By Our Special Correspondent

Dubai, UAE – The landscape of healthcare economics in the Gulf is entering a decisive new era, and at the heart of this transformation stands the Emirates Health Economics Society (EHES). The 5th Annual EHES Conference, held in Dubai, brought together health economists, policymakers, clinicians, insurers, and digital-health innovators from across the region and beyond to chart the future of value-based healthcare in the Gulf.

From the opening sessions, the conference reflected a renewed sense of ambition and purpose. While earlier editions focused on cost, access, and financing foundations, this fifth iteration moved the dialogue forward—embracing value-based care, predictive analytics, artificial intelligence (AI), and cross-sector collaboration as indispensable pillars of modern healthcare systems. Building on the foundation established at the 4th EHES Conference (2024)—which underscored sustainable healthcare financing and the UAE’s leadership in health economics—this year’s gathering shifted decisively from theory to implementation.

In 2024, the UAE had reaffirmed its role as a regional hub for health-economic innovation. The 4th Conference emphasized two pivotal themes: sustainable healthcare financing and value-based systems. The regular issuance of the National Health Account was highlighted as a tool for transparency and accountability in health spending, offering policymakers and planners a clearer lens on how funds are allocated, how effectively they are used, and where reforms are most needed. Preventive health, digitalisation, and evidence-based governance were recognised as the cornerstones of sustainable, equitable care delivery.

By contrast, the 5th edition reflected a maturing discourse—one that sought to translate these policies into measurable outcomes. Sessions explored practical frameworks such as health technology assessment (HTA) integration, adaptation of EQ-5D instruments for local use, and the deployment of AI-driven data analytics for strategic decision-making. The momentum around value-based healthcare was unmistakable, with experts advocating for outcome-linked reimbursement, bundled payments, and provider incentives that reward measurable patient impact. This marked a significant regional pivot—from asking “how much we spend” to asking “what we achieve with what we spend.”

The UAE’s central role in this transformation was clear. As one of the region’s most rapidly evolving healthcare markets, it has invested heavily in infrastructure, digital ecosystems, and workforce capabilities that allow experimentation and scale-up of innovative financing and delivery models. The 5th EHES Conference showcased this capacity through international collaborations, multi-sector panels, and real-world case studies, emphasizing the importance of local adaptation of global frameworks.

Key insights from the conference underscored several critical shifts shaping the Gulf’s healthcare future:

• Value over volume: Healthcare systems must prioritize outcomes, patient satisfaction, and service quality rather than high throughput alone.

• Data and evidence as foundation: Instruments such as EQ-5D, HTA models, and budget-impact analyses are no longer peripheral—they are structural elements of modern governance.

• AI and digital enablement: Predictive models and analytics are redefining how healthcare systems forecast disease trends, allocate resources, and manage costs efficiently.

• Collaboration across stakeholders: Policymakers, payers, providers, and patients must engage in continuous dialogue to ensure that policies are grounded in real-world needs.

• Local adaptation of global frameworks: Gulf-specific economic, cultural, and regulatory contexts require customized solutions to achieve sustainable results.

The conference was not just an academic exercise but a strategic declaration. The Gulf’s health-economic transformation is now a collective mission, and the UAE stands as a leading catalyst. Delegates left with a clear mandate: to institutionalize value-based principles, strengthen data systems, and promote collaboration that ensures the region’s healthcare systems remain both sustainable and people-centered.

The transformation is ongoing, but its direction is unmistakable. The Emirates Health Economics Society, through its fifth annual gathering, reaffirmed its role as a regional convenor, thought leader, and policy influencer. The conversations that unfolded in Dubai have set the stage for a new era of evidence-led, value-driven healthcare across the Gulf—where every investment in health is measured not only in dirhams spent, but in lives improved.

Dr. Emma Andrews

The rise of health misinformation—information that is false, inaccurate, or misleading according to the best available evidence at the time—is a growing global crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the spread of social media and generative AI, has contributed to the rapid dissemination of misinformation. According to the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, health misinformation is particularly prevalent online, accounting for 51% of social media posts associated with vaccines and up to 60% of posts related to pandemics.[1]

For marginalized and vulnerable communities globally, the stakes are especially high. Many individuals in these groups already mistrust government institutions and healthcare systems, creating fertile ground for misinformation to take root. In low-and-middle income countries, where access to accurate information may be limited, the consequences can be catastrophic – for example, people may avoid vaccines or lifesaving government-provided medicines.

The Impact of Health Misinformation

Around the world, cultural beliefs or mistrust of formal/western health recommendations can lead to highly persistent health misinformation. For example, during the Ebola outbreaks in West Africa in 2014-2016, misinformation about disease causes and treatments was one factor that delayed containment efforts. Vaccination rollout was hampered by rumors including rumors that the vaccine made women infertile or men impotent. By the time the West Africa Ebola epidemic ended in 2016, approximately 28,600 people had been infected, and 11,325 people had died.[2]

In Pakistan, a recent spike in polio vaccine misinformation on the Internet has been identified as one of the biggest barriers for polio eradication. In 2019, a false rumor about polio vaccine safety and side effects was shared on social media, claiming that children fell sick after receiving the vaccine[3]. The viral videos not only led many parents to refuse to vaccinate their children, but even contributed to the escalation of a mob attack where a small hospital was set on fire in Peshawar. Since the incident, Pakistan has observed a drastic increase in polio cases and it continues to pose serious threats to public health.

