• Impact of funding cuts through USAID, other agencies 'will be even greater, and we are already seeing them,' Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warns

GENEVA

The effect of the US funding cuts is already visible and will be "greater," the World Health Organization (WHO) chief said Monday, asking Washing to reconsider its decision.

The impact of funding cuts through USAID and other agencies "will be even greater, and we are already seeing them," Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a WHO press briefing.

Regarding the impacts of the cuts, Tedros said that in many countries, the loss of US funding threatens to reverse progress in disease control, immunization rates, maternal and child health, and emergency preparedness.

"Many of the gains" in malaria that have been made over the past 20 years are "now at risk," he said.

"There are now severe disruptions to the supply of malaria diagnostics, medicines and insecticide-treated bed nets due to stock-outs, delayed delivery, or lack of funding," he said.

Noting that the US has been "the largest bilateral donor" to the fight against malaria over the last two decades, he warned: "If disruptions continue, we could see an additional 15 million cases of malaria and 107,000 deaths this year alone, reversing 15 years of progress."

It is a similar story with HIV, he said, explaining that the suspension of most funding to PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) caused an immediate stop to services for HIV treatment, testing and prevention in more than 50 countries.

He said that as a result, eight countries now have substantial disruptions to antiretroviral therapy and will run out of medicines in the coming months, without naming the countries.

"Disruptions to HIV programs could undo 20 years of progress, leading to more than 10 million additional cases of HIV and 3 million HIV-related deaths – more than triple the number of deaths last year," he stressed.

On tuberculosis (TB), according to Tedros, 27 countries in Africa and Asia are facing crippling breakdowns in their response, with shortages of human resources, disruptions to diagnosis and treatment, data and surveillance systems collapsing, and vital community engagement work deteriorating.

Nine countries have reported failing procurement and supply chains for TB drugs, he said, underlining the importance of US support for TB services which were significant over the past two decades.

Additionally, WHO's Global Measles and Rubella Network of more than 700 laboratories, which was funded solely by the US, faces an imminent shutdown, he said, adding: "This comes at the worst possible time when measles is making a comeback."

Last year, there were 57 large or disruptive measles outbreaks, and that number has been increasing for the past three years, according to the WHO.

Tedros said the sudden cuts to US funding are also affecting efforts to eradicate polio, to monitor the emergence of diseases such as avian influenza, and to respond to disease outbreaks and humanitarian crises.

"Almost 24 million people living in such crises are at risk of not being able to access essential health services," he said. "More than 2,600 health facilities in 12 humanitarian crises have already suspended services at least partially, or will do very soon."

Tedros said the US has the right to decide what it supports, however, the country also has a responsibility to ensure that "if it withdraws direct funding for countries, it is done in an orderly and humane way that allows them to find alternative sources of funding."

"We ask the US to reconsider its support for global health, which not only saves lives around the world, it also makes the US safer, by preventing outbreaks from spreading internationally," he said.

"If the US decides not to restore direct funding to countries, we ask it to engage in dialogue with affected countries so plans can be made to transition from reliance on US funding to more sustainable solutions, without disruptions that cost lives," the WHO chief said.

He also said that no matter whether the US funding returns or not, other states need to step up and progressively increase domestic health spending, calling it "now more important than ever."