Pandemic Preparedness: Why Does Disability Access

Why should disability access be central to pandemic preparedness?

The WHO appeal for an international pandemic deal was published on March 20, 2024. The World Health Assembly subsequently adopted the WHO Pandemic Agreement on May 20, 2025. These are milestones in a longer preparedness effort, with equitable access to health tools among its central objectives. A practical implication is that access must extend beyond having supplies available: people also need usable routes to information, appointments and treatment. [WHO's original appeal](https://www.who.int/news/item/20-03-2024-call-for-urgent-agreement-on-international-deal-to-prepare-for-and-prevent-future-pandemics) and [agreement overview](https://www.who.int/health-topics/who-pandemic-agreement).

The scale is substantial. WHO estimates that approximately 1.3 billion people, or 16% of the global population, experience significant disability. Its disability fact sheet identifies inaccessible facilities, inadequate communication and discriminatory attitudes as contributors to health inequities. For preparedness planners, this means accessibility belongs in ordinary service design before demand surges during an emergency. [WHO disability fact sheet](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-and-health).

How can inaccessible services increase risk during an outbreak?

WHO's COVID-19 disability guidance describes several pathways to increased exposure: inaccessible handwashing facilities, difficulty distancing when personal assistance is essential, and public health information that people cannot access. These examples show why a recommendation may require practical adaptations before someone can follow it. The guidance also distinguishes exposure barriers from underlying conditions that may increase the likelihood of severe illness. [WHO disability considerations during COVID-19](https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Disability-2020-1).

Accessibility also affects the route into care. WHO recommends addressing physical obstacles at clinics, unaffordable access and communication that relies exclusively on speech or written text. For example, information about a testing service is useful only if a person can understand the instructions and use the service. A practical implication is to assess the entire journey from an outbreak alert to a completed consultation when reviewing preparedness. [WHO's practical guidance](https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Disability-2020-1).

What would an accessible pandemic response look like?

Digital care deserves particular attention. Telehealth can reduce travel demands, but moving appointments online does not automatically remove barriers. WHO and the International Telecommunication Union developed a global standard specifically addressing accessibility of telehealth services. The practical lesson for preparedness is to evaluate whether patients with different disabilities can use a service before making it a major route to care. A functioning platform and an accessible consultation are separate requirements. [WHO–ITU telehealth accessibility standard](https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240050464).

Accountability also requires participation. WHO recommends involving people with disabilities in health decisions and monitoring whether they benefit from services; its global disability health equity report outlines 40 actions for health systems. Applying that approach to pandemic planning could include asking patients to identify booking obstacles and reviewing where access breaks down. These are implementation priorities, not evidence of a quantified reduction in pandemic deaths. Their value must be assessed through actual access and outcomes. [WHO disability fact sheet](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-and-health).