In the US, a recent study from the Huntsman Cancer Institute found that of the most popular articles posted on social media in 2018 and 2019 regarding the four most common cancers, one in every three contained false, inaccurate, or misleading information[4]. Not only was most of that misinformation about cancer potentially harmful (for example, by promoting unproven treatments) but people were more likely to engage with the misinformation than with factual information.

Building Trust Through Collaboration And Partnership

Addressing misinformation is not just about debunking falsehoods; it’s about rebuilding trust – and Patient Advocacy Groups (PAGs) are a vital partner in building and sustaining trust within communities. These groups possess a unique understanding of the needs of patients and possess the cultural sensitivities necessary to bridge the gap between patients and stakeholders across healthcare landscape.

Recognizing this, our Global Patient Advocacy team at Pfizer has partnered with community groups and patient advocates to help ensure the patient perspective is reflected in our efforts and to amplifying accurate health messages in ways that resonate culturally.

A leading advocate and partner, Regina Namata Kamoga of Community Health and Information Network [CHAIN], in Uganda explained that “Trust is the key component in addressing misinformation. There were many interventions to address COVID-19 misinformation in Uganda, but they were all top-down and didn’t involve local leaders, religious leaders and community-owned resources. And, guess what? It got worse. If we are serious about overcoming misinformation, there needs to be sustained, deliberate efforts to engage with trusted leaders and expertise at a community level.”

With over 10 community leaders, Pfizer has established a global pan-therapeutic advisory panel, representing perspectives from a range of therapy areas and geographies including Europe, Asia, Africa, Middle East, South America, North America and Australia. The network helps patient advocacy leaders exchange best practices and ideas for supporting their own communities. Together, the group is creating practical guidance on building trust and helping to ameliorate the impact of misinformation among marginalized and vulnerable communities around the world.

Additionally, we have co-developed the Patient Advocacy Leadership Collective, an innovative hub that provides connectivity, community resources, and a collection of tools focused on sustainable capacity building for patient advocates. One such resource, is the Clear-AI Health Literacy tool which helps individuals communicate in a clear and understandable way by incorporating health literacy best practices including readability, understandability, and actionability.

The fight against health misinformation is ongoing, but the solutions are clear: build trust, strengthen local voices, and provide marginalized communities with the tools they need to access and understand reliable health resources.

[1] Borges do Nascimento, I.J., et al., Infodemics and health misinformation: a systematic review of reviews. Bull World Health Organ, 2022. 100(9): p. 544-561.

[2] Ebola in West Africa, Resolve to Save Lives, 2022 Epidemics That Didn’t Happen | Ebola in West Africa

[3] Ittefaq., et al., Polio vaccine misinformation on social media: turning point in the fight against polio eradication in Pakistan – PMC., 2021

[4] The Challenges of Cancer Misinformation on Social Media – NCI

Dr. Emma Andrews, is the VP, Global Patient Advocacy, Pfizer

Courtesy: The Guardian

The World Health Organization (WHO) is the only organisation with the membership, authority and credibility to promote health worldwide. US president Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the UN body will have huge implications for global health programmes and governance. It will hit the African continent hard. HIV/Aids and polio programmes will suffer, as will drives to stamp out epidemics like mpox and Marburg. Global health experts Lawrence O. Gostin and Alexandra Finch explain the consequences.

President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the World Health Organization (WHO) will be keenly felt across the globe, with profound implications for health in Africa. In the executive order putting the withdrawal process in place, Trump also paused the transfer of US funds, support and resources to the WHO.

Trump’s executive order is his second attempt to pull the US out of the agency. He has also complained that the US financial contribution to the international organisation is “onerous”. The biggest impacts will come from the loss of US funding. The US is by far the WHO’s largest state donor, contributing approximately 18% of the agency’s total funding.

The WHO’s funding is split into two tranches. There are assessed contributions: countries’ membership fees, to which all WHO members agree and over which the WHO has full control. The US accounts for 22%, or US$264 million of these, for the current 2024/25 budget. The US is yet to pay the WHO its assessed contributions for 2024 and 2025. Withdrawing from the organisation without paying these fees would violate US law and must be challenged in the US courts.

Then there are voluntary contributions: donations by member countries, foundations and other sources, usually earmarked to that donor’s priorities. The US contributes 16%, or US$442 million, of all voluntary contributions. In the case of the US, these  priorities include HIV/AIDS, polio eradication and health emergencies.

