By Seve Loudon, Account Manager
The World Health Assembly offers an annual snapshot of global health financing. This year, the picture is stark: funding is contracting just as health needs are expanding.
Preliminary data point to a projected 30% drop in official development assistance (ODA) (financial support from governments and/or philanthropic organisations to low- and middle-income countries) since 2024, driven in a large part by major donors scaling back their roles. Together, the US, UK, Germany, France and Japan have accounted for over a third of all health financing on average over the last 5 years. As their contributions contract, a clear delivery and funding gap is emerging.
This gap is creating a leadership moment for the private sector – one that goes beyond short-term support and towards a more formal role in delivering national and global health priorities.
A widening gap between funding and need
The reduction in ODA comes at a time of shifting global health priorities. Alongside ongoing infectious disease challenges, attention is increasingly turning to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) and mental health, which represent a growing burden on both economies and health systems.
NCDs and mental health conditions account for nearly US$3 trillion in lost economic productivity and health system costs, and have a significant impact the lives of people living with one or more of these conditions. The UN Political Declaration on NCDs and Mental Health (2025) underlines the urgent need to address these diseases that account for the majority of premature deaths globally, but delivery at scale will depend on sustained financing and implementation capacity.
As healthcare budgets tighten, many countries will turn to invest in system-wide reform to reduce the burden of NCDs on health systems, society and economies that is less reliant on global aid; which has already begun to occur with initiatives like the Accra Reset.
Closing the gap will require new partnerships
This question is becoming more urgent as multilateral budgets come under pressure. The WHO’s 2026-27 programme budget, agreed last year, saw a 9% decrease from the previous cycle, reinforcing constraints across the global health architecture and reducing funding for infectious disease programmes, that have a knock-on impact in funding available for NCD prevention, diagnosis and care.
At the same time, many governments are looking inward, reshaping development strategies to prioritise domestic interests. While ODA remains important – particularly for enabling health system change – it is no longer sufficient on its own to drive progress on at the scale required.
Taken together, these trends point to a growing implementation gap: ambitious global health goals without the financing or delivery capacity to match.
Early signals of a shifting model
There are already signs that the model is beginning to evolve.
Private sector contributions to global health are increasing and partnerships between the life sciences industry and international institutions are expanding. Collaborations with the WHO Foundation – covering areas such as suicide prevention, eliminating neglected tropical diseases and tackling cardio-renal-metabolic conditions – illustrate a growing appetite for engagement in global health priorities.
At the same time, some governments are beginning to embed industry more explicitly in into their global health strategies. For example, the German strategy for international development has a big emphasis on including German companies on the implementation of their development strategy and France has looked to better incorporate engagement with industry into their global health strategy.
These developments suggest a gradual shift: from a model where industry plays a peripheral or philanthropic role, to one where it is seen as a strategic delivery partner.
Why philanthropy alone cannot fill the gap
Private philanthropy will continue to play an important role. Organisations such as the Gates Foundation and GAVI have been central to global health progress over the past two decades, mobilising significant funding and shaping global priorities.
However, philanthropy has limitations. Funding is often time-bound, Gates has already announced plans to sunset their giving and institutions like GAVI have technical constraints in reaching beyond their priority countries and focus areas.
This reinforces the need for a broader base of support that can combine capital, delivery capability and long-term system engagement. The life sciences industry is uniquely positioned to contribute to all three.
What this means for the life sciences sector
The private sector cannot replace the global health financing architecture, but it can play a more deliberate and structured role in supporting long-term global goals and immediate population needs.
At a national level, this means aligning investment and partnership models with country priorities – supporting national systems to deliver against national and global health commitments made via UN and WHO resolutions.
At an international level, it means expanding collaboration with institutions such as the WHO Foundation to support shared goals.
Increasingly, it also means engaging not only health ministries but also foreign and finance ministries, as countries rethink how health programmes are funded and delivered.
As global health delivery evolves, companies that understand what value they bring to the table and who engage more systematically with governments and global institutions on shared interests will be better placed to support priority health needs and demonstrate long-term impact. In short, leaning into the funding challenges faced by governments today offers an opportunity not just to respond to the gap, but to help shape a more resilient and collaborative model of global health.