How to Partner With WHO, UNICEF, and PEPFAR on Health Tech

Every health technology company working in low- and middle-income countries eventually asks the same question: how do you actually get WHO, UNICEF, or PEPFAR to work with you? The answer is less about having the right product and more about understanding how these organizations buy, fund, and deploy technology. Each one operates differently, with distinct procurement rules, funding cycles, and institutional priorities that determine which technologies make it from a pitch deck to the field.

The global digital health market is projected to reach $946.8 billion by 2030, according to a 2024 report from Grand View Research. But the slice of that market flowing through multilateral health organizations follows its own logic. These are not venture-backed companies shopping for the best tool. They are bureaucracies with mandates, and the path to partnership runs through their institutional processes, not around them.

"We don't adopt technologies because they're innovative. We adopt them because they solve a problem we've already identified, in a way our systems can absorb." — Dr. Bernardo Mariano Jr., Chief Information Officer, WHO, at the 2024 World Health Assembly side event on digital transformation

How WHO partnerships actually work

WHO does not typically buy technology the way a hospital system or insurance company does. Its role is primarily normative — setting standards, issuing guidelines, and prequalifying products that member states and procurement agencies then purchase. Understanding this distinction matters, because most health tech companies approach WHO expecting a sales conversation and find themselves in a standards conversation instead.

The WHO Prequalification Programme, run through the Department of Regulation and Prequalification, evaluates medicines, vaccines, diagnostics, and medical devices. Products that pass prequalification become eligible for procurement by UN agencies, Gavi, the Global Fund, and national governments. The assessment typically takes about a year, and country-level registration can add another two years on top of that, according to a 2023 analysis by Rethink Priorities.

For digital health specifically, WHO's approach has shifted. The organization published its Global Strategy on Digital Health 2020-2025 and has been building the Digital Health Atlas, a registry of digital health implementations across countries. The Classification of Digital Interventions, Services, and Applications in Health (CDISAH) framework provides a taxonomy that WHO uses to evaluate where digital tools fit within health system architecture.

Practically speaking, there are a few entry points:

WHO Prequalification applies if your technology qualifies as a medical device or diagnostic. The process involves submitting a dossier through the ePQS (electronic Prequalification System), where manufacturers or resellers register and submit applications online. Technical specialists evaluate the dossier against WHO standards. It is thorough and slow by design.

WHO Collaborating Centres are institutions that WHO designates to support its work in specific technical areas. A health technology company cannot become a Collaborating Centre, but partnering with an existing one can create a pathway to WHO engagement. There are over 800 Collaborating Centres across 80 countries.

Country-level engagement is often the most practical route. WHO country offices work directly with ministries of health on national digital health strategies. If your technology aligns with a country's digital health investment roadmap, the WHO country office may facilitate introduction. This is how many mHealth tools have entered WHO's orbit — not through Geneva, but through a district health office in Kampala or Nairobi.

Partnership pathway	Best for	Timeline	Key requirement
WHO Prequalification	Medical devices, diagnostics, IVDs	12-36 months	Regulatory dossier, manufacturing quality compliance
Collaborating Centre partnership	Research tools, methodology validation	6-18 months	Academic or institutional partner already designated
Country office engagement	Implementation tools, mHealth platforms	3-12 months	Alignment with national digital health strategy
Digital Health Atlas listing	Any digital health implementation	1-3 months	Active deployment in a WHO member state
Normative guidance contribution	Standards-aligned technology	Variable	Published evidence base, peer-reviewed data

UNICEF: the Venture Fund and beyond

UNICEF has built one of the more accessible funding mechanisms for health technology companies through the UNICEF Venture Fund, housed within the Office of Innovation. The fund provides equity-free investments — typically $50,000 to $100,000 — to early-stage startups in UNICEF programme countries. That last part trips people up. The Venture Fund is not open to companies based in high-income countries unless they have a registered entity in an eligible LMIC.

The fund runs themed calls for applications. Recent rounds have focused on climate and health, AI and blockchain for data integrity, and frontier technology for children's health. A 2025 call specifically targeted "Fem Tech" solutions improving health outcomes for women and girls. Applications go through a structured review, and selected companies receive not just funding but mentorship and access to UNICEF's country office network.

Beyond the Venture Fund, UNICEF's Supply Division in Copenhagen is one of the world's largest procurers of health supplies. They purchase everything from vaccines to therapeutic food to diagnostic equipment for over 100 countries. For technology companies, the entry point is registration with the UN Global Marketplace (UNGM), the shared procurement platform used by UN agencies. Registration is free but requires documentation of company financials, product certifications, and delivery capabilities.

