Makerere’s School of Public Health (MakSPH) is expanding faster than it can house itself. It now hosts more than 1,000 students, runs programmes across multiple countries, and anchors a large share of the University’s research output. Yet parts of its operation still spill into rented space, costing over $113,000 a year, because the infrastructure has not kept pace with its growth.

That constraint sits uneasily with the School’s economic weight. Health research accounts for more than half of Makerere University’s academic output, making it one of the University’s most productive engines. As Vice Chancellor Barnabas Nawangwe put it, “An educated population is a healthy population, and an educated and healthy population is a prosperous population.”

Beyond the university, health is not just a social outcome but a driver of economic performance. Healthier populations are more productive, more resilient, and less costly to sustain. Investments in public health, whether in prevention, systems, or infrastructure, raise an economy’s productive capacity, not just improve outcomes.

Institutions that generate public health knowledge and train professionals are not peripheral to growth; they are part of its foundation.

It is this logic that is shaping how Makerere’s School of Public Health is positioning itself. At its centre is a new, unfinished complex on the University’s main campus, intended to anchor the School’s next phase as a regional hub for research, training, and policy support. But like much of the system it supports, it is being built gradually, in a “build-as-you-go” approach constrained as much by funding realities as by design.

Construction of Phase II of the MakSPH complex is now at an advanced stage, with progress recorded across all sections of the site. As of March 2026, Phase 2B is nearing completion at 98%, while Phase 2A stands at 89%, and Phase 2C at 69%, each tracking close to or slightly ahead of planned targets. Current works are concentrated on interior finishes—including tiling, terrazzo installation, and external rendering—as well as preparations for lift installation, signaling a transition from structural works to final detailing. The project team is working toward a practical completion date of August 31, 2026, with timelines calibrated to align with broader resource flows and implementation considerations.

Six years ago, in February 2020, construction began on what will be the new home of the School of Public Health. The building, a permanent, purpose-built public health facility on Makerere’s main campus, will accommodate a growing student body, provide space for doctoral and postdoctoral fellows, and strengthen the University’s ability to respond to Africa’s most pressing public health challenges.

Professor David Serwadda, Professor Emeritus at Makerere University and Chair of the MakSPH Infrastructure Fundraising Committee, said the construction journey reflects the School’s “ambition, intent, and courage”—a bold step despite limited resources. He was speaking at a public lecture on health financing held at Makerere University on April 9, 2026.

But the ambition behind the project is not modest. “We are not building for today—we are building for the future,” said Professor David Serwadda, reflecting on a decision that shaped the entire construction effort. “We need to build for the next 100 years.”

That long view helps explain both the scale of the project and the risks taken to start it. When construction began, the School did not have the full funding. “We started with about a third of the required budget,” Serwadda said.

The approach was not without setbacks. A major grant from USAID, worth over a million dollars, was later withdrawn, midway through the construction, due to the closure of USAID. “We received what is called a ‘Dear John letter,’” he recalled. “At that moment, we felt the situation was a major blow, almost terminal for the project.”

But the project did not stop. It adjusted. “We said, let us continue, piecemeal,’” he said. “Finish the auditorium first, use it, and keep building the rest.”

“We have come a long way as the School of Public Health,” said Professor Rhoda Wanyenze, the Dean. “We are proud of that history, but we also recognize that it comes with responsibility.”

She argued that responsibility is no longer confined to Uganda. With ongoing collaborative work in more than 25 African countries currently, the Dean says this is “a responsibility to provide leadership in public health not only in Uganda but across the continent.”

The scale of that growth has been visible from what was once a small training unit in the Faculty of Medicine in the 1950s, which has expanded into 12 academic programmes and more than 1,000 students.

“When I came back for my public health training, we were about 40 students,” she said. “Now, we have more than 1,000.” “Public health is growing and evolving,” Wanyenze said. “And we are doing our best to develop the skills needed for this changing landscape.”

