Biotechnology is central to modern medicine and Europe’s long-term competitiveness. From cancer and cardiovascular disease to rare conditions, it is driving transformative advances for patients across Europe and beyond . 1         Yet innovation in Europe is increasingly shaped by regulatory fragmentation, procedural complexity and uneven implementation across  m ember s tates. As scientific progress accelerates, policy frameworks must evolve in parallel, supporting the full lifecycle of innovation from research and clinical development to manufacturing and patient access.  The proposed EU Biotech Act seeks to address these challenges. By streamlining regulatory procedures, strengthening coordination  and supporting scale-up and manufacturing, it aims to reinforce Europe’s position in a highly competitive global biotechnology landscape .2       Its success, however, will depend less on ambition than on delivery. Consistent implementation, proportionate oversight and continued global openness will determine whether the  a ct translates into faster patient access, sustained investment and long-term resilience.  Q: Why is biotechnology increasingly seen as a strategic pillar for Europe’s competitiveness, resilience and long-term growth?  Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen:  Biotechnology sits at the intersection of health, industrial policy and economic competitiveness. The sector is one of Europe’s strongest strategic assets and a leading contributor to  research and development  growth . 3    At the same time, Europe’s position is under increasing pressure. Over the past two decades, the EU has lost approximately 25  percent of its global share of pharmaceutical investment to other regions, such as the  United States  and China.   The choices made today will shape Europe’s long-term strength in the sector, influencing not only competitiveness and growth, but also how quickly patients can benefit from new treatments.  > Europe stands at a pivotal moment in biotechnology. Our life sciences legacy > is strong, but maintaining global competitiveness requires evolution .” 4   > >  Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, > Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen. Q: What does the EU Biotech Act aim to do  and why is it considered an important step forward for patients and Europe’s innovation ecosystem?  Marrache: The EU Biotech Act represents a timely opportunity to better support biotechnology products from the laboratory to the market. By streamlining medicines’ pathways and improving conditions for scale-up and investment, it can help strengthen Europe’s innovation ecosystem and accelerate patient access to breakthrough therapies. These measures will help anchor biotechnology as a strategic priority for Europe’s future  —  and one that can deliver earlier patient benefit  —  so long as we can make it work in practice.  Q: How does the EU Biotech Act address regulatory fragmentation, and where will effective delivery and coordination be most decisive? Marrache: Regulatory fragmentation has long challenged biotechnology development in Europe, particularly for multinational clinical trials and innovative products. The Biotech Act introduces faster, more coordinated trials, expanded regulatory sandboxes and new investment and industrial capacity instruments.   The proposed EU Health Biotechnology Support Network and a  u nion-level regulatory status repository would strengthen transparency and predictability. Together, these measures would support earlier regulatory dialogue, help de-risk development   and promote more consistent implementation across  m ember  s tates.   They also create an opportunity to address complexities surrounding combination products  —  spanning medicines, devices and diagnostics  —  where overlapping requirements and parallel assessments have added delays.5 This builds on related efforts, such as the COMBINE programme,6 which seeks to streamline the navigation of the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation , 7 Clinical Trials Regulation8 and the Medical Device Regulation9 through a single, coordinated assessment process. Continued clarity and coordination will be essential to reduce duplication and accelerate development timelines .10 Q: What conditions will be most critical to support biotech scale-up, manufacturing  and long-term investment in Europe?  Marrache: Europe must strike the right balance between strategic autonomy and openness to global collaboration. Any new instruments under the Biotech Act mechanisms should remain open and supportive of all types of biotech investments, recogni z ing that biotech manufacturing operates through globally integrated and highly speciali z ed value chains.   Q: How can Europe ensure faster and more predictable pathways from scientific discovery to patient access, while maintaining high standards of safety and quality?   Marrache: Faster and more predictable patient access depends on strengthening end-to-end pathways across the lifecycle.  The Biotech Act will help ensure continuity of scientific and regulatory experti z e, from clinical development through post-authori z ation. It will also support stronger alignment with downstream processes, such as health technology assessments, which  are  critical to success.   Moreover, reducing unnecessary delays or duplication in approval processes can set clearer expectations, more predictable development timelines and earlier planning for scale-up.    Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen. Via Amgen. Finally, embedding a limited number of practical tools (procedural, digital or governance-based) and ensuring they are integrated within existing  European Medicines Agency and EU regulatory structures can help achieve faster patient access . 11 Q: What role can stronger regulatory coordination, data use and public - private collaboration play in strengthening Europe’s global position in biotechnology?  Marrache: To unlock biotechnology’s full potential, consistent implementation is essential. Fragmented approaches to secondary data use, divergent  m ember   state interpretations and uncertainty for data holders still limit access to high-quality datasets at scale. The Biotech Act introduces key building blocks to address this.   These include Biotechnology Data Quality Accelerators to improve interoperability, trusted testing environments for advanced innovation, and alignment with the EU AI Act ,12  European Health Data Space13 and wider EU data initiatives. It also foresees AI-specific provisions and clinical trial guidance to provide greater operational clarity.  Crucially, these structures must simplify rather than add further layers of complexity.   Addressing remaining barriers will reduce legal uncertainty for AI deployment, support innovation and strengthen Europe’s competitiveness.  > These reforms will create a moderni z ed biotech ecosystem, healthier > societies, sustainable healthcare systems and faster patient access to the > latest breakthroughs in Europe .” 14 > > Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, > Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen.  Q: As technologies evolve and global competition intensifies, how can policymakers ensure the Biotech Act remains flexible and future-proof?  Marrache:  To remain future-proof, the Biotech Act must be designed to evolve alongside scientific progress, market dynamics and patient needs. Clear objectives, risk-based requirements, regular review mechanisms and timely updates to guidance will enhance regulatory agility without creating unnecessary rigidity or administrative burden.  Continuous stakeholder dialogue combined with horizon scanning will be essential to sustaining innovation, resilience and timely patient access over the long term. Preserving regulatory openness and international cooperation will be critical in avoiding fragmentation and maintaining Europe’s credibility as a global biotech hub.  Q: Looking ahead, what two or three priorities should policymakers focus on to ensure the EU Biotech Act delivers meaningful impact in practice?  Marrache: Looking ahead, policymakers should focus on three priorities for the Biotech Act:    First, implementation must deliver real regulatory efficiency, predictability and coordination in practice. Second, Europe must sustain an open and investment-friendly framework that reflects the global nature of biotechnology.  And third, policymakers should ensure a clear and coherent legal framework across the lifecycle of innovative medicines, providing certainty for the use of  artificial intelligence   —  as a key driver of innovation in health biotechnology.  In practical terms, the EU Biotech Act will be judged not by the number of new instruments it creates, but by whether it reduces complexity, increases predictability and shortens the path from scientific discovery to patient benefit. An open, innovation-friendly framework that is competitive at the global level will help sustain investment, strengthen resilient supply chains and deliver better outcomes for patients across Europe and beyond. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/media/press-releases/2025/05/The_EU_Biotech_Act_Unlocking_Europes_Potential 2. European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation to establish measures to strengthen the Union’s biotechnology and biomanufacturing sectors, December 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-establish-measures-strengthen-unions-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-sectors_en 3. EFPIA, The pharmaceutical sector: A catalyst to foster Europe’s competitiveness, February 2026. Retrieved from https://www.efpia.eu/media/zkhfr3kp/10-actions-for-competitiveness-growth-and-security.pdf 4. The Parliament, Investing in healthy societies by boosting biotech competitiveness, November 2024. Retrieved from https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/investing-in-healthy-societies-by-boosting-biotech-competitiveness#_ftn4 5. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/docs/BiotechPP_final_digital_version_May_2025.pdf   6. European Commission, combine programme, June 2023. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-topics-interest/combine-programme_en  7. European Commission. Medical Devices – In Vitro Diagnostics, March 2026. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-vitro-diagnostics_en 8. European Commission, Clinical trials – Regulation EU No 536/2014, January 2022. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medicinal-products/clinical-trials/clinical-trials-regulation-eu-no-5362014_en 9. European Commission, Simpler and more effective rules for medical devices – Commission proposal for a targeted revision of the medical devices regulations, December 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-sector/new-regulations_en#mdr 10. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/docs/BiotechPP_final_digital_version_May_2025.pdf   11. AmCham, EU position on the Commission Proposal for an EU Biotech Act 12. European Commission, AI Act | Shaping Europe’s digital future, June 2024. Retrieved from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai 13. European Commission, European Health Data Space, March 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/ehealth-digital-health-and-care/european-health-data-space-regulation-ehds_en 14. The Parliament, Why Europe needs a Biotech Act, October 2025. Retrieved from https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/why-europe-needs-a-biotech-act -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Amgen Inc * The ultimate controlling entity is Amgen Inc * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on the EU Biotech Act. More information here.