UNICEF's Innovation office also runs Giga, a joint initiative with ITU to connect every school to the internet, and has invested in digital health platforms through its Health Section. Dr. Aboubacar Kampo, who served as UNICEF's Director of Health Programmes, emphasized repeatedly that UNICEF's technology adoption follows its programmatic priorities — child survival, immunization, nutrition, and maternal health. Technology that maps onto those priorities has a path. Technology that doesn't will find UNICEF polite but unresponsive.

The practical advice from organizations that have successfully partnered with UNICEF: start at the country level. UNICEF country offices have significant autonomy in identifying and piloting solutions. A UNICEF representative in Tanzania or Uganda who sees your technology working in the field can become an internal champion far more effectively than a cold pitch to the Innovation office in New York.

PEPFAR: the largest bilateral health program in history

PEPFAR — the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief — has disbursed over $110 billion since 2003, making it the largest commitment by any nation to address a single disease. While its core mission is HIV/AIDS, PEPFAR's infrastructure touches health systems broadly across 55 countries, and its technology investments extend well beyond HIV-specific tools.

PEPFAR operates through implementing partners, which are typically large organizations like the CDC, USAID, the Department of Defense, and major NGOs such as FHI 360, ICAP at Columbia University, and the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation. Health technology companies rarely contract directly with PEPFAR. Instead, they partner with or subcontract through these implementing organizations.

The Duke Global Health Institute published a policy brief in February 2025 outlining PEPFAR's strategic direction, which includes a push to "leverage digital technologies and the private sector for sustainability." The brief noted that PEPFAR aims to reach 5 million new users by 2030 and scale up community-driven models. For technology companies, this signals an openness to digital health tools that improve efficiency, particularly in areas like supply chain monitoring, patient tracking, and community health worker support.

PEPFAR's operational partnership with WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, and others includes monitoring weekly stock levels of HIV commodities and coordinating responses to shortages. At the technology level, PEPFAR has invested in platforms like DHIS2, OpenMRS, and CommCare that form the digital backbone of health programs in many African countries. Compatibility with these existing systems is not optional for technology companies seeking PEPFAR engagement — it is a prerequisite.

The CSIS Global Health Policy Center published an analysis in 2025 noting that PEPFAR's authorization lapsed in March 2025, creating uncertainty around future funding levels. This matters for technology partnerships because PEPFAR's budget determines the size of implementing partner contracts, which in turn determines how much room exists for new technology procurement. Companies entering this space need to watch the U.S. appropriations process as closely as they watch the global health literature.

Organization	Annual health spend	Primary mechanism for tech partners	Geographic focus	Key digital health priorities
WHO	~$4.8 billion (2024-2025 biennium)	Prequalification, normative standards, country office engagement	194 member states	Digital health governance, standards, interoperability
UNICEF	~$9.3 billion (2024)	Venture Fund, Supply Division procurement, country office pilots	190+ countries, priority LMICs	Child health, immunization, nutrition, maternal health
PEPFAR	~$6.5 billion annually	Implementing partner subcontracts, CDC/USAID mechanisms	55 countries, focus on Sub-Saharan Africa	HIV service delivery, lab systems, supply chain, community health
Global Fund	~$4 billion annually	Country coordinating mechanism grants	100+ countries	HIV, TB, malaria, health system strengthening

What these organizations actually look for

After talking to people who have navigated these partnerships and reading through years of procurement documents and strategy papers, a few patterns emerge that cut across all three organizations.

Evidence matters, but the right kind of evidence. WHO cares about peer-reviewed publications and randomized controlled trials. UNICEF wants to see evidence of impact on child health outcomes. PEPFAR implementing partners want operational evidence — does this tool work in a busy clinic with intermittent connectivity and staff turnover? A single type of evidence rarely satisfies all three.

Interoperability is non-negotiable. Every one of these organizations has invested heavily in digital health infrastructure — DHIS2, OpenHIE, HL7 FHIR. Technology that requires a parallel data system will not gain traction. Dr. Steven Uggowitzer at the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute has published on how data silos from pilot projects undermine health system strengthening. The organizations have learned this lesson painfully.

Country ownership seals the deal. WHO, UNICEF, and PEPFAR all emphasize national ownership of health programs. Technology that is "owned" by an external company and cannot be sustained without ongoing vendor support creates dependency, which is exactly what these organizations are trying to reduce. Demonstrating a path to local ownership — through open-source components, local training capacity, or government integration — changes the conversation.

Relationships take years, not months. The median time from initial engagement to a funded partnership with any of these organizations is measured in years. Living Goods spent over a decade building its relationship with Uganda's Ministry of Health before its Smart Health platform was integrated into the national Village Health Team system. D-tree International followed a similar trajectory in Tanzania. Quick wins do not exist in multilateral health partnerships.

