Public Pharma, as articulated by the People’s Health Movement (PHM), refers to the research, development, manufacturing, and distribution of health technologies carried out under public ownership, with the explicit aim of serving collective health needs rather than private profit. It is understood not merely as a corrective to so‑called market failures, but as a systemic infrastructure that redefines medicines and health technologies as public goods.

In this sense, Public Pharma is framed as part of a broader struggle against capitalism, imperialism, and neoliberal health policies. It is aligned with the principles of the Alma‑Ata Declaration—equity, universal access, community participation, and self‑reliance (People’s Health Movement, 2024).

This vision positions Public Pharma as a transformative force: dismantling the dominance of transnational corporations (Big Pharma), rejecting Public‑Private Partnerships that socialize risks while privatizing profits, and advancing a commons‑based and solidarity‑driven approach to health. PHM emphasizes that Public Pharma must go beyond addressing gaps left by the private sector. It should actively secure health sovereignty, foster international solidarity, integrate diverse knowledge systems (including traditional medicine), and promote ecological sustainability (De Ceukelaire & Joye, 2024; Florio et al., 2021).

Ultimately, Public Pharma is conceived as a cornerstone of a just, eco‑socialist, decolonial, feminist, and anti‑patriarchal order in which Health for All is realized as a human right (People’s Health Movement, 2024).

Before examining Apotek Produktion & Laboratorier (APL), it is important to ground the broader vision of Public Pharma in a concrete example that illustrates its possibilities and  limitations in practice. While the PHM framework sets out an ambitious and transformative agenda, states have already experimented—albeit in partial and constrained ways—with publicly owned pharmaceutical infrastructures. Sweden’s APL stands out as one such case: a state‑owned company that demonstrates how public intervention can directly address health needs neglected by the market. By ensuring access to medicines for patients with special requirements and supporting hospitals with essential sterile products, APL can be seen as a clear example of Public Pharma, even if not yet fully aligned with PHM’s transformative goals. Looking at APL thus provides a useful entry point to reflect on how governments can move toward building pharmaceutical systems that prioritize collective health needs over profit, and what challenges remain in expanding such initiatives into broader models of health sovereignty and solidarity.

This report is based on desk research and policy analysis. It reviews official documents from APL and the Swedish government, European Commission publications, academic studies, and selected media sources. We have tried to contact APL for more information but were declined in our request. By comparing these materials, the report identifies APL’s main functions, strengths, and limitations, while also placing it in the wider context of European pharmaceutical policy debates. The focus is on synthesizing existing knowledge rather than generating new empirical data, with the aim of providing a clear and accessible description of APL’s role in Sweden’s health system and its relevance for the global discussion on Public Pharma.

Download the Public Pharma in Sweden: the APL Case