That includes new areas such as health informatics and data science, driven by the digitisation of health systems and the growing role of data in decision-making and AI. The School is already coordinating regional platforms on digital health, linking multiple countries in shared learning and practice.

But this growth has outpaced the physical systems needed to sustain it. For the University leadership, the implications extend beyond infrastructure.

“One of the most effective ways to invest in health in Uganda is to invest properly in Makerere University,” said Vice Chancellor Barnabas Nawangwe. “We must recognize Makerere as a research-led university with a special national role—not fund it like any other institution or department. Makerere is one of the government’s greatest assets. Invest in her, and the returns will exceed expectations.”

Professor Nawangwe hailed Dr. Ramathan Ggoobi, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, who delivered a keynote on investing in health for Uganda’s future in view of Vision 2040. “I wish to thank Dr. Ramathan Ggoobi and his team for their personal intervention in allocating resources in next year’s budget to complete the new School of Public Health building. That support is deeply appreciated,” he said.

Uganda’s progress in health outcomes is evident, but uneven. Life expectancy has risen significantly from about 50 years in 2000 to roughly 68.8 years in 2024, according to the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, Ramathan Ggoobi. Yet the gains sit alongside persistent financial strain on households. About 4% of Ugandans still spend more than a quarter of their consumption on healthcare, pushing many into poverty as a result of illness.

For Ggoobi, this points to a structural gap that recurrent government spending alone cannot close. “We must mobilise long-term domestic capital without adding fiscal risk,” he argued, pointing to the need for more sustainable financing mechanisms. Central to this is the gradual design and rollout of a national health insurance scheme. Evidence from countries such as Rwanda, Kenya, and Ghana suggests that well-structured contributory models can expand coverage while reducing catastrophic out-of-pocket spending.

“My Ministry and the School of Public Health must be partners. … Evidence framed in fiscal terms drives policy,” said Ggoobi, stressing the need for locally grounded solutions. “What works in Ghana might not work here. We need a model that fits Uganda.”

Uganda’s current macroeconomic conditions, relatively low inflation, currency stability, and expanding private credit may provide a window to move in that direction.

View on MakSPH

Uganda’s health system is entering a new phase—one where the biggest challenge is no longer building it, but sustaining it. External funding is tightening. Domestic resources are under pressure. Demand for care is rising faster than both.

In this new reality, health is no longer just a social priority but a financing problem and a test of economic strategy.

For years, the system expanded on government investment, backed by strong external support.  Infrastructure grew. Services followed. But that model is now under strain. Expectations are rising. Citizens want better care, closer to where they live, and without the financial shock that so often comes with illness.

Uganda is already investing in health. The real question is whether that investment is sustainable and whether it is delivering value.

It was against this backdrop that policymakers, academics, and practitioners gathered at Makerere University on April 9 for a public lecture and high-level dialogue on health financing. At the centre of the discussion was a keynote by Dr. Ramathan Ggoobi, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury under the theme “Investing in Health for Uganda’s Future: Delivering Vision 2040 through Smart and Sustainable Health Financing.”

The event was organised by Makerere University School of Public Health (MakSPH) in collaboration with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development.

Dr. Ggoobi does not think about health the way most people in government do. He is not persuaded by the language of welfare. When he speaks about health, he reaches for the language of growth, productivity, and national wealth. In his view, the sector is not a cost centre. It is an economic engine.

“Health is not merely a social sector issue. It is an economic transformation issue, a productivity issue, and a national competitiveness issue,” he said, arguing that no country has achieved sustained growth without investing in human capital. Globally, human capital accounts for nearly 70% of national wealth. The World Health Organization (2021) estimates that every dollar invested in health can return four to nine dollars in productivity gains.

“Investment in health is not charity. It is growth finance. So, my first message is to treat health spending as an investment, not as consumption. Every shilling must buy measurable economic and social returns,” he emphases.

His views reveal a shift in how Uganda’s Treasury thinks about health financing. Spending must justify itself. Investments must deliver returns. And inefficiency is no longer just a technical issue but a fiscal problem.

