On Monday, the World Health Organization (WHO) held the thirteenth meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to continue negotiations over the Pandemic Agreement. The meeting was the first since the United States, previously the WHO’s largest funder, withdrew from the talks. The INB missed a deadline last May to reach consensus on the agreement.
Against that backdrop, the London School of Economics and Political Science’ Clare Wenham discusses her recent study, which questions whether the money governments spend on the INB is worth the Pandemic Agreement. Wenham notes that global health funding is already in short supply and that other WHO treaties have met with mixed results.
Next, President of SJMD Solutions Sunny Jha explains how medical accrediting organizations could help fill the void created by the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO. Jha suggests that although those organizations cannot fully replace U.S. financial contributions, they can leverage their expertise to provide technical support and strengthen health-care systems.
The edition then turns to Latin America. CFR’s global health intern Anya Hirschfeld draws on her conversations with health workers to outline how cultural norms and limited health-care access are driving intimate-partner violence in Peru—where rates are twice the global average.
Community health outreach worker Sara Habibipour wraps up the issue by showcasing how health workers in Bolivia—the country most vulnerable to climate change in South America—are innovating medical delivery to stay ahead of the threats posed by extreme weather events.
Until next week!—Nsikan Akpan, Managing Editor, and Caroline Kantis, Associate Editor
