The European Medicines Agency released results of an internal survey that asked staff to which proposed cities they would consider relocating. The lowest-ranking city was one to which only 6% of respondents were likely or very likely to relocate.
This week, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) issued an update on its business continuity plan in preparation for the agency’s relocation. The EMA must move from its current location in London as the United Kingdom finalizes its withdrawal from the European Union.
As the focal point of its update, the EMA made public the results of a survey completed by 92% of EMA staff, which indicated that, for 65% of respondents, the eventual location of the EMA will be a determining factor in their decision to remain with the agency. In the worst-case scenario, the plan said, the agency could be left unable to function, and “As there is no backup, this would have important consequences for public health in the [European Union, EU].”
In the survey results, the EMA did not specify which cities had garnered higher or lower prospective retention rates, but disclosed that the top-ranking location was one to which 81% of respondents were likely or very likely to relocate. The lowest-ranking city was one to which only 6% of respondents were likely or very likely to relocate.
Using the survey results, the EMA broke the candidate locations into 4 groups:
The 19 cities with pending offers to host the EMA are as follows, in alphabetical order: Amsterdam, Netherlands; Athens, Greece; Barcelona, Spain; Bonn, Germany; Bratislava, Slovakia; Brussels, Belgium; Bucharest, Romania; Copenhagen, Denmark; Dublin, Ireland; Helsinki, Finland; Lille, France; Malta; Milan, Italy; Porto, Portugal; Sofia, Bulgaria; Stockholm, Sweden; Vienna, Austria; Warsaw, Poland; and Zagreb, Croatia.
European ministers will determine a new location for the EMA by vote in November, 2017. Under the complex voting system, each EU member state will be allowed to give 3 votes for its first choice, 2 for its second choice, and 1 for its third choice. If a city earns at least 14 separate 3-point votes, it will be named the winner. Otherwise, a second round of voting will proceed with a run-off among the 3 highest-scoring cities, with each member nation having 1 vote. In the event that no winner is determined in this second round, a final run-off will be held between the top 2 cities.
What Stands in the Way of Biosimilar Use Across MENA Countries?
May 21st 2025Despite the clear promise of cost savings and expanded access, the path to integrating generics and biosimilars across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is tangled in a web of distrust, inconsistent policies, and deep-rooted cultural preferences for branded drugs.
Escaping the Void: All Things Biosimilars With Craig & G
May 4th 2025To close out the Festival of Biologics, Craig Burton and Giuseppe Randazzo from the Association for Accessible Medicines and the Biosimilars Council tackle the current biosimilar landscape and how the industry can emerge from the "biosimilar void."
The Trump Administration’s Drug Price Actions and Why US Prices Are Already Sky-High
May 17th 2025While the Trump administration’s latest executive order touts sweeping drug price cuts through international benchmarking, the broader pharmaceutical pricing crisis in the US reveals a far more complex web of development costs, profit incentives, and absent price controls—raising the question of whether any single policy, including potential drug tariffs, can truly untangle it.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
Targeted Reimbursement Encourages Oncology Biosimilar Use
May 7th 2025Incentivizing physicians with modest financial bonuses may seem like a small step, but in Japan’s outpatient oncology setting, it helped push trastuzumab biosimilars toward broader adoption, demonstrating how even limited reimbursement reforms can reshape prescribing behavior under the right conditions.