Ggoobi’s worldview is shaped by the idea that Uganda’s long-term growth ambitions under Vision 2040, which is 13 years away, to achieve what he describes as a tenfold expansion to a $500 billion economy, will be decided not just by infrastructure or industry but by the quality of its human capital.

Globally, he notes, human capital accounts for the bulk of national wealth. Health, therefore, is not peripheral to development. It is central to it.

If health is an investment, then it must generate returns. If it does not, then something in the system is not working. “Every shilling must buy measurable economic and social returns,” he said.

This is where the optimism gives way to unease. Countries that have achieved and sustained middle-income status did so through deliberate, sustained, evidence-driven investments in human capital.

Uganda is working within tight fiscal limits. The national budget for 2025/26 stands at Shs 72.38 trillion, with about Shs 5.87 trillion going to health.

Government spending on health has increased over time, rising from about Shs 2.8 trillion a few years ago to Shs 4.4 trillion today. But even with this growth, spending per person is still low, around $50 a year, less than half of what is often needed to provide basic health services.

Not all the money is used efficiently. Global estimates suggest that weak systems, poor coordination, and procurement challenges can cause up to a third of health spending to be lost.

According to Dr. Ggoobi, Uganda has made notable progress in strengthening its health system, driven by sustained public investment. Life expectancy has risen from about 50 years in 2000 to approximately 68.8 years in 2024, an increase of over 18 years. Access to services has also improved significantly, with about 91 percent of Ugandans now living within five kilometres of a health facility, while income poverty has declined from 24.5 percent in 2010 to 16 percent.

On the service delivery side, the government has introduced the malaria vaccine for children under five and rolled out electronic medical records across national and regional referral hospitals. Strategic investments have also been made, including 16 high-capacity oxygen plants, three regional blood banks, CT scan equipment in 14 of 16 regional referral hospitals, and 20 digital X-ray machines in general hospitals, with remaining gaps expected to be closed in the next budget. Together, he noted, these efforts demonstrate that sustained investment in health is yielding tangible results.

Beneath that progress, Dr. Ggoobi sees a health financing structure that is fundamentally unstable, noting that external partners still finance as much as 40–45 percent of health expenditure. Government contributes about 22 percent, household’s 31 percent, and insurance remains marginal at less than five percent. This balance, Ggoobi argues, is dangerous. It leaves the system exposed to shocks from outside while pushing risk onto those least able to bear it.

But the issue that troubles him most is government inefficiency. His priorities are to increase and protect domestic health financing, mobilise long-term capital, and improve efficiency.

“We are wasteful even with the little we have. Procurement is a major problem—many fights in government are not about mandate but about procurement. That is why we are moving all entities onto an electronic procurement system to improve transparency, reduce leakage, and ensure accountability,” said Dr. Ggoobi.

The government has enrolled 38 entities on the electronic procurement system. Full adoption is expected by mid-2026.

If you have good audits and we implement their recommendations, then we can expect positive outcomes. Number two is e-government, reducing human contact where it is not necessary. Unless you’re a doctor, you have to examine someone. Why do you have to sit in a hotel to discuss procurement? Humans must get out of discussing procurement. That’s why we are building the eGP and reviewing the procurement law. We are going back to the cabinet; we are going to remove human beings who are not necessary in the chain of procurement,” said Ggoobi.

Across the discussion, one issue drew near-unanimous agreement that prevention remains underfunded.

The Ministry of Health’s position, delivered through John Kauta, the Commissioner in charge of Health Information, Statistics, Monitoring, and Evaluation, is unequivocal that “the cheapest disease to treat is the one we prevent.”

Yet Uganda still spends more on treating illness than preventing it. Freddie Ssengooba, a Professor of Health Economics and Health Systems Management, MakSPH, highlighted malaria as a case study, both costly and preventable, while others pointed to rising non-communicable diseases driven by lifestyle factors.

This imbalance has fiscal consequences. Preventable diseases generate recurrent costs, crowding out other investments and reinforcing the cycle of inefficiency.

