is rooted in the country’s basic conditions, including its large population and pronounced urban–rural and regional disparities, noted Qiu Renfu, dean of the School of Marxism at Beijing University of Chinese Medicine. Prioritizing the healthfirst development strategy, he argued, will help explore governance practices suited to a country with an exceptionally large population.

Multi-stakeholder collaborative governance

Building a Healthy China is a complex and systematic undertaking involving the entire population, the full life cycle, and all sectors of society. The outline explicitly emphasizes “deepening social co-governance, medical-prevention collaboration, and the integration of medical treatment and prevention.”

“To build a Healthy China, we need the participation of everyone, coordination across all sectors, and the joint efforts of the whole society,” Qiu asserted, calling for stronger coordination among medical services, health insurance, and pharmaceuticals, as well as further reform of the healthcare system with a public welfare orientation. Such coordination can help foster healthy lifestyles, a healthy ecological environment, and a sound economic and social development model, ultimately generating a virtuous cycle of healthcare and socioeconomic progress.

Cai Liqiang, executive dean of the School of Government at the University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, believes that social cogovernance requires all actors to fulfill their respective responsibilities and complement one another’s strengths, with governments playing a leading role in planning, resource allocation, and market supervision to secure the baseline of basic public health services. Professional institutions should provide technical support and high-quality services to meet the diverse and multilevel health needs of the people, while social organizations can serve as platforms for health communication and behavioral guidance. Market actors can supplement differentiated services and stimulate the health industry, and citizens, as the primary custodians of their own health, should actively adopt healthy lifestyles.

Balancing inclusiveness and precision remains key to health equity. Guan urged efforts to establish standardized and uniform basic public health service benchmarks to ensure fair and accessible services for all citizens. At the same time, expanding high-quality medical resources and improving regional distribution would allow more people to receive quality care close to home.

The outline proposes “promoting the digitalization of public health” to enhance health governance efficiency through digital technologies. Wang noted that bridging the digital divide will be essential so that digital health benefits reach all groups, especially vulnerable groups such as the elderly. He suggested simplifying service delivery processes and lowering barriers to use, while retaining certain offline services to ensure no one is left behind.

The philosophy and social sciences community shoulders the important mission of providing theoretical support, practical guidance, and consensus-building foundations for the healthcare development path with Chinese characteristics. Scholars interviewed agreed that social scientists should conduct empirical research on key issues such as multi-stakeholder coordination mechanisms, regional disparities in health governance, and the real-world implications of relevant policies. Such efforts can help identify replicable experiences and provide practical solutions for resolving conflicts of interest and improving governance efficiency.