Teresa Graham, © EFPIA European governments navigate an ever more competitive global landscape, stagnating productivity and competing demands on budgets. We have successfully faced and solved many challenges in the past, but this situation is different: the choices we make today will shape our health care systems and patient care, and these choices will dictate Europe’s economic performance and global relevance for decades to come. For those of us in the life sciences, these aren’t just macroeconomic trends — they are the pulse of a system that determines how quickly a breakthrough reaches a patient. It is a high-stakes environment where policies on health care and innovation carry urgent human and economic consequences. When a medicine has the power to treat or potentially cure, neither innovators nor policymakers want to drag their heels, because no person requiring health care can afford the luxury of delay. > The true economic burden of health care isn’t financing health innovation, but > the cost of failing to do so. Europe’s challenge is clear: we must better align our industrial strength in life science with public health goals, ensuring innovation reaches both patients and economies faster. The question is no longer what Europe wants to be — it is where Europe chooses to invest to remain a global player. Health as e conomic i nfrastructure Under the weight of mounting budget pressures, it is understandable that governments often view health primarily as a cost to be contained. However, this perspective is disconnected from modern economic reality. And let me be clear: the true economic burden of health care isn’t financing health innovation, but the cost of failing to do so. For years, Europe has already been paying the price of lost productivity: citizens forced out of the workforce too early and chronic diseases managed too late. For instance, cardiovascular diseases alone cost the E uropean U nion economy up to €282 billion annually. This creates a massive yet avoidable strain on national budgets, especially as pharmaceutical innovation is estimated to be responsible for up to two-thirds of life expectancy gains in high-income countries . 1 > Every medical breakthrough that enables a citizen to return to work or care > for their family is a direct investment in Europe’s economic strength. We must shift our mindset . H ealth is not merely a social good; it is economic infrastructure. Healthier societies are inherently more productive and resilient, and every medical breakthrough that enables a citizen to return to work or care for their family is a direct investment in Europe’s economic strength. Investing in innovation today is the only way to secure a competitive workforce and reduce long-term systemic costs. The c ompetitiveness t est: a s trategic a sset, n ot a l ine i tem Europe’s life sciences sector is one of the few remaining areas that retains genuine global competitiveness and strength, contributing more than €300 billion to annual output and supporting 2 million high-skilled jobs across m ember s tates . 2 It anchors Europe’s trade resilience, generating a trade surplus 66 percent higher than all other EU sectors combined . 3 But the warning signs are clear: while Europe still accounts for 20 percent of global pharmaceutical research and development , its share of global investment is shrinking as capital and talent migrate elsewhere . 4 Europe’s world-class science is being held back by fragmentation and regulatory inertia. > We must treat this sector as a pillar of our sovereignty and a strategic > asset, not merely a cost to be managed. If we want to lead the next wave of medical breakthroughs, we must move at the speed of global change. This requires a fundamental shift: simplifying clinical trial regulations, deploying AI-driven digital tools, incentivizing research through strong intellectual property frameworks and establishing a public-private dialogue on innovative pharmaceuticals. We need a clear action plan, not just more legislation, to translate our scientific leadership into tangible health outcomes.   We must treat this sector as a pillar of our sovereignty and a strategic asset, not merely a cost to be managed.  A  c onsequential  c hoice  Europe has to choose. Either we can continue to approach life science innovation as a budgetary threat, only to reali z e too late that we have weakened our competitiveness and delayed new treatments for patients. Or we can recogni z e innovation for what it is  —  an economic multiplier that strengthens our productivity, resilience  and global influence  —  and ensure that Europe remains a place where the next generation of medical breakthroughs is discovered, developed  and delivered to patients.  There is no middle ground. Europe must stop focus ing solely on the cost of innovation and start asking how much innovation it can afford to lose. In the global race for talent and capital, hesitation is a decision. The rest of the world is not waiting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. The value of health: Investing in Europe’s future [EPC 2026] 2. Economic and Societal Footprint of the Pharmaceutical Industry in Europe [VE / PwC 2024] 3. International trade of EU and non-EU countries since 2002 by SITC [Eurostat 2026] 4. The 2025 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard [EC 2025] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The entity ultimately controlling the sponsor is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The political advertisement is linked to  EU pharmaceutical regulation and innovation policy. More information here.

Dr. Daniel Steiners This is not an obituary for Germany’s economic standing. It is an invitation to shift perspective: away from the language of crisis and toward a clearer view of our opportunities — and toward the confidence that we have more capacity to shape our future than the mood indicators might suggest. For years, Germany seemed to be traveling along a self-evident path of success: growth, prosperity, the title of export champion. But that framework is beginning to fray. Other countries are catching up. Parts of our industrial base appear vulnerable to the pressures of transformation. And global dependencies are turning into strategic vulnerabilities. In short, the German model of success is under strain. Yet a glance at Europe’s economic history suggests that moments like these can also contain enormous potential — if strategic thinking and decisive action come together. One example, which I find particularly striking, takes us back to 1900. At the time, André and Édouard Michelin were producing tires in a relatively small market, when the automobile itself was still a niche product. They could have focused simply on improving their product. Instead, they thought bigger; not in silos, but in systems. With the Michelin Guide, they created incentives and orientation for greater mobility: workshop directories, road maps, and recommendations for hotels and restaurants made travel more predictable and attractive. What began as a service booklet for motorists gradually evolved into an entire ecosystem — and eventually into a globally recognized benchmark for quality. > In times of change, those who recognize connections and are willing to shape > them strategically can transform uncertainty into lasting strength. What makes this example remarkable is that the real innovation did not lie in the tire itself or merely even a clever marketing idea to boost sales. It lay in something more fundamental: connected thinking and ecosystem thinking. The decision to see mobility as a broad space for value creation. It was the courage to break out of silos, to recognize strategic connections, to deepen value chains — and to help define the standards of an emerging market. That is precisely the lesson that remains relevant today, including for policymakers. In times of change, those who recognize connections and are willing to shape them strategically can transform uncertainty into lasting strength. Germany’s industrial health economy is still too often viewed in public debate in narrowly sectoral terms — primarily through the lens of health care provision and costs. Strategically, however, it has long been an industrial ecosystem that spans research, development, manufacturing, digital innovation, exports and highly skilled employment. Just as Michelin helped shape the ecosystem of mobility, Germany can think of health as a comprehensive domain of value creation. The industrial health economy: cost driver or engine of growth? Yes, medicines cost money. In 2024, Germany’s statutory health insurance system spent around €55 billion on pharmaceuticals. But much of that increase reflects medical progress and the need for appropriate care in an aging society with changing disease patterns. Innovative therapies benefit both patients and the health system. They can improve quality and length of life while shifting treatment from hospitals into outpatient care or even into patients’ homes. They raise efficiency in the system, reduce downstream costs and support workforce participation. > In short, the industrial health economy is not merely part of our health care > system. It is a key industry, underpinning economic strength, prosperity and > the financing of our social security systems. Despite public perception, pharmaceutical spending has remained remarkably stable for years, accounting for roughly 12 percent of total expenditures in the statutory health insurance system. That figure also includes generics — medicines that enter the ‘world heritage of pharmacy’ after patent protection expires and remain available at low cost. Truly innovative, patent-protected medicines account for only about seven percent of total spending. Against these costs stands an economic sector in which Germany continues to hold a leading international position. With around 1.1 million employees and value creation exceeding €190 billion, the industrial health economy is among the largest sectors of the German economy. Its high-tech products, bearing the Made in Germany label, are in demand worldwide and contribute significantly to Germany’s export surplus. In short, the industrial health economy is not merely part of our health care system. It is a key industry, underpinning economic strength, prosperity and the financing of our social security systems. Its overall balance is positive. The central question, therefore, is this: how can we unlock its untapped potential? And what would it mean for Germany if we fail to recognize these opportunities while economic and innovative capacity increasingly shifts elsewhere? Global dynamics leave little room for hesitation Governments around the world have long recognized the strategic importance of the industrial health economy — for health care, for economic growth and for national security. China is demonstrating remarkable speed in scaling and implementing biotechnology. The United States, meanwhile, illustrates how determined industrial policy can look in practice. Regulatory authorities are being modernized, approval procedures accelerated and bureaucratic barriers systematically reduced. At the same time, domestic production is being strategically strengthened. Speed and market size act as magnets for capital — especially in a sector where research is extraordinarily capital-intensive and requires long-term planning security. When innovation-friendly conditions and economic recognition of innovation meet a large, well-funded market, global shifts follow. Today roughly 50 percent of the global pharmaceutical market is located in the United States, about 23 percent in Europe — and only 4 to 5 percent in Germany. This distribution is no coincidence; it reflects differences in economic and regulatory environments. At the same time, political pressure is growing on countries that benefit from the American innovation engine without offering an equally attractive home market or recognizing the value of innovation in comparable ways. Discussions around a Most Favored Nation approach or other trade policy instruments are moving in precisely that direction — and they affect Europe and Germany directly. For Germany, the implications are clear. Those who want to attract investment must strengthen their competitiveness. Those who want to ensure reliable health care must appropriately reward new therapies. Otherwise, these global dynamics will inevitably affect both the economy and health care at home. Already today, roughly one in four medicines introduced in the United States between 2014 and 2023 is not available in Europe. The gap is even larger for gene and cell therapies. The primacy of industrial policy: from consensus to action — now Germany does not lack potential or substance. We still have a strong industrial base, a tradition of invention, outstanding universities and research institutions, and a private sector willing to invest. Political initiatives such as the coalition agreement, the High-Tech Agenda and plans for a future strategy in pharmaceuticals and medical technology provide important impulses, which I strongly welcome. > A fair market environment without artificial price caps or rigid guardrails is > the strongest magnet for private capital, long-term investment and a resilient > health system. But programs must now translate into a coherent action plan for growth. We need innovation-friendly and stable framework conditions that consider health care, economic strength and national security together — as a strategic ecosystem, not as separate silos. The value of medical innovation must also be recognized in Germany. A fair market environment without artificial price caps or rigid guardrails is the strongest magnet for private capital, long-term investment and a resilient health system. Faster approval procedures, consistent digitalization and a determined reduction of bureaucracy are essential if speed is once again to become a competitive advantage and a driver of innovation. Germany can reinvent itself, of that I am convinced. With courage, strategic determination and an ambitious push for innovation. The choice now lies with us: to set the right course and unlock the potential that is already there.

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is “still catastrophic” and has seen only a “marginal” improvement since the ceasefire, with worse to come due to the Middle East war, senior World Health Organization officials told reporters Thursday. There are $6 million worth of medicines that can’t reach Gaza due to supply disruptions in the Middle East, Hanan Balkhy, WHO director for the Eastern Mediterranean region, said. The chaos “will take away, for sure, from the support needed for the people in Gaza,” she said. Israel closed border crossings in and out of Gaza after striking Iran last weekend, claiming the enclave had adequate humanitarian supplies and there would be “no impact on the humanitarian situation.” Israel said Tuesday it would reopen the crossing to allow for the “gradual entry of humanitarian aid,” reported Le Monde with AFP. Balkhy, however, said the volume of aid entering Gaza “was and is not enough,” while WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the improvement since the ceasefire was “actually marginal.” “We need 600 trucks to cross into Gaza every single day but currently it’s not more than between 100 and 150,” Tedros said, adding the border closures had interrupted “good progress” on the number of medical evacuations. “I would like to use this opportunity actually to ask Israel to allow us to take patients [from Gaza] to east Jerusalem and [the] West Bank,” Tedros said. Some of the trucks entering Gaza were “commercial” and didn’t really help people who couldn’t afford the supplies, he said. POLITICO contacted Israel’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories for comment, but did not receive an immediate response.

Today, cancer remains one of Europe’s leading causes of death and disability, accounting for 23 percent of all deaths in 2022 and 17 percent of disability-adjusted life years in 2021. Four Europeans are diagnosed with cancer every minute, a number that is expected to rise over the next several decades due to population aging. As the EU Beating Cancer Plan reaches the end of its initial phase, Europe now stands at a critical moment. The question is not whether progress has been made, but whether Europe will build on that momentum or allow it to stall, with consequences not only for health outcomes, but also for economic growth and scientific leadership. Gilles Marrache At this juncture, cancer care must be understood not as a cost to be contained, but also as a strategic investment that delivers measurable returns in survival, productivity and Europe’s global competitiveness. > Continued investment in oncology is therefore not only a moral imperative but > also a proven economic and social multiplier. Cancer innovation delivers proven returns Investment in cancer innovation has already delivered extraordinary value for European patients and societies. Since 1989, advances in oncology have helped prevent an estimated 5.4 million deaths. More recently, since 2012, innovative cancer medicines have generated approximately 1.1 million quality-adjusted life years, all while accounting for just 6.6 percent of total health budgets. These gains are not abstract. They represent longer lives, improved quality of life, and the ability for people to remain active contributors to their families, workplaces and communities. Continued investment in oncology is therefore not only a moral imperative but also a proven economic and social multiplier. Delayed access is holding Europe back Despite these returns, Europe continues to struggle with timely access to innovative cancer medicines and diagnostics. According to EFPIA’s 2025 W.A.I.T. data, only 46 percent of centrally approved innovative medicines are available to patients on average across Europe, with a mean delay of 578 days between EU approval and patient access. In oncology, these waits have grown since 2023, which undermines patient outcomes and weakens Europe’s competitiveness in health innovation. Europe’s innovation edge is at risk Without decisive action, Europe risks falling further behind other regions. High-income European countries currently invest roughly half as much per capita in innovative medicines as the United States. This gap is driven largely by differences in how new therapies are valued, assessed and reimbursed. The impact of this underinvestment is already visible. Over the past two decades, Europe has lost around a quarter of its global share of biopharmaceutical research and development. Along with that loss comes fewer high-quality jobs, reduced private investment and weakened strategic autonomy in a sector that is increasingly central to economic and health security. > evidence suggests that every euro invested in health can generate up to four > euros in economic value, unlocking an estimated €10 trillion in GDP and saving > up to 60 million lives. Smart health investment drives growth and resilience By increasing targeted investment in innovative medicines, including in oncology, Europe can improve health outcomes for citizens, support workforce participation  and stimulate sustainable economic growth. Globally, evidence suggests that every euro invested in health can generate up to four euros in economic value, unlocking an estimated €10 trillion in GDP and saving up to 60 million lives. What European policymakers should do next To support oncology patients and safeguard innovation, regional and national governments must act across policy, funding and access: — Value what matters: modernize health technology assessment frameworks to better capture the full societal and economic benefits of innovation, while reducing duplicative and inefficient evidence requirements. This is particularly important as oncology products begin going through the new EU Joint Clinical Assessment. — Accelerate access: introduce time-bound, predictable pricing and reimbursement pathways; address regional and formulary-level delays; and invest in diagnostic and biomarker testing capacity to ensure patients receive the right treatment at the right time. — Back prevention and screening: fully finance the EU Beating Cancer Plan’s screening ambitions and scale proven pilot programmes that detect cancer earlier and improve outcomes. — Invest in innovation: increase public spending on innovative medicines in line with their true societal impact, while eliminating clawbacks and other cost-containment measures that disproportionately undermine the value of these therapies. A defining choice for Europe Europe stands at a crossroads. It can choose to invest now in cancer innovation, which would help to close survival gaps, strengthen competitiveness and deliver long-term value for citizens. Or it can allow delays, underinvestment and fragmented policies to widen those gaps further. Aligning policy, funding and access around innovation would not only improve cancer outcomes but make health one of Europe’s most powerful and sustainable investments for the future.     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on securing a technology-neutral EU road-transport decarbonisation framework through recognition of renewable fuels, strengthened grid and infrastructure enablers, and avoiding mandates that limit operators’ choice and competitiveness. * The ultimate controlling entity is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) More information here.

As European health systems grapple with how to deliver increasingly advanced therapies, rare disease patients in Sweden still face everyday challenges — from securing a diagnosis to accessing appropriate care. Although rights are strong on paper, families often find themselves stitching together services across a decentralized system. Ågrenska is a national competence center in Sweden working to bridge those gaps. It supports people with rare diagnoses and their families in navigating health and social services. “But there’s a limit to what one organization can do,” says Zozan Sewger Kvist, Ågrenska’s CEO. POLITICO Studio spoke with her about where the Swedish system falls short and what must change across Europe to ensure patients are not left behind. POLITICO Studio: From Ågrenska’s experience working with families of rare disease patients across Sweden, where does the system most often break down? Zozan Sewger Kvist: For 25 years the families have been telling us the same thing: the system doesn’t connect. Zozan Sewger Kvist, CEO, Ågrenska The breakdown is most evident in health care, especially when transitioning from pediatric to adult care. But it also happens when patients are transitioning between schools, social services and medical teams. No one is looking at their care from a holistic point of view. Families become their own project managers. They are the ones booking appointments, chasing referrals, explaining the diagnosis again and again. It’s a heavy burden. That’s largely why our organization exists. We provide families with the knowledge, networks and tools to navigate the system and understand their rights. But there’s a limit to what one organization can do. In a perfect world, these functions would already be embedded within public care. > Without clear national coordination, it becomes much harder to monitor whether > families are actually receiving the support they are entitled to. PS: Access to rare disease care varies widely within many European countries and Sweden is no exception. In practical terms, what do those regional disparities look like? ZSK: Swedish families have the same rights across the country, but regional priorities differ. That leads to unequal access in practice. For example, areas with university hospitals tend to have stronger specialist networks and rehabilitation services. In more rural parts of the country, especially in the north, it is harder to attract expertise, and families feel that gap directly. In practical terms, that can mean something as basic as access to rehabilitation. In some regions, children receive coordinated physiotherapy, speech therapy and follow-up. In others, families struggle to access rehabilitation at all. And that’s a big issue because a lot of Sweden’s health care runs through rehabilitation — without it, referrals to other services and treatments can stall. PS: Would a comprehensive national rare disease strategy meaningfully change outcomes across regions? ZSK: The problem is compliance, not regulation. Sweden has strong rules but regions have almost full freedom to organize care, which makes consistency difficult. As it stands, without clear national coordination, it becomes much harder to monitor whether families are actually receiving the support they are entitled to. A national rare disease strategy would not solve everything but it would set expectations such as what the minimum level of care should look like, what coordination should include and how outcomes are followed up. A draft national strategy was developed in 2024, and there was real momentum. Patient organizations, health care experts and the government were all involved. Everyone was optimistic the framework would provide guidance and accountability. After some delays, work on the national strategy has resumed, so hopefully we will see it implemented soon. > Families often feel they need to take on a coordinating role themselves. They > describe an endless search — calling clinics, repeating their story, trying to > connect the dots. PS: Families often describe a long and fragmented path to diagnosis. Where does that journey tend to go wrong, and what would shorten it most? ZSK: Coordinated multidisciplinary teams would make the biggest difference — teams that can look at the whole condition, not just one symptom at a time. The challenge is that rare diseases often affect multiple organ systems. Several specialists may be involved, but they do not always work together, and it may not be clear who is taking responsibility for the whole case. When no one holds that overview, delays multiply. Sweden also lacks a fully integrated national health record system, so specialists may be looking at different pieces of the same case without seeing the full picture. Families often feel they need to take on a coordinating role themselves. They describe an endless search — calling clinics, repeating their story, trying to connect the dots. PS: Sweden participates in the European Reference Networks, yet you’ve suggested they’re underused. What’s missing in how Sweden leverages that expertise? ZSK: The ERNs are a strong, established framework for connecting specialists across borders. Swedish experts participate, but we are not using that structure to its full potential. Participation often appears project-based rather than long-term. Neighboring countries such as Norway, Denmark and Finland are more proactive in leveraging these collaborations. I would like to see Sweden invest more in turning these networks into durable partnerships that support clinical practice — not just research initiatives. > Rare disease care needs sustained political and financial follow-through. > Without that, families will continue to carry burdens that the system should > be managing. PS: Sweden often falls behind other EU countries in terms of access to orphan medicines (drugs that treat rare diseases). What needs to change in Sweden’s approach to ensure patients aren’t left behind? ZSK: Families are very aware of how access compares across Europe. They follow these discussions closely, and when a treatment is available in one country but not another, it is difficult for them to understand why. In Sweden, reimbursement decisions often come down to cost-effectiveness calculations. That makes access an ethical as well as an economic question. But for a family, it is hard to accept that a few additional years of life or stability are weighed against a financial threshold. Some families choose to cross borders for treatment. But that can be quite a complex, expensive process, depending on the kind of treatment. I think greater transparency and clearer communication about the criteria and long-term impact — not only the immediate cost — would make difficult outcomes easier to understand. PS: You’ve worked with families for decades. Have things materially improved — and what worries you most if reforms stall? ZSK: Unfortunately, I cannot say that things have materially improved. When I look back at the challenges families described 15 or 20 years ago, many of them are still the same. There have been some positive developments. Digital access means families are more informed and can connect more easily with others in similar situations. That has strengthened their voice. But structurally, many of the underlying gaps remain. Rare disease care needs sustained political and financial follow-through. Without that, families will continue to carry burdens that the system should be managing. Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Alexion Pharmaceuticals * The entity ultimately controlling the sponsor: AstraZeneca plc * The political advertisement is linked to policy advocacy around rare disease governance, funding, and equitable access to diagnosis and treatment across Europe More information here.

Europe’s ambition to become climate neutral by 2050 cannot succeed in healthcare unless we fix a basic problem: we do not measure sustainability in the same way across the single market. Currently, measuring Product Carbon Footprints (PCF) and Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) throughout the European Union consists of a patchwork of national methodologies and/or competing frameworks. This fragmentation is not just a technical inconvenience, it actively undermines fair procurement, increases costs, and risks unequal patient access across Europe.[1] Without a single, harmonized methodology or framework, this EU sustainability and competitiveness goal will remain challenging to achieve. Though the lack of harmonizsation may seem technical, its consequences are tangible. PCF and LCA outputs can differ widely depending on the standards and methodologies defined and endorsed by policymakers, the way they are applied by industry, or how existing international standards are interpreted and implemented across member states.[2] The result is that national authorities are effectively speaking different languages. A treatment considered more environmentally responsible in one country may be evaluated entirely differently just across the border. And without harmonized sustainability assessments for medicines, there is a risk that sustainability is given disproportionate weight compared with safety and quality, undermining high-quality medicine development. In short, fragmentation slows progress, weakens trust and, importantly, – prevents comparability. [1]  > In short, fragmentation slows progress, weakens trust and, importantly, – > prevents comparability. In practice, the absence of a harmonized standard allows 27 different interpretations of ‘sustainability’ to coexist, which is incompatible with a functioning single market. Fortunately, PAS 2090:2025 offers what the EU has been missing: a single, science-based methodology that allows regulators, procurers, and industry to finally speak the same language. Developed with stakeholders across the healthcare and life sciences sector, PAS 2090:2025 specifies the appropriate methodology for medicines under ISO standards, aligning the playing field for everyone involved. Published by the British Standards Institution in November 2025, it reflects broad technical consensus and strong credibility. PAS 2090:2025 provides the first practical methodology for measuring the environmental performance of pharmaceuticals, establishing a common framework to support comparable environmental reporting, reduce regulatory duplication and provide policymakers with a credible basis to demonstrate progress toward climate neutrality. It also gives industry the predictability needed to invest in sustainable innovation, while ensuring that patients receive consistent assessments of a treatment’s environmental profile, regardless of where it is evaluated. Importantly, this approach reflects principles already embedded in EU policymaking. The European Health Data Space, for example, demonstrates how interoperability and standardized frameworks are essential in making cross-border data meaningful and actionable.[3] Meanwhile, the European Commission has been equally clear: harmonized technical standards and coherent sustainability rules are critical to the effective functioning of the Single Market and ensuring the free movement of goods.[4] This is a shared concern across stakeholder groups. Both the Federation of European Academies of Medicine and European Academies’ Science Advisory Council, representing Europe’s leading academies of medicine and science, have similarly highlighted the fact that common standards are essential for transparent procurement and fair competition across therapeutic categories.[5]And the innovative pharmaceutical industry, via the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, has outlined both the challenges caused by the absence of harmonized standards and called for policymakers, regulators and healthcare stakeholders to endorse PAS 2090:2025 as the one, internationally accepted standard for measuring PCA and LCA in the pharmaceutical industry.[6]Europe’s leading academies of medicine and science, the European Commission, and the innovative pharmaceutical sector all point to the same conclusion: without harmonized standards, sustainability policy cannot work. > At Chiesi, we support PAS 2090:2025 not because it is convenient, but because > it makes our environmental performance directly comparable and therefore > accountable.[2]  That is why our teams have laid out ambitious, yet reachable, targets regarding the reduction of Scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions. We also know that in order to reach these targets, we need to measure our actions and emissions. Measuring what matters is the foundation to making a meaningful difference.[3]  > Measuring what matters is the foundation to making a meaningful > difference.[3]  Our support for PAS 2090:2025 reflects a commitment to transparency, science-based decision-making and long-term sustainability; we use it ourselves because we believe it is the way forward — making it simple to compare products fairly, design transparent tenders, and procure with clarity. Further, industry members will be able to innovate with confidence, knowing that the life-changing efforts will be assessed with science and clear understandings. That said, no single actor can deliver alignment alone. Real progress depends on collaboration between regulators, policymakers, scientific bodies, and industry around a shared approach to measuring and comparing environmental impact. Chiesi stands ready to work with policymakers and partners across the healthcare ecosystem in favor of the adoption of PAS 2090:2025, understanding that achieving true regulatory harmonization is essential for ensuring patient access, maintaining high safety and quality standards, and fostering a globally competitive pharmaceutical industry in Europe. At the end of the day, the EU does not need another pilot program, framework, or national workaround. It needs a decision. It needs action. Europe must agree on how sustainability in healthcare is measured consistently and credibly across the single market. Measuring what matters, in the same way across Europe, is the only path to a climate-neutral, competitive, and fair European health system. Endorsing PAS 2090:2025 as the reference methodology would turn that principle into practice. Andrea Bonetti Andrea Bonetti is head of the EU office at Chiesi Farmaceutici, where he oversees the company’s public affairs strategy at European level across healthcare, sustainability and planetary health. Since opening Chiesi’s Brussels office in 2020, he has strengthened the company’s engagement with EU institutions, contributed to key policy discussions and supported initiatives to advance awareness on climate and environmental priorities in line with Chiesi’s values. He collaborates closely with cross-functional teams on the development and implementation of Chiesi’s sustainability strategy and represents the company within European and international trade associations. With more than 15 years of experience in health and environmental policy, he supports Chiesi’s external positioning and contributes to sector-wide work on environmental and sustainability frameworks. Disclaimer: POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Chiesi Farmaceutici * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on EU sustainability and Single Market policy. More information here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] European Commission. (2023). Annual Single Market Report 2023. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-01/ASMR%202023.pdf   [2] Healthcare Without Harm. (2022). Report: Procuring for greener pharma. https://europe.noharm.org/media/4639/download?inline=1   [3] European Union. (2025). Regulation (EU) 2025/327 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2025 on the European Health Data Space and amending Directive 2011/24/EU and Regulation (EU) 2024/2847. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/327 [4] European Commission. (2026). Public procurement. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/public-procurement_en [5] European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC) & Federation of European Academies of Medicine (FEAM). (2021). Decarbonisation of the health sector: A commentary by EASAC and FEAM. https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Health_Decarb/EASAC_Decarbonisation_of_Health_Sector_Web_9_July_2021.pdf.pdf [6]European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). (2025). Advancing environmental sustainability assessment of pharmaceuticals through standardisation and harmonisation of product carbon footprint assessment. https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/efpia-news/advancing-environmental-sustainability-assessment-of-pharmaceuticals-through-standardisation-and-harmonisation-of-product-carbon-footprint-assessment/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

A Swedish American businesswoman who mentored young women sent photos of some of the “best and brightest” to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who selected those he wanted to meet. Barbro Ehnbom — who has been celebrated in Sweden for “boosting women to the top” in typically male-dominated sectors including life sciences and finance — proposed young women for the late financier to meet at his New York City home over more than a decade as part of her women’s networking club. There is no suggestion that any of the women Ehnbom proposed to Epstein were underage or were abused by Epstein. Ehnbom didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment but said in a LinkedIn post in Swedish that she was “disgusted to have had any kind of contact” with someone “exposed for actions that lack any defense.” In hundreds of emails between Ehnbom and Epstein, or his assistant Lesley Groff, their chatty, familiar manner paints a picture of an established relationship that benefited them both. The communications continued from 2005 through 2018 — after his 2008 conviction and during his 13-month jail term. He died by suicide in jail in 2019. Ehnbom later said that she was “deeply outraged” by the abuse girls had been subjected to. The exchanges released by the U.S. Department of Justice and reviewed by POLITICO show Ehnbom telling Epstein she was financially dependent on him to continue her projects in Sweden. These included the Swedish-American Life Science Summit, an invitation-only event for businesses, scientists, and investors that she co-founded. It also included her young women’s networking club, Barbro’s Best and Brightest — her “BBBs” — and Sweden’s Female Economist of the Year scholarship, both launched in 2001. In numerous emails, Ehnbom asked Epstein for money and, sometimes, introductions to his network of wealthy people. The emails suggested Epstein frequently deposited $25,000 to organizations linked to Ehnbom, and Ehnbom hinted that Epstein had made a $100,000 donation. FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL ELITE In the messages, one woman thanked him for the “inspiring, exciting, and thoughtful conversation.” Another who he booked on a trip to Africa after speaking with him, described it as a “dream coming true.” Ehnbom shared a LinkedIn post on Dec. 16 on social media platform X from a former “BBB,” Camilla Wagner, who said that while she had never met Epstein, she knew women “who, like many in the financial, political, and business elite, had contact with him before 2019 when his monstrous crimes became known. Judging the story behind it without context is easy, but rarely honest,” she said. “BBB is not a network for ‘pretty women,'” she said. “It is a network of competent women who help each other in the same way they always have. Doors are opened. Contacts are shared. Careers are made possible.” This LinkedIn post no longer appears to be visible. POLITICO tried to contact Wagner but received no response. POLITICO, which has not identified the women to protect those who may have been victims, contacted three women on LinkedIn mentioned by Ehnbom in emails to Epstein, and whose names have not been redacted, but none replied to a request for comment. By July 2017, Ehnbom had mentored around 200 women through her best and brightest program, she told Epstein. Between May 2005 and July 2016, she discussed around 10 gatherings of “BBBs” at Epstein’s house in New York City. One evening, only a “small gathering” of six to eight women was possible. More women attended on other evenings. PHOTOS AND NOTES Ehnbom would drop names of the Swedish and American dignitaries she knew, but mainly she would discuss her “BBB girls” and the young women she’d like him to meet.   Ehnbom sent him photos of women, along with notes on their appearance, sometimes their age and whether she thought they would suit him: “little beautiful dark haired girl”; “VERY ATTRACTIVE”; “little blond girl in the pink dress … she is very pretty I think …  I notice you seem to have similar taste”; “22 today!!” On occasion, Ehnbom mentioned the women’s professional qualifications. These types of messages continued after his conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. Over the years, their correspondence shows a pattern of Ehnbom proposing women to attend evenings at Epstein’s New York City home with champagne and canapés. They also show that some of these women would directly contact Epstein after these events. Several would go on to visit him alone, others he mentored and one was lavished with a vacation to Africa. Those who were in direct contact with Epstein were often incredibly polite, appeared hugely appreciative, and some seemed flattered to be considered for a job by him. Correspondence following Skype messages conveyed overwhelming gratitude for his time. For some, Skype conversations were quickly followed by a suggestion to visit him. In the case of one woman, he asked his assistant to book her on a flight from Sweden to New York just four days later, in January 2014. Ehnbom didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment, by email and via LinkedIn. In a LinkedIn post in Swedish, she said: “I am deeply outraged by the abuse and harm that many girls have been subjected to. I feel disgusted to have had any kind of contact with the person who has now, posthumously, been exposed for actions that lack any defense. That feeling is shared by many who met him in professional environments and then perceived him as a respected and esteemed person — an image that has subsequently been reconsidered with horror.” Ehnbom also said that throughout her professional life, she has “worked with full transparency towards partners, educational institutions and other actors — in Sweden as well as internationally. This applies to assignments, collaborations, travels and professional contexts.” NAMES, PHOTOS AND DATES  Ehnbom’s relationship with Epstein predates his first jail term, coming after he pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution and soliciting prostitution from a minor. He was jailed in June 2008 in Florida, serving 13 months and granted extensive work release, allowing him to leave jail to work from his office during the day. In the years before he was jailed, Epstein would ask Ehnbom about specific women. “Jeffrey is wondering what ever happened with [redacted]? …and did you let the girl know she has a ticket to NY whenever she wants?” wrote Epstein’s assistant Groff in April 2006. She frequently wrote on Epstein’s behalf. Groff’s attorney told POLITICO she “spoke voluntarily with prosecutors and answered each and every question asked of her. Thereafter, she was told that she would not be prosecuted.” Ehnbom would suggest names, share photos and recommend dates for “BBB” evenings. She would propose meetings with women in New York, Paris and Sweden. “Is Jeffrey still in Paris? [redacted] could come and see him there from Lyons? Attached photos! Let me know!” she wrote in April 2008. Once his sexual offences were under investigation, Ehnbom remained loyal to Epstein. In a September 2007 email when he was facing the charges, she wrote:  “Why dont they go after that woman down there instead??!! … so sorry you have to go through all this shit.” Ehnbom kept in touch with Epstein when he was in jail, sending the sex offender updates on her various projects, photos of young women from her programs, and generally showing her support. “are you always out??? Wow, almost a full year now..?!! [How] do you feel now?” she wrote in June 2009, when Epstein would have been released from jail during the day. She often signed off saying she missed him. In an early 2009 email, during his sentence, she asked: “Did you like young [redacted] that I sent you last week?” It is not clear what she is referring to. Some of the women introduced to Epstein through Barbro also stayed loyal to him during his jail time for sex offences. In one email dated June 2009, a woman inquired of his assistant Groff: “How is he? Is he out yet? I heard from Barbro that he was permitted to work from time to time from his Florida office?”  In August of that year, another of Ehnbom’s women questioned if it was true that Epstein was out of jail, and asked to visit. Once his jail time was served, Epstein returned to hosting “BBB” gatherings at his New York home. Epstein and Ehnbom also spoke of women working as his “assistant” or for an undisclosed “job.” In 2013, Barbro suggested several women for him to speak with. He would vet their photos and resumes, then suggest they Skype.  “Barbo called … she is wondering if you have a job description for a job…she has 2 more girls she thinks may be good for you,” Epstein’s assistant Groff wrote to him in March 2013. To one woman, also in March 2013, Epstein wrote: “barbro suggested i contact you re a job in ny. could you please send me your resume.” She replied: “Unfortunately I have not had time to work that much in my life. I am turning 28 this summer. I was working full time as a fashion model before.” Epstein replied: “are you organized. computer literate . ? skpe tomomv?” “HAVE YOU FOUND A REPLACEMENT YET FOR [redacted] IF NOT SEND ME A JOB DESCRIPTION?” Ehnbom wrote in November 2013. “Early twenties , multilingual educated and organized,” Epstein replied. “[redacted] barbro suggested we skype, she said you wanted a job in the states?” Epstein wrote to a woman in January 2016. WEALTHY AND WELL-CONNECTED Ehnbom, now 80, taught business law and ethics at the Stockholm School of Economics and was a board member of the Swedish-American Chamber of Commerce. She had previously worked in the pharmaceutical industry and on Wall Street, according to her own website. She says on her website that she became “renowned for her valuable networks and her successful business-generating activities.”  Ehnbom also says on her website that she has been “passionate about supporting women in their professional careers,” as she found herself the only woman in male-dominated boardrooms. Her emails illustrate what appears to be a transactional relationship between Epstein and Ehnbom and her “BBBs”: He sends money, she suggests women for him to meet. “Here is my girl, sweet sparkling [redacted],” she wrote in April 2014. “you have good instincts, [redacted] is as advertised ― great,” Epstein wrote back in July. In an August 2012 email, Epstein asked “who is you r wife choice this year?” Ehnbom responds with an attached photo saying: “She is the one!” In another email dated March 2013 and simply titled “JE girl?” from Ehnbom, Epstein responds that he can fly her from Sweden to Paris to meet him. Many of these women were from Barbro’s best and brightest program, designed “to promote future women leaders through mentorship and interdisciplinary idea-exchange.” Barbro did not respond to questions about whether any of the women she proposed to Epstein were abused. In a separate LinkedIn post in Swedish, she said that she had “systematically collected and documented inaccuracies, insinuations and claims that are based on a narrative rather than verified facts. Several cases are currently being processed by the Media Ombudsman, and further investigations may be necessary.”   She also wrote: “My commitment has always been about opening doors to power, capital and networks for women ― nothing else.”  She went on to say that the Female Young Economist of the Year (FEOY) was financed through a fund administered by the School of Business, Economics and Law and that she did not receive any money in person. ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS Emails show she had asked Epstein to act as guarantor for her New York apartment (which he declined), as well as asking him for help finding a “tough New York litigator to help me get compensation for a deal I put together for a US and Swedish co That closed today in Sweden.” “Only FEOY winners traveled to New York ― to start their jobs,” she wrote. The BBBs project grew out of the finalists.  She added that the “roundtable discussions” in New York concerned women who already lived there, and that participants were “established professionals, not young students.” The Stockholm School of Economics cut its ties with Ehnbom in 2015 when it was informed by the news agency Reuters that the school was a recipient of donations from Epstein.  Ehnbom sided with Epstein over the school. In a subsequent email to him, she wrote: “Huge thanks for giving BBB another chance!!” in response to transferring more money. She accused the dean of the school of being an “idiot” for throwing out the BBB program. The school told POLITICO: “Following an internal review, we were able to conclude that two foundations … were linked to Jeffrey Epstein.” These foundations had donated to the Barbro Ehnbom Fund, a separate entity controlled by Ehnbom.  The school “administered the fund but did not exercise active control over incoming donations and was not aware of who was behind the two foundations. At that time, we concluded that our internal controls regarding donors had been insufficient.” ” … We strongly distance ourselves from everything that has come to light thanks to the files and the work of the media.”

The UK has historically been a global leader in life sciences innovation, but recent statistics paint a worrying picture for medicines access. The right policy can start to reverse this. We are living in a time where the intersection between breakthrough science, technology and data insights has the potential to transform treatment options for some of the toughest health conditions faced by patients in the UK. The UK has long played a central role in driving innovation when it comes to healthcare, and at Johnson & Johnson (J&J) we were pleased to see some positive signs from the Government at the end of 2025, illustrating an intent to reverse a decade of decline of investment in how the UK values innovative treatments. It was a positive first step, but now the real work begins to enable us to deliver the best possible outcomes for UK patients. To achieve this, our focus must be on ensuring our health system is set up to match the pace and gain the benefits of innovation that science provides. We need a supportive medicines environment that fully fosters growth, because even the most pioneering drugs and therapies are only valuable if they can be accessed by patients when they need them most. > even the most pioneering drugs and therapies are only valuable if they can be > accessed by patients when they need them most. At J&J, we are proud to have been part of the UK’s health innovation story for more than a century. We believe that turning ambition into delivery requires a clearer focus on the foundations that enable innovation to reach patients. We have had a substantial and long-term economic presence, with our expertise serving as the grounds for successful partnerships with patients, healthcare providers, clinical researchers and the NHS. Recent national developments are a step in the right direction The UK Government’s recent announcements on the life sciences industry are an important move to help address concerns around medicines access, innovation and the UK’s international standing. This includes a welcome planned increase to the baseline cost-effectiveness threshold (the first change to be made since its introduction in the early 2000s). While it is crucial to get this implemented properly, this seems like a step in the right direction — providing a starting point towards meaningful policy reform, industry partnership and progress for patients. The true impact of stifling medicine innovation in the UK compared with our peers These positive developments come at a critical time, but they do not fix everything. Over the past decade, spending on branded medicines has fallen in real terms, even as the NHS budget has grown by a third.[i] Years of cost-containment have left the UK health system ill-prepared for the health challenges of today, with short-term savings creating long-term consequences. Right now, access to innovative medicines in the UK lags behind almost every major European country[ii]; the UK ranks 16th and 18th among 19 comparable countries for preventable and treatable causes of mortality.[iii]These are conditions for which effective medicines already exist. Even when new medicines are approved, access is often restricted. One year after launch, usage of innovative treatments in England is just over half the average of comparator countries such as France, Germany and Spain.[iv] The effect is that people living with cancer, autoimmune conditions and rare diseases wait longer to access therapies that are already transforming lives elsewhere in Europe. And even at its new level, the UK’s Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing, Access and Growth (VPAG) clawback rate remains higher than in comparable countries.[v] J&J is committed to working together to develop a new pricing and access framework that is stable, predictable and internationally competitive — enabling the UK to regain its position as a leading destination for life sciences. Seeing the value of health and medicines investment as a catalyst for prosperity and growth Timely access to the right treatment achieves two things; it keeps people healthy and prevents disease worsening so they can participate in society and a thriving economy. New research from the WifOR Institute, funded by J&J, shows that countries that allocate more resources to health — especially when combined with a skilled workforce and strong infrastructure — consistently achieve better outcomes.[vi] > Timely access to the right treatment achieves two things; it keeps people > healthy and prevents disease worsening so they can participate in society and > a thriving economy. The UK Government’s recent recognition of the need for long-term change, setting out plans to increase investment in new medicines from 0.3 percent of GDP to 0.6 percent over the next 10 years is positive. It signals a move towards seeing health as one of our smartest long-term investments, underpinning the UK’s international competitiveness by beginning to bring us nearer to the levels in other major European countries. This mindset shift is critical to getting medicines to patients, and the life sciences ecosystem, including the pharmaceutical sector as a cornerstone, plays a pivotal role. It operates as a virtuous cycle — driven by the generation, production, investment in, access to and uptake of innovation. Exciting scientific developments and evolving treatment pathways mean that we have an opportunity to review the structures around medicines reimbursement to ensure they remain sustainable, competitive and responsive. At J&J, we have the knowledge and heritage to work hand-in-hand with the Government and all partners to achieve this. Together, we can realise the potential of medicine innovation in the UK Patients have the right to expect that science and innovation will reach them when they need it. Innovative treatments can be transformative for patients, meaning an improved quality of life or more precious time with loved ones. We fully support the Government’s ambitions for life sciences and the health of the nation. Now is the moment to deliver meaningful change — the NHS, Government and all system partners, including J&J, must look at what valuing innovation actually means when it comes to modernising the frameworks and mechanisms that support access and uptake. Practical ways to do this include: * Establishing a new pricing and access framework that is stable, predictable and internationally competitive. * Evolving medicines appraisal methods and processes, to deliver on the commitments of the UK-US Economic Prosperity Deal. * Adapting thresholds and value frameworks to ensure they are fit for the future — in the context of wider system pressures, including inflation, and the evolution of medical innovation requiring new approaches to assessment and access. > the NHS, Government and all system partners, including J&J, must look at what > valuing innovation actually means when it comes to modernising the frameworks > and mechanisms that support access and uptake. By truly recognising the value of health as an investment, rather than as a cost, we can return the UK to a more competitive position. The direction of travel is positive. At J&J, we stand ready to work in partnership to help ensure the UK is once again the best place in the world to research, develop and access medicines. Follow Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine UK on LinkedIn for updates on our business, our people and our community. CP-562703 | January 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [i] House of Commons Library (2026). ‘NHS Funding and Expenditure’ Research Briefing. Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn00724/ (Accessed January 2026). [ii] IQVIA & EFPIA (2025). EFPIA Patients W.A.I.T Indicator 2024 Survey. Available at: https://efpia.eu/media/oeganukm/efpia-patients-wait-indicator-2024-final-110425.pdf. (Accessed January 2026) [iii] The Kings Fund (2022). ‘How does the NHS compare to the health care systems of other countries?’ Available at: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/reports/nhs-compare-health-care-systems-other-countries (Accessed January 2026) [iv] Office for Life Sciences (2024). Life sciences competitiveness indicators 2024: summary. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/life-sciences-sector-data-2024/life-sciences-competitiveness-indicators-2024-summary (Accessed January 2026). [v] ABPI. VPAG payment rate for newer medicines will be 14.5% in 2026. December 2025. Available at: https://www.abpi.org.uk/media/news/2025/december/vpag-payment-rate-for-newer-medicines-will-be-145-in-2026/. (Accessed January 2026). [vi] WifOR Institute (2025). Healthy Returns: A Catalyst for Economic Growth and Resilience. Available at: https://www.wifor.com/en/download/healthy-returns-a-catalyst-for-economic-growth-and-resilience/?wpdmdl=360794&refresh=6942abe7a7f511765977063. (Accessed January 2026).