Many public health programmes in low- and middle-income countries have expanded rapidly with external support. Donor financing has enabled access to medicines, diagnostic equipment, and large-scale service delivery. However, as countries’ economies grow and funding priorities shift, external support may gradually decline.
The key question is not whether programmes will continue, but whether health systems can sustain them.
Sustainability depends less on individual projects and more on underlying systems. Programmes built around vertical structures — separate supply chains, dedicated reporting tools, and parallel staffing — often struggle when funding reduces. Operational costs remain high and integration into routine services becomes difficult.
In contrast, system-based investments provide long-term value. Diagnostic networks, data systems, workforce training, and maintenance capacity benefit multiple programmes simultaneously. When these systems are integrated into routine service delivery, they continue functioning even as specific funding streams change.
Diagnostics provide a useful example. A laboratory network designed only for one disease programme becomes vulnerable when that programme’s funding declines. However, a multi-disease network serving HIV, TB, maternal health, and surveillance remains essential to routine healthcare and is more likely to be domestically supported.
Transition planning should therefore prioritize integration. Instead of maintaining parallel programme structures, countries can gradually incorporate services into national systems, supported by domestic financing and coordinated oversight.
Sustainability is not achieved when external funding ends. It is achieved when services become part of normal healthcare delivery.
The long-term goal of international assistance should not be permanent support, but resilient systems capable of continuing essential services independently.
1 comment
Earn passive income this month—become an affiliate partner and get paid!