The draft report by Tomislav Sokol (EPP, Croatian) amending the proposal on critical medicines received a generally positive response in the European Parliament’s Public Health Committee on Monday 1 September (see EUROPE 13698/9).
Tiemo Wölken (S&D, German), speaking on the possible creation of a European stockpile, was in favour of the idea, but considered that it should be examined with great caution. “It is essential to avoid unnecessary duplication and national stockpiling efforts that could prove counterproductive in the face of a potential European stockpile”, he warned. In his view, the coexistence of national and European stocks of the same product should be avoided, “as this would run the risk of creating artificial shortages”.
The MEP also supported the idea of a coordinated precautionary stockpile, supplemented by national stocks for critical medicines and products of common interest.
Vlad Voiculescu (Renew Europe, Romanian), for his part, insisted on the need for a coordination mechanism at EU level and felt that the creation of a European stockpile should remain a solution of last resort. He called for the focus to be placed first and foremost on patients’ needs.
With regard to strategic projects, Tilly Metz (Greens/EFA, Luxembourger) felt that rather than broadening the scope of application - in a context of constantly shrinking health budgets - “we should give priority to projects that address the highest dependencies, recurrent shortages, multi-purpose active ingredients and ageing production infrastructures”.
To avoid unnecessary pharmaceutical waste, she called for precautionary stocks to apply the “first in, first out” rule. She also supported the idea of sanctions against companies that refuse to supply critical medicines even after receiving national or European public funding. Lastly, she called for the threshold for group purchases of medicines at EU level to be lowered: “The more we use this tool, the better it will be for national healthcare budgets and for patients”.
The deadline for tabling amendments in committee is 19 September.
“I haven’t seen any major points of difference” [over the text], was the summary from Mr Sokol. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)