India, 2025: The World Health Organization (WHO) is facing intense scrutiny following the approval of a 20% increase in mandatory membership dues, amounting to an additional $120 million per year extracted directly from taxpayers worldwide. The Consumer Choice Center joins critics in questioning whether the organization truly deserves this financial boost, citing significant issues with transparency, accountability, and the allocation of funds. In a country like India, where over 60% of health expenditure is out-of-pocket and public health systems remain severely underfunded, questions around the WHO’s spending priorities resonate deeply.
The World Health Organization (WHO) recently announced an increase in its mandatory membership dues-known as assessed contributions—by 20%. [1]For 2026 and 2027, this will amount to an additional $120 million per year[2], drawn straight from taxpayers around the globe. The WHO allocates funding through both voluntary contributions, which are earmarked for specific health programs, and assessed contributions. Assessed contributions provide the WHO leadership, including Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, with greater discretion in how the funds are utilized. These funds are directed into flexible funding streams. This occurs while global healthcare systems experience challenges related to underfunding, growing waitlists, and staff shortages.
Funds are being allocated to various initiatives, including upgrades to the WHO’s Geneva headquarters. Senior staff benefits include education allowances of $33,000 per child. The total annual cost for the WHO’s 301 most senior staff is approximately $130 million, averaging $432,000 per person, inclusive of benefits and allowances.[3]
Sharing his thoughts on the potential utilisation of these additional funds, Fred Roeder, Managing Director, Consumer Choice Center said, “The $120 million being extracted in new dues each year could directly fund healthcare for 15,000 Germans, 40,000 Poles, 82,000 Georgians, 100,000 South Africans and 500,000 Indians[4]. In India, $120 million annually could fund cancer treatment for 40,000 [5]patients under Ayushman Bharat or cover the full immunization of over 2 million children. That same amount could also strengthen tobacco cessation services across the country, which remain vastly under-resourced despite India having over 260 million tobacco users[6]. Even more troubling, this shift toward “core funding” is part of a deliberate WHO strategy: to move away from specific, donor-driven initiatives and toward general budget increases it can spend at will—on salaries, travel, and yes, real estate. These are not funds being poured into pandemic preparedness or child vaccination programs. They are being funnelled into a top-heavy administrative structure with minimal transparency and questionable accountability.”
The WHO’s defenders argue that the organization needs more freedom to respond to global health threats. But freedom without scrutiny leads to mission drift and misallocation. The organization already has a poor record of pandemic response and a reputation for political entanglements. Its handling of tobacco control in India reflects this too—offering ideological prescriptions rather than collaborative, evidence-based support that balances public health, trade, and economic development. The last thing it needs is a blank check. The world needs a lean, targeted health response team. Let’s refocus the WHO on solving global health crises, prioritizing impact over institutional expansion.
National governments should refuse further increases to assessed contributions until the WHO commits to radical transparency reforms, trims senior compensation packages, and rededicates itself to programmatic funding that puts patient care first. We owe that much to the people who are actually sick—and not just those with corner offices in Geneva. India, as a G20 leader and a major player in global health diplomacy, should demand accountability before committing more taxpayer funds. It must condition future WHO funding on results-driven support for local challenges—like modernizing tobacco regulation, enabling farmer transitions, and enforcing traceability to combat the illicit trade that harms both public health and revenue.