Mak Chancellor Hon. Dr. Crispus Kiyonga pushed the debate toward geography and access, citing that while Uganda’s health system was originally designed to follow administrative structures, the ambition to reach every village was never fully realised.

“We must plan based on what we can sustainably afford. We cannot import another country’s system. But where shall we save the majority of our people? It is in the villages. That is where children miss school due to illness. Where young girls drop out due to a lack of basic support, like pads. So, we must choose: given limited resources, what system gives the greatest impact? When the Minister of Health asks for a CT scan—something people travel to Nairobi for—that is important. But in the village, a child needs an antimalarial. The choice is between a CT scan and basic treatment. These are tough decisions,” says Dr. Kiyonga.

While the country is “highly indebted” and resources are limited, the level of care that Uganda can realistically provide to its citizens should borrow from China’s early pragmatic reforms of universal access first and quality later, according to the Chancellor.

“You cannot deliver health from a distance,” he said, arguing for a renewed focus on community-level access.

The Chancellor also strongly supported a shift from tertiary care to primary care. From Mulago National Referral and reducing its congestion to the village by investing in lower health facilities.

He urged the government ministries of Finance and Health to strongly collaborate with academic institutions to improve their work. “This dialogue should not be a one-off. It must be continuous. Makerere must engage the government with well-costed, risk-weighted proposals. We should build structured collaboration between universities and government so that research informs policy, and we reduce reliance on expensive foreign consultants. There is valuable research here,” said Dr. Kiyonga.

Taken together, the dialogue revealed a country’s health system in transition, from scarcity to expansion but not yet to performance.

As Ms. Jane Kyarisiima Mwesiga, Deputy Head of Public Service (Service Delivery), Office of the Prime Minister, framed it, the next phase must move “from expansion to performance, from inputs to outcomes, from financing to public value.”

But the path forward remains contested. Should Uganda prioritise insurance or direct public provision? Prevention or specialised care? Infrastructure or functionality?

The answers lie not in choosing but in sequencing, something Uganda has historically struggled to do.

Dr. Ian Clarke, a Physician, philanthropist, entrepreneur, and Chairman of Clarke Group Companies, speaking while representing the Private Sector during the dialogue, spoke emotionally on national health insurance, whose discussion has been ongoing for close to 20 years, but with minimal progress.

“We have had studies and proposals, but many were rightly rejected because they were not practical. You cannot design a National Health Insurance scheme that looks like private insurance. There is simply not enough money in Uganda—or anywhere—to sustain that. We still think in silos: public sector and private sector. Then we ask, how do we support the private sector? There are many ways—but as has been emphasized, we must focus on prevention and equity, especially in rural areas.”

For Ssengooba, while insurance is important and long-term, its implementation needs to be phased. He called for more investments in the health sector as the first line of insurance for citizens. He also called on the government to partner with institutions such as the National Social Security Fund (NSSF), which already have systems, capacity, and reach in place to support health investments. “If we leverage institutions like NSSF—for collection, for pooling resources—we can make progress. During COVID, they demonstrated that they can support national priorities. So, we should think about how to leverage what already exists,” he says.

Stephen Omojong of the National Social Security Fund highlighted an untapped opportunity. The Fund currently manages about Shs 30 trillion in assets, with millions of contributors.

This pool, he argued, could support health financing either through insurance-linked products or long-term investment vehicles. His example of a voluntary savings scheme now has 68,000 participants and Shs. 114 billion mobilised in a year, suggesting that behavioural barriers may be less rigid than often assumed.

Makerere University Vice Chancellor, Professor Barnabas Nawangwe, framed the dialogue as more than an academic exercise, describing it as a call to action. He urged the government to tap into the University’s research capacity to inform strategic investments, noting that “health research constitutes more than 50% of all research at Makerere University,” with institutions like the School of Public Health and the Infectious Diseases Institute playing a central role.

He referred to their national impact—from supporting over 20% of Uganda’s HIV patients to operating in more than 90 districts—and emphasised that Makerere brings in over one trillion shillings annually in research income. “When you fund Makerere University,” he said, “you should understand that we are not a net consumer—we are a net producer for the country.”