As experts in global health law, we are deeply concerned about the impacts of this order, which will be far reaching. The US withdrawal from the WHO threatens core health programmes in Africa. It will weaken the ability of African countries to respond to health emergencies, and could lead to increases in death and illness on the continent. It will also have broader implications for leadership and governance in global health.

Impact on core programmes

Trump’s decision to withdraw comes at a time when the WHO’s health priorities in Africa were already underfunded. Eight of 12 areas were funded less than 50% earlier this year. Twenty-seven percent of all US funding through the WHO for the African region goes to polio eradication, 20% supports improved access to quality essential health services, and much of the balance goes to pandemic preparedness and response.

The WHO/US partnership has long supported the HIV/AIDS response in Africa, but the redirection and reduction in funds could reduce the availability of prevention, testing and treatment programmes across the continent. This threatens progress to end AIDS by 2030. The funding gap will also have an impact on programmes designed to increase access to quality essential health services, including the prevention and treatment of tuberculosis and malaria, and child and maternal health services.

If the WHO is forced to cut back on these services due to a lack of financing, it could lead to increases in mortality and morbidity in Africa. European countries filled the financing gap in 2020 when Trump last withheld US funding from the WHO. But it is unlikely that they will be able to do so again, as countries across Europe are facing their own geopolitical and financial challenges.

The WHO’s budget was already thinly spread, and its mandate keeps growing. Through its new investment round, the WHO raised US$1.7 billion in pledges, and is expecting another US$2.1 billion through partnerships and other agreements. Yet even before the US president’s executive order, this left a funding gap of approximately US$3.3 billion (or 47%) for the WHO’s 2025-2028 strategy. If the gap left by the loss of US funding cannot be filled from other sources, it will fall to African nations to fund health programmes and services that are cut, placing a greater strain on governments reckoning with limited fiscal space.

Weakened response to health emergencies

Trump’s decision comes at a pivotal moment for health in Africa, which is experiencing major outbreaks. The US has been a key actor supporting WHO-led emergency responses to outbreaks. Last year, the US partnered with the WHO and Rwanda to rapidly bring a Marburg outbreak under control. The Marburg virus continues to threaten the continent. Tanzania has just confirmed an outbreak.

Earlier in August 2024, the WHO and Africa Centres for Disease Control each declared mpox on the continent to be a public health emergency. The Biden administration delivered 60,000 vaccines, pledged 1 million more, and contributed over US$22 million to support capacity building and vaccination. But now US health officials have been instructed to immediately stop working with the WHO, preventing US teams in Africa from responding to Marburg virus and mpox.

Even before these outbreaks, the US supported WHO-led emergency responses to COVID-19, Ebola and HIV/AIDS. The US withdrawal could lead to increased transmission, sickness and death in vulnerable regions. Similarly, strong partnership between the WHO and the US has helped build health system capacities in Africa for public health emergencies.

US experts have supported nearly half of all WHO joint external evaluation missions to assess countries’ pandemic preparedness and response capacities under the International Health Regulations. This is a binding WHO agreement to help countries prepare for, detect and initially respond to health emergencies globally. The US withdrawal from the WHO risks eroding these efforts, though it may also accelerate a regionalisation of health security already underway in Africa, led by the African Union through the Africa CDC.

Restructuring of governance

The US was instrumental in establishing the WHO and shaping WHO norms and standards, in particular driving amendments to the International Health Regulations adopted in June 2024. This included improved obligations to facilitate the rapid sharing of information between the WHO and countries.

The US has also been a key figure in ongoing negotiations for a new international treaty, a Pandemic Agreement. This would create new rights and obligations to prevent, prepare for and respond to pandemics with elements that go beyond the International Health Regulations. These include obligations on the equitable sharing of vaccines.

Trump’s executive order would prevent these instruments from being implemented or enforced in the US. This would only entrench inequitable dynamics when the next global health emergency breaks out, given the concentration of global pharmaceutical companies in the US.

The order also pulls the US out of the Pandemic Agreement negotiations. This will inevitably create new diplomatic dynamics. Optimistically, this could provide enhanced opportunities for African nations to strengthen their position on equity. The US departure from the WHO will create a leadership vacuum, ushering in a restructuring of power and alliances for global health.

This vacuum could cede influence to US adversaries, opening the door to even greater Chinese influence on the African continent. But it also presents opportunities for greater African leadership in global health, which could strengthen African self-reliance. Trump has directed the US to find “credible and transparent” partners to assume the activities the WHO would have performed. And yet there is no substitute for the WHO, with its worldwide reach and stature.

For more than 75 years, the WHO has been, and remains, the only global health organisation with the membership, authority, expertise and credibility to protect and promote health for the world’s population. For this reason, the African Union, among scores of other bodies and leaders, has already urged Trump to reconsider. It is now time for the global community to stand up for the WHO and ensure its vital health work in Africa and beyond can thrive.

Lawrence O. Gostin is a Professor; Founding Linda D. & Timothy J. O’Neill Professor of Global Health Law, at Georgetown University;  Alexandra Finch is a Senior Associate at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law and Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University, Georgetown University

Courtesy: The Conversation