WHO’s New Financial Blueprint in Tackling Global Health

During and after the COVID-19 pandemic, we’ve seen how the role of the World Health Organization (WHO) in global health is indispensable. Yet, the organization faces a recurring challenge—financial instability. The past few years have exposed its vulnerabilities, particularly with its reliance on voluntary contributions from member states. This weakness became glaringly evident when former U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the WHO during his first term, stripping away a significant portion of its funding. The subsequent reentry under President Joe Biden, accompanied by nearly half a billion dollars in funding, offered temporary relief, but with another withdrawal by Trump looming as a possibility, the issue remains unresolved.

This unpredictability raises a fundamental question: Can the WHO continue to operate effectively under its current financial model?

The Problem with a Donation-Dependent Model

Unlike private enterprises or even some non-governmental organizations (NGOs), WHO does not have a strong, independent revenue stream to ensure long-term stability.

A clear example of the pitfalls of this system can be seen in the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. This WHO-partnered program made remarkable progress in reducing polio cases worldwide. However, funding gaps in certain years slowed down its momentum, paving way for outbreaks to persist in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan.

To create a more sustainable financial ecosystem, the WHO ought to embrace a corporate-like strategy that focuses on diversified funding.

Lessons from the UAE: A Model Based on Long-Term Impact

Unlike traditional donor countries that contribute sporadically, the UAE has taken a strategic approach by investing in long-term healthcare projects that align with both national and global health priorities. 

In 2017, the UAE pledged $100 million to eliminate river blindness and lymphatic filariasis in Africa. Rather than a one-time donation, the UAE ensured that these funds were disbursed over multiple years. The results have been transformative, as seen by the reduced disease prevalence and strengthening of the healthcare systems in the affected regions.

Similarly, the Sheikh Fatima Fund in the UAE has taken a sustainable approach in Mauritania by training midwives instead of merely donating mobile health units. So what’s happening here is that skills are being transferred to local professionals, which empowers them to independently manage maternal healthcare programs in the long run.

Going by these examples, it wouldn’t be wrong to believe that financial sustainability is achievable when funding is structured around long-term impact rather than short-term relief. If the WHO were to take advantage of such approaches, it could significantly enhance its ability to respond to global health challenges.

Other Key Strategies for a More Resilient WHO

To ensure the WHO’s long-term viability, several strategic shifts must be considered:

1. Diversifying Funding Sources

One of the biggest weaknesses of WHO’s current financial system is its overreliance on government contributions. A more diversified funding model could create a broader financial base.

An example of this approach is Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Unlike WHO, Gavi has successfully secured long-term partnerships with corporations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and pharmaceutical companies which ensures a steady stream of funding for vaccine distribution worldwide. This type of financial structure allows Gavi to maintain operations even when government funding fluctuates.

2. Long-term Strategic Planning

WHO needs to shift away from reactive, short-term funding cycles and develop multi-year financial roadmaps. Clear objectives, measurable outcomes, and transparent allocation of funds will make WHO a more attractive partner for long-term investors.

UNICEF, which is another UN-affiliated agency, has successfully implemented multi-year funding strategies for global child health initiatives. And with this, UNICEF has been able to sustain life-saving programs such as immunization campaigns and maternal healthcare support in low-income countries.

3. Strengthening Healthcare Diplomacy

WHO should also leverage its unique position as a global health leader to spearhead stronger international collaborations. Engaging with countries that prioritize healthcare investments, such as the UAE, Switzerland, and Germany, could result in joint ventures that align financial resources with shared health objectives.

For instance, the UAE’s partnership with the Carter Center in fighting Guinea worm disease has shown how cross-country collaboration can accelerate disease eradication efforts.

4. Innovative Funding Mechanisms

Beyond traditional contributions, WHO could explore modern financing tools such as social impact bonds (SIBs) and health investment funds. These mechanisms allow investors to fund health initiatives with returns tied to measurable health improvements.

A prime example of this model in action is the Development Impact Bond (DIB) used in India to improve education and health outcomes. Private investors fund programs upfront, and their returns are paid by donors only when pre-agreed results are achieved.

5. Transparent Reporting and Accountability

Donors, whether governments or private entities, are more likely to invest in organizations that demonstrate transparency and accountability. WHO can opt to prioritize real-time reporting on how funds are used, the progress of health initiatives, and the impact achieved.

Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) does this. They publish detailed financial reports on how every dollar is spent. This level of transparency has helped the organization build trust with donors and maintain steady financial support.

6. Crowdfunding Campaigns

WHO could engage the global public in funding specific health initiatives through crowdfunding campaigns. Micro-donations from millions of individuals worldwide could provide a steady supplemental revenue stream for emergency responses and long-term projects.

Platforms like GoFundMe and GiveDirectly have proven that collective small donations can generate millions of dollars for urgent health needs. WHO can take that direction, and create an official global health crowdfunding platform that allows individuals to contribute directly to specific health programs they care about.

7. Monetizing WHO’s Expertise & Data for Revenue Generation

WHO has access to vast amounts of global health data, research, and expertise that could be leveraged for sustainable funding. Instead of offering all its resources for free, it could create a tiered-access model where premium insights and specialized consulting services are available for a fee to corporations.

The World Bank and IMF generate revenue by offering consulting and data-driven advisory services to member countries. WHO could similarly offer specialized health advisory services to governments, particularly in developing countries that seek guidance on health related matters.

Conclusion

WHO’s challenges in the past few years have exposed the urgent need for a more resilient financial model that is sustainable and even more importantly—resilient to political shifts. To secure its position as a global health leader for years to come, WHO needs to embrace a more corporate-like approach—one that prioritizes diversified funding.

The WHO must now take inspiration from other organization’s success stories and chart a new course toward financial independence.

A stronger, better-funded WHO is a goal that the whole world will definitely reap from. Because in a world where pandemics, climate-related health crises, and emerging diseases are not rare, we need an organization that can act swiftly and decisively, free from the constraints of uncertain funding. It’s time for the WHO to redefine its financial prowess—and with the right strategy, the future looks promising