Taken together, the dialogue revealed a system in transition from expansion to performance, from spending to results. Uganda is no longer short of ideas, nor entirely short of resources. The real test is execution.

Whether the country can turn health spending into measurable outcomes will determine not just the future of its health system but the credibility of its economic ambitions.

View on MakSPH

Fifteen years after a sustained investment of over $100 million, Makerere University has transitioned Uganda’s digital health systems and assets to the Ministry of Health, marking a fundamental shift from externally supported interventions to full national ownership.

On 31 March 2026, a handover ceremony at Uganda’s Ministry of Health marked the closing of one chapter in Uganda’s digital health journey and the beginning of another, one in which systems built over 15 years through the Makerere University School of Public Health Monitoring and Evaluation Technical Support (MakSPH-METS) Program now sit firmly within government hands.

The national handover event brought together a cross-section of Uganda’s health leadership, academia, and development partners, led by the U.S. Ambassador to Uganda, H.E. William W. Popp; the Permanent Secretary, Dr. Diana Atwine; and the Director General of Health Services, Dr. Charles Olaro. They were joined by the CDC Country Director, Dr. Mary A. Boyd, senior government officials, implementing and development partners, technical teams, and the media. At the center of that moment was Makerere University School of Public Health, an institution that, over more than 70 years, has built its reputation as one of the region’s most enduring public health research and training hubs, working hand in hand with ministries of health, districts, referral hospitals, and partners to turn evidence into public systems that last.

Back in time, Uganda had made important gains in HIV control, but behind those gains were structural weaknesses that could not be ignored: fragmented data monitoring and evaluation systems, parallel reporting channels, weak digital integration, limited surveillance responsiveness, constrained oversight in decentralized structures, and uneven quality assurance across the HIV continuum of care. The problem was not simply that data existed in too many places but it was that the health system could not always use that data quickly enough, coherently enough, or at sufficient scale to guide action.

The MakSPH-METS program was designed as a response to that reality, build the backbone of a data-driven health system, supported through three successive grants totaling US$103.8 million by the United States Government through Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).

The program, rather than working around government systems, worked inside them with a deliberate and system-wide focus to strengthen health information systems, expand surveillance, improve governance and accountability, institutionalize quality improvement, and build the workforce needed to run all of it.

That choice to work within the Ministry of Health structures and across decentralized systems made all the difference. It meant the investment was not in parallel projects, but in national architecture, and over time, that architecture began to take shape.

Reporting through DHIS2 (District Health Information System 2), the world’s largest open-source health management information system platform improved from 58 percent in 2020 to 98 percent in 2025. DHIS2 is a flexible, web-based tool used to collect, manage, and analyze both aggregate and individual-level data.

Also, tracked through the MakSPH-METS program, electronic medical record coverage rose to a high of 86 percent in 2024 from 50 percent in 2020, and reached 100 percent in high-volume sites. Additionally, a functional National Data Warehouse came into place. Across the country, 1,300 health facilities implemented HIV case-based surveillance, 1,084 facilities implemented HIV recency surveillance, and 300 sites established all-cause mortality surveillance. Six regional referral hospitals were implementing integrated surveillance for severe acute respiratory infections, influenza-like illness, acute febrile illness, and SARS, popular for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, which is a viral respiratory illness caused by the SARS-associated coronavirus. At the governance level, 10 regional referral hospitals and 65 CDC-supported districts were trained and supported in planning and oversight, while regional referral hospital capacity scores improved from 58 percent in 2021 to 79 percent in 2024.

These are strong statistics. But the deeper story is that Uganda moved from fragmented systems to a more integrated, data-driven public health response. What had once been separate reporting streams, paper-heavy workflows, and delayed visibility became a system able to provide more timely access to data, better accuracy, stronger dashboards, and more confident decision-making. Health workers could access patient information faster. Today, district leaders are able to review performance data more accurately, national programmes can respond more strategically and data is no longer just collected, but used.

