The Lancet: The case for investing in WHO
Editorial Board

“…At first sight, [the WHO’s] investment case seems compelling. … Perplexing is the disconnect between the claims of impact in the investment case and of those in the accompanying technical report, which estimates the health impacts and economic returns for universal health coverage (UHC), health emergencies, and intersectoral action based on a collective global investment — and not for specific investments in WHO. … A valuable contribution of the investment case would have been to clearly articulate what WHO will actually do in its three priority areas and where its comparative advantage lies: global public goods and normative work, emergency preparedness, and support to countries in developing the health policies needed to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). At a time when WHO is competing for limited donor resources against other institutions, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, a clear explanation of how additional investments will deliver the goals set out in the investment case seems crucial. … [I]t is right that WHO is calling on donors to strengthen the agency’s global, regional, and country capacities to take advantage of the opportunities that exist for improving human health. Sharpening the investment case still further will go a long way to fulfill that opportunity” (9/29).