The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United States Implications

 

The World Health Organization is a global agency that was founded in 1948 to help promote health and expand universal healthcare coverage. Additionally, they help supply important medicine and medical equipment across the globe in order to promote a better future for all. Recently, there has been an executive order signed by President Trump on January 20th of 2025 that will withdraw the United States of America from the WHO. This will have a large impact due to the US being the largest beneficiary by spending 958 million dollars from 2024-2025 with the second largest group being the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (689 million), the third being GAVI alliance (500 million) and the fourth being the European Commission (412 million). It is said that the United States pays around $116 million each year to WHO which is 24% of the organization’s budget. With the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization a large part of its funding will be cut short which can have potential future effects on the control of the spread of diseases.


While I believe that the United States should stay in the WHO and continue to be a leader on promoting global health, I do think that it is surprising that the two largest groups to donate are American. It will be interesting in future years to see what happens with the organization in terms of if fellow countries decide to contribute more money into the funds and/or if third world countries see a decrease in health due to a large beneficiary withdrawing. Personally, I think that while contributing to the world’s health is very important, I can also see the view that it is not the United States’ job to support many other countries when our current healthcare system is poor. It reminds me a bit of the proverb from Matthew in the bible that talks about taking out your own sawdust in your eye before helping others. It could be possible to having a moment to step back from helping others and may be able to help our local community in the United States before stepping in to help other countries. This may be a good opportunity for a future president to help reconstruct and build up our healthcare system in the United States and then join back with improved knowledge. One area that we can rebuild in the US is to help make healthcare more affordable and accessible by implementing some type of universal healthcare for our citizens. 


With that being said, I think that by the US withdrawing from the WHO, the world’s point of view on the United States will change and lead to a much bigger impact than saving money in the short term. By helping other countries with healthcare it has given the USA a diplomatic way to converse with others and to stand as a diplomatic leader in the world. I feel like the COVID-19 Pandemic, which occurred about 5 years ago should be a fresh reminder about how important global health is for the longevity and health of every person regardless of where they live. While the financial investment is still locked in for this year the USA’s immediate withdrawal will likely impact the jobs, work, and functions that the WHO can accomplish this year and in the future. I believe that while withdrawing from the WHO is not best for global health maybe we can have our government focus on our own healthcare and then come back to helping the world with the hopes that other countries start contributing. This would be beneficial to both main points of view in the United States. One being that the US should not be spending that much money on a global health initiative when other countries are not matching our spending. Secondly, that the US should continue to be leaders in healthcare in the world.


Largest contributors to WHO by fund type 2024-2025 | Statista

Public health milestones through the years

The Consequences of the U.S.’s Withdrawal from the WHO | Johns Hopkins | Bloomberg School of Public Hea

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Rise of Fungal Infections

  By Meghan Farrell When people think about deadly infections, they usually think of bacteria or viruses, or maybe a pandemic-style flu. This often excludes fungi because fungi have a difficult time growing at human body temperature, so we do not often see many systemic infections caused by fungi. However, since 2016, fungi have been quietly making a move, and we don’t have many weapons to stop them. One of the biggest threats right now is Candida auris , a small yeast that has been popping up in hospitals around the world. And the worst part is that it is getting harder and harder to kill. Discovered in Japan in 2009, C. auris has since spread to dozens of countries, including the U.S. It’s not your typical fungal infection. C. auris loves hospital settings, clinging to surfaces, spreading between patients, and resisting standard cleaning methods. Unlike common yeast infections, it doesn’t just stay on the skin. It can invade the bloodstream, leading to severe infec...
Read more

Personalized Healthcare

Image
By Zeyu Xia Introduction      What is Personalized Healthcare?     Personalized health care is an overarching framework for proactive, personalized health care that provides individuals with a personal health plan to maximize their health and minimize disease. It utilizes predictive technologies to establish each individual’s health risks and facilitates patients’ engagement in their health along with the development of plans and a care delivery system designed to achieve the best health outcomes.      Why Is Personalized Healthcare Important?      T he personalization of healthcare offers a wide range of benefits for both healthcare providers and their patients. These benefits include: 1)  Improved disease detection; 2) Lower health care costs for patients; 3)  Better clinical outcomes and patients' quality of life; 4) Increased patient activation and engagement.      There are three time pe...
Read more

Why don't pharmacists have provider status yet??

Pharmacists are not currently recognized as providers, and have faced major challenges in attaining provider status. Though most people associate provider status with prescribing, lacking this designation at a federal level means that practicing pharmacists cannot be reimbursed by Medicare for services that they already provide ,  such as point-of-care screening.  There are some settings where pharmacists can provide services that a mid-level practitioner can provide (NP, PA, etc.), but this is determined by state. In some states, community pharmacists have the ability to provide based on a point-of-care screening results; for example, Colorado allows statin prescribing in the community setting . Other states allow pharmacists to prescribe under  collaborative practice agreements, though the terms are often more stringent than one an NP or PA might sign. Despite these, the proper recognition and reimbursement is sorely lacking.  Though most major pharmaceutical ...
Read more