With a legislative act on critical medicines and a pharmaceutical package in the making, the European Parliament is heavily engaged in health-related issues. Not to mention the return of Donald Trump to power in the United States, which brings its share of uncertainties and concerns. Euractiv spoke with MEP Tilly Metz, vice-chair of the Parliament’s newly established Health Committee.

As she begins her third term, Luxembourgish MEP Tilly Metz (Greens/EFA) answers our questions and explains her plan to restore balance in relations with the pharmaceutical industry.

What follows is an edited transcript.

What are your priorities for this mandate?

The first is the shortage of healthcare personnel – not just doctors but also nurses and caregivers. We are currently lacking nearly two million healthcare workers. Even in Luxembourg, we rank at the lower end in terms of doctors per 100,000 inhabitants. So, we shouldn’t only focus on salaries but also on working conditions.

I also want to work on rare diseases, and I have high hopes for the European Health Data Space to improve interoperability and the exchange of best practices.

Then, there’s the Critical Medicines Act. Everything related to pharmaceutical legislation and our relationship with the pharma industry – especially regarding transparency, relocation, and potential medicine shortages – is crucial.

Issues such as antibiotic resistance are also key, and we need a different cooperation model with the pharmaceutical industry. Lastly, there’s women’s health, which has been overlooked for too long.

Do you think Trump’s tariffs could affect discussions and negotiations on the pharmaceutical package?

Trump also wants to introduce tariffs related to the pharmaceutical industry. Of course, this is a risk, but on the other hand, it could lead to greater autonomy and independence within the EU.

Some pharmaceutical companies might decide to stay in Europe, as they shouldn’t forget that the EU is the largest single market. I believe we need to regain some control as a public authority and tell companies, “We provide financial support,” while setting very clear conditions.

I advocate for a different model with the pharmaceutical industry – a kind of subscription system where we pay a set amount every month. In return, the industry would be required to provide updates on their progress, ensure transparency, and maintain stock levels.

Oversight of this could be entrusted to HERA, for which we could create a new regulatory framework, for example.

So, should the EU be stricter with the industry?

COVID-19 showed that we were too dependent on the pharmaceutical industry. The Commission’s decision to initially work with six pharmaceutical companies for vaccine development was not a bad one.

Negotiating as a bloc of 27 countries proved that we could collaborate in the field of health. But beyond crisis situations, we should have a public infrastructure that guarantees a certain percentage of essential medicines and production.

Just this morning in Luxembourg, there was a shortage of Ventolin, for example. So yes, we need to be strict, but we also need constructive cooperation to restore a balance between the industry and public authorities. I believe we should work together, but the general framework of our relationship with the industry needs to be redefined.

Coming back to the U.S. influence more broadly, do you fear a “Trump effect” on healthcare?

We can already see the effects – just consider the decision to withdraw from the WHO, the appointment of a staunch anti-vaccine advocate as Secretary of Health, and the anti-abortion stance. The consequences are already visible. In a globalised world, with frozen funds and Trump’s decisions, this will lead to thousands of deaths.

Diseases spread just as harmful ideas do. Trump’s rhetoric has resulted in an EU country – Hungary – now discussing the possibility of leaving the WHO. There is, of course, a real risk of a domino effect. Beyond that, his policies are also harmful to human lives, the environment, and, in the medium term, the economy.

Beyond the negotiations on ongoing legislative texts, your mandate will also be marked by the upcoming Critical Medicines Act, expected to be announced by mid-March. What do you expect from this proposal?

Everyone agrees that we need to be more efficient in the health sector, particularly in ensuring access to essential medicines. We don’t yet know the full details of this proposal, but I believe it is crucial to take a ‘One Health’ approach – a holistic strategy that considers air and soil pollution, among other factors.

There is an urgent need to act, but it is better to have a well-thought-out text with proper impact assessments rather than rushing into deregulation without analysing the consequences.

You seem to have a clear vision on this topic. Would you consider pushing for a key role in the negotiations, such as co-rapporteur?

That would be complicated. I believe some among the sovereigntists and the far-right still hold a grudge against me for my first vice-presidency. So, being co-rapporteur would be difficult. However, I am convinced that I can do excellent work as a shadow rapporteur. This position allows for less direct influence on the text, but it should not be underestimated.