The transition also touched the practical side of care, including laboratory systems, patient records, commodity tracking, quality improvement, and outbreak intelligence.

Dr. Alice Namale, Executive Director of MakSPH-METS Program, was careful during the handover not to let the digital systems overshadow the broader institutional gains. MakSPH-METS, she noted, had “improved regional referral capacity and the district health team capacity to manage programs,” and those systems were now being leveraged by disease programs beyond HIV. She also captured the spirit of the team behind the work, saying the staff had adapted through a changing landscape. “For us, it was never business as usual. We had to continuously adapt as the landscape kept changing, and the team delivered with grace and professionalism,” Dr. Namale said.

Adding that; “We have strengthened systems and built capacity across the health sector, and these gains are now supporting not just HIV programs, but broader health services.”

That wider view matters that the systems handed over were not only about HIV reporting but they included platforms for electronic medical records, HIV case-based surveillance, stock monitoring, quality improvement, early infant diagnosis, viral load reporting, PEPFAR reporting, DREAMS tracking tool for tracking adolescents and young people data, outbreak and respiratory illness surveillance, ICT asset tracking, and e-learning platforms. In plain terms, these are the tools that allow clinicians to see results faster, managers to monitor performance more clearly, districts to respond to outbreaks sooner, and national leaders to plan with greater confidence.

The Ministry of Health now boasts of 16 such systems that have been fully developed and handed over, including UgandaEMR repositories, DREAMS Tracker, PREV Tracker, the HIV CBS dashboard, the Weekly Stock Status System, OpenHIM for health information exchange, EMR metrics, eIDSR, a platform for documenting patient level data on acute illnesses like pandemics, the QI database for visualising facility data on continuous improvement, EID and viral load dashboards, TB eCBSS, PIRS that supports PEPFAR indicator reporting beyond the DHIS2, and the SURGE Dashboard, a power BI based reporting platform.

This handover included 725 servers, more than 4,700 computing devices, solar systems for nearly 800 facilities, connectivity equipment for more than 1,300 sites, video conferencing systems, and network upgrades for regional referral hospitals. Those investments, valued at about US$9.3 million in ICT infrastructure alone, helped kick-start Uganda’s digitalization journey in practical terms: power, devices, connectivity, storage, and the ability to sustain real-time data exchange across facilities.

For the Ministry of Health, the significance of this transition is both strategic and immediate. Dr. Charles Olaro, Director General of Health Services, put it plainly that “Data is the lifeblood of decision-making,” and it provides “the raw materials for accountability.” In a sector where financing, human resources, commodities, and performance all depend on credible information, that was not a ceremonial line, but was a statement of what national ownership now requires.

“As a Ministry, we are focused on how this can support sustainable national ownership that is built to last, while strengthening resilient health systems. We look forward to leveraging these gains as part of our national digitalization roadmap, ensuring they continue to support and improve our systems moving forward,” said Dr. Olaro.

Dr. Diana Atwine, Permanent Secretary at the country’s Ministry of Health, spoke with equal clarity about what comes next. She described the handover as both a celebration of “tangible milestones of growth” and a call to responsibility. Uganda, she said, is not going back to paper-heavy systems. “We are not going to start again. We are just moving ahead.” At the same time, she was firm that ownership must come with inventory, verification, deployment, maintenance, and continued investment in people.

Calling the digital systems and assets “this treasure,” she urged districts and hospitals to take care of it, and made a broader plea that Uganda government should not lose the skilled workforce developed through the partnership, especially the technical teams that established these systems under the program. “This is the cream of the cream,” she said, arguing that the country should find ways to retain this talent as digital systems expand.

On his part, the U.S. Ambassador to Uganda, William W. Popp, framed the handover in similar terms, as a move from project implementation to self-reliance. He described it as “a new phase in national ownership and sustained self-reliance,” and linked it to the December 2025 U.S.-Uganda health memorandum of understanding, which set out a broader vision of government-led delivery, accountability, and stronger national