Yet today, we find ourselves dismantling these hard-won achievements. Extraordinary cuts to disease prevention, research, and surveillance programs signal a large-scale reversal of a successful strategy of containment and elimination. Such an irresponsible pivot risks opening the door for vaccine-preventable diseases, drug-resistant infections and new pandemics to reemerge with devastating force. If we continue down this path, the consequences will be felt not just in developing nations, but across the industrialized world, where health systems already are under strain.

It could take years to regain the high ground we currently hold against infectious diseases; many countries may never get there again. While pursuing modernization and efficiencies in the global health system is vital, randomly eliminating or suppressing funding and institutions we rely on to develop the pipeline of new vaccines, therapeutics, and practices to fight tomorrow’s pathogens only weakens us further. Our most dangerous disease threats constantly evolve, probe our weaknesses, and exploit natural opportunities to strike.

The attack on America’s preeminent medical research institutions and the innovations they fuel severely undermines our ability to counter disease while degrading the very talent we need to protect us: the next generation of scientists and medical researchers.

Many prominent health leaders are sounding the alarm, but until a coalition of the informed begins to take shape, we may as well be screaming into the wind. Unless a concerted effort is made to change course, the infrastructure, jobs, institutional knowledge, and recruitment of future health experts that constitute one of humanity’s greatest achievements may be dismantled. Surely by now we have learned that research and disease prevention is dramatically less costly than deploying the vast resources necessary to respond to a new outbreak.

Here’s one path forward: U.S. health communicators, advocates, and leaders should coordinate framing the issues to state and congressional lawmakers who stand to lose the most from the current health funding policy direction. Many of the places contributing the most to America’s competitive advantage in biomedical research are in conservative districts that receive funding from the NIH and other public sources.

Similarly, emerging diseases often pose the highest threat to people battling chronic diseases or living in areas underserved by health services, which means all of us are affected, regardless of economic status or ideological belief. People at every level of the health system—from practitioners to patients, researchers to drugmakers—should be energized to speak with one voice and let policymakers know that retreat in the face of defeatable disease threats is the wrong direction for the U.S.

Disease is humanity’s greatest enemy, and it constantly hovers at our doorstep. Do we pretend not to hear it knocking, or do we recognize its dangers and act?

That’s exactly the moment we are facing now. Our situation is complicated by the fact that our most important defenses – biomedical research and disease prevention infrastructure – are being demolished before our eyes. It will take real courage to act, but we must marshal our resources, defying the ambivalence and dismissiveness that make us more vulnerable to looming infectious disease threats. This is no time to retreat.

The post A Turning Point for Global Health appeared first on Medika Life.

Attending the ENBEL (Enhancing Belmont Research Action to support EU policy-making on climate change and health) conference in Brussels, which focused on ‘Health Impacts of Climate Change — Advancing the European Adaptation Agenda to 2030,’ profoundly heightened my awareness of the pressing need for more robust financial resources in health adaptation to climate change. The conference unequivocally illuminated that current levels of health adaptation funding for addressing climate-related challenges are woefully inadequate.

New research, funded by ENBEL, provides concerning evidence that only a tiny fraction of international climate adaptation financing has been directed towards health needs over the past decade. Analysing data from 2009–2019, just 4.9% of multilateral and bilateral climate adaptation funds went to health projects globally. This equates to only US$ 1.4 billion out of over US$ 29 billion in total adaptation financing over a ten-year period. Worse still is the pitiful amount for projects with explicit health objectives, just US$ 0.1 billion.

Not only are overall volumes low, but very little targets core health system needs. Projects where health was the primary focus made up only 0.5% of multilateral climate funding, mostly for infectious disease control and surveillance. Vital areas like heat warning systems, climate-resilient health facilities, expanded mental health services, and local community health adaptation still lack investment.

The implications are troubling. As the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change clarifies, climate change already contributes to disease, death, and health inequality worldwide. The Lancet Countdown tracks health financing via an indicator, showing a year-on-year increase in health adaptation spending from 4.6% in 2015–2016 to 5.6% in 2020–2021. However, more is needed to manage the health burden of recent climate events.

Sub-Saharan Africa faces an especially heavy burden yet still needs commensurate international support. The World Bank predicts the region will incur 80% of the global rise in climate-linked malaria and diarrheal disease by 2050. This will further strain overburdened health systems.

Adaptation financing can help change course. Funding water and sanitation systems adapted for climate extremes reduces water-borne illness. Warning systems allow preparation for heat waves and disasters. Resilient clinics maintain health services through storms and floods. We have the knowledge and tools for health adaptation but need the resources to implement them at scale.

Some progress was made at COP27, with a breakthrough agreement on a new “loss and damage” fund to support climate-vulnerable developing countries. But major gaps remain. Health ministries have yet to fully access climate funding opportunities, whilst health benefits often remain assumed, not measured, in many adaptation projects across sectors like agriculture and water. Accurate tracking of health financing is essential to verify where money flows.

Addressing the shortfall in climate funding for health adaptation is a shared responsibility that extends well beyond the donors. It’s imperative for governments in developing countries to prioritise health adaptation in their national climate plans and investments. Health leaders have a role in better articulating the risks and suggesting viable solutions.

Above all, the broader ecosystem of health financing — encompassing governments, global health organisations, and corporations — must internalise that climate resilience is not a separate issue but an integral component of strengthening health systems and achieving universal health coverage. As we ponder the pivotal question raised in the beginning — where will the needed funds come from — it’s clear that our collective health depends on an inclusive, multifaceted approach to financing climate resilience.

The post Climate Change is a Health Crisis, So Why is Health Adaptation Financing Still Lacking? appeared first on Medika Life.