A group of 11 health ministers has proposed expanding the scope of new EU defence funds to include critical medicines in an op-ed published on Euronews.
Health ministers from Belgium, Czechia, Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain have called for a Critical Medicines Act set to be proposed this week to be integrated within broader EU strategic autonomy and security efforts, putting the measure effectively under the umbrella of defence funding.
The proposal, outlined in an op-ed for Euronews, aims to turn the initiative into a full-scale strategic programme backed by EU defence funding.
“The Critical Medicines Act must serve as a robust instrument. Part of its funding should be embedded in broader EU defence spending plans, including financial mechanisms in the new defence package,” the ministers wrote.
“After all, without essential medicines, Europe’s defence capabilities are compromised,” the op-ed reads.
The move seeks to access the €800 billion the European Commission is expected to mobilise over the next four years through the Rearm Europe plan, the main principles of which were agreed by leaders at last week’s extraordinary EU summit.
The plan envisages ramped defence and security spending by EU member states, facilitated by activating a national escape clause within the EU’s fiscal rulebook – the Stability and Growth Pact – which allows for higher spending under exceptional circumstances.
An additional €150 billion would come from a new EU defence instrument, enabling the Commission to borrow from capital markets, issue bonds, and lend to member states.
A matter of European security
The ministers argue that their proposal aligns with the United States’ Defence Production Act, which designates pharmaceutical supply chains as a national security issue.
The US government uses this act to map critical pharmaceutical supply chains, identify vulnerabilities, and direct investments toward strengthening domestic production. It also allows the issuance of priority-rated contracts, requiring suppliers to prioritise government orders.
“Europe can no longer afford to treat medicine security as a secondary issue,” the ministers stressed. “Anything less would be a grave miscalculation—one that could turn our dependence on critical medicines into the Achilles’ heel of Europe’s security.”
The proposal for a Critical Medicines Act is a key health priority for the Commission and aims to address severe shortages of essential medicines, such as antibiotics, insulin, and painkillers, within the EU. It focuses on medicines that are difficult to source or rely on few manufacturers or countries for supply.
The Commission is expected to present the proposal on Tuesday, following a fast-tracked legislative process that has raised concerns about the lack of a proper impact assessment.
The op-ed highlights how Europe, once a leader in pharmaceutical production, now depends on Asia for 60–80% of its supply in the sector. This dependence creates significant vulnerabilities, particularly in the event of supply chain disruptions during a crisis or conflict.
“If the supply chain of antibiotics is interrupted in the midst of an escalating conflict, routine surgeries become high-risk procedures, and easily treatable infections could turn fatal,” the ministers warned. “Foreign actors could exploit this dependency, creating a major security risk for Europe.”
Implications for health budgets
The proposal could also have financial implications on health spending in Europe as the fate of a specific pot dedicated to health in the next EU budget remains uncertain.
The EU4Health programme, which was established in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, was initially given a funding injection of €5.3 billion, a notable investment given that health policy is primarily a national competence.
However, recent budget cuts, including the reallocation of €1 billion from EU4Health to partially fund Ukraine’s aid package, have raised concerns within the sector.
Early blueprints of the next seven-year EU budget suggest that its health portion could be merged with other funds or even eliminated altogether.
The proposed mechanism would allow for increased health spending at least at the national level by loosening EU budget rules, enabling higher expenditure without penalties.
In practice, this would mean that defence spending—potentially expanded to include critical medicines—of up to 1.5% of GDP would be exempt from EU spending limits for four years.
It remains to be seen whether the European Commission and MEPs will be open to taking up the ministers’ suggestion and incorporating this approach into the legislative talks on the upcoming Critical Medicines Act.
