The recent decision by Javier Milei’s government to withdraw Argentina from the World Health Organization (WHO) has sparked a wave of concerns and debates regarding the potential consequences of this measure for the country’s healthcare sector. Experts analyze the impact from various perspectives, including vaccine procurement, international cooperation, and the country’s ability to respond to health emergencies.
The Argentine government maintains that this decision will not hinder the functioning of the healthcare system, arguing that national programs do not directly depend on WHO funding. According to the Ministry of Health, technical cooperation will continue through the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), which will continue to provide support. Therefore, they argue that leaving WHO will not compromise the operation of public health services in the country.
One of the main concerns raised by experts is the potential impact on vaccine procurement. Argentina participates in PAHO’s Revolving Fund for Vaccine Access, which allows member countries to purchase vaccines at reduced prices and under more favorable conditions. Since PAHO serves as WHO’s regional office, many fear that leaving the organization could jeopardize Argentina’s participation in the fund and, consequently, increase the cost of immunization for the population.
Infectious disease specialist Silvia González Ayala highlighted that there is still no clarity on how this decision will affect Argentina in the long term. “Argentina acquires most of its vaccines through the Revolving Fund, and the absence of a link with WHO raises doubts about the continuity of this privileged access,” Ayala told CNN.
Amid criticism, Argentina’s Deputy Minister of Health, María Cecilia Loccisano, assured that the country will maintain ties with PAHO and that its participation in the Revolving Fund will not be interrupted. “The vaccination schedule is guaranteed, and there is no risk of Argentina having to purchase medical supplies at higher prices,” she stated. However, uncertainty remains regarding how this relationship will function without WHO’s involvement, which continues to be a concern for experts.
Beyond vaccines, another significant issue is the acquisition of laboratory reagents supplied by WHO-affiliated organizations. The Malbrán Institute, one of the country’s most important laboratories, collaborates with the organization and receives essential supplies for conducting tests. Leonel Tesler, president of the Fundación Soberanía Sanitaria, warns that leaving WHO could compromise the supply of essential materials for diagnostics, affecting disease detection and control.
According to Fundación Soberanía Sanitaria, exiting WHO may undermine technical and financial support for essential public health programs, including initiatives to combat communicable and non-communicable diseases, vaccination campaigns, and maternal and child health projects. Fundación Huésped, which works in the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, warned on social media that Argentina will no longer have access to international support mechanisms in the event of health crises and natural disasters.
WHO plays a crucial role in coordinating global health emergencies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the organization centralized response efforts, facilitating information exchange between countries and promoting vaccination and containment initiatives. Argentina’s withdrawal could hinder its ability to respond to future pandemics, making it more difficult to obtain vaccines and coordinate preventive measures on a global scale.
The decision has also faced resistance within Argentina itself. The Minister of Health for the province of Buenos Aires, Nicolás Kreplak, expressed his opposition, stating that leaving WHO will affect international collaboration in scientific research, medical training, and epidemiological monitoring. According to him, without the organization’s support, Argentina may struggle to implement effective disease prevention and control strategies.
“Being outside WHO means being disconnected from the rest of the world in terms of public health. This would make Argentina more vulnerable in future pandemics,” Kreplak warned.
Despite these concerns, some experts downplay the impacts of the decision. Hugo Luis Pizzi, director of the Center for Tropical Diseases at the National University of Córdoba, argued that Argentina has strong universities and research centers that can compensate for some of the gaps left by WHO’s departure. “Scientific cooperation will continue, as ties between academic institutions and research centers in Latin America are solid,” Pizzi said.
Another point of uncertainty is the future of Argentine professionals who serve on WHO’s independent commissions. Silvia González Ayala pointed out that, in the field of Infectious Diseases and Vaccines alone, at least four Argentine experts are currently involved with the organization. “We still do not know what will happen to these professionals or how this decision will impact their work. It is a complex situation with many unanswered questions,” she concluded.
The decision to leave WHO is seen by some as part of Milei’s broader policy to reduce state involvement in international agreements and prioritize self-sufficiency. However, critics argue that this move could isolate Argentina and weaken its position in the global public health landscape.
While the government insists that it will maintain collaboration with PAHO and ensure the continuity of essential programs, experts emphasize that many uncertainties remain regarding the long-term consequences of this decision. The real impact of Argentina’s exit from WHO will only become clear in the coming years as the country faces health challenges without the organization’s direct support.