Common mistakes that kill partnerships before they start

The most frequent failure mode is approaching these organizations as customers. They are not customers. WHO sets standards. UNICEF procures for countries. PEPFAR funds implementing partners. The technology company's actual customer is usually a ministry of health, a district health office, or an implementing NGO. Confusion about this basic structure wastes everyone's time.

Another common mistake: leading with the technology instead of the problem. A 2024 ICTworks analysis of failed digital health partnerships found that the strongest predictor of failure was a technology-first pitch. The organizations that succeeded started by asking what specific health system bottleneck they could address, then demonstrated how their technology fit within existing workflows.

Ignoring procurement timelines is the third killer. Government and UN procurement cycles run on fiscal years, not product roadmaps. UNICEF's Supply Division plans procurement months in advance. PEPFAR's implementing partners set annual budgets based on approved Country Operational Plans. Arriving with a solution in October when budgets were finalized in March means waiting an entire year.

How to avoid the pilot trap

PATH estimated in 2019 that fewer than 5% of digital health pilots in LMICs successfully transitioned to national-scale deployment. The global health sector has gotten much better at launching pilots and no better at scaling them. For technology companies, this means the pilot is not the goal — the scale plan is.

Before accepting a pilot opportunity, the questions to ask are: who will fund the next phase? Which government budget line will absorb this? What happens to the data when the pilot ends? If nobody has answers, the pilot is an expensive demonstration that produces a nice report and nothing else.

Navigating the UN Global Marketplace

Registration on UNGM is the administrative prerequisite for doing business with most UN agencies. The process requires submitting company registration documents, audited financial statements, product catalogs, and references. Registration is tiered — basic registration enables access to solicitation documents, while full registration is required to submit bids.

The practical reality is that UNGM registration does not lead to contracts by itself. It opens the door, but relationships and demonstrated capability close the deal. Organizations that have successfully navigated this process recommend attending UN procurement seminars, responding to Requests for Information (RFIs) even when they do not lead to immediate contracts, and building a track record of small engagements before pursuing large procurement opportunities.

Where contactless health screening fits

Smartphone-based health screening technologies are particularly well-positioned for partnerships with these organizations because they address a structural constraint that all three face: the shortage of clinical equipment in last-mile health delivery. WHO estimates that 53% of the population in low-income countries lacks access to essential health services. UNICEF has documented that many primary health facilities in Sub-Saharan Africa operate without basic diagnostic equipment. PEPFAR-funded programs routinely face equipment maintenance and supply chain challenges.

Technologies like remote photoplethysmography, which enables vital sign measurement through a smartphone camera, fit the profile these organizations are looking for: low hardware requirements, compatibility with existing devices, and potential for integration into community health worker workflows. Companies like Circadify are developing these capabilities for deployment in exactly these settings.

The path from technology to partnership is not short, but it is well-mapped. Start at the country level. Build evidence in the field. Integrate with existing systems. Let the results create the case that reaches Geneva, New York, and Washington.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long does it take to establish a partnership with WHO, UNICEF, or PEPFAR?

From initial engagement to a funded or formalized partnership, expect 18 months to 3 years minimum. WHO prequalification alone takes 12-36 months. UNICEF Venture Fund cycles run 6-12 months from application to funding. PEPFAR partnerships through implementing organizations depend on Country Operational Plan cycles, which are annual. Building the relationships and generating the evidence that these organizations require adds time before the formal process even begins.

Can a small startup partner with these organizations, or is it only for large companies?

Small companies can and do partner with all three. UNICEF's Venture Fund specifically targets early-stage startups, with investments as small as $50,000. WHO's country office engagement does not have company size requirements. PEPFAR partnerships through implementing organizations can involve small technology vendors as subcontractors. The constraint is not size but evidence — demonstrating that your technology works in the relevant context, with the relevant populations, under real-world conditions.

Do I need to be based in a low-income country to partner with these organizations?

Not necessarily, but it helps significantly. UNICEF's Venture Fund requires a registered entity in an eligible programme country. WHO and PEPFAR do not have strict geographic requirements, but both strongly prefer technologies that have been developed and tested in the settings where they will be deployed. Having local staff, a local partner organization, or an existing field deployment changes the conversation from hypothetical to practical.

What is the single most important thing to get right?

Country-level relationships. Every person we have spoken to who has successfully partnered with WHO, UNICEF, or PEPFAR says the same thing: the partnership was built from the ground up, through a ministry of health or a country office, not from the top down through headquarters. A district health officer in Mbarara who has seen your technology work is worth more than a hundred slide decks sent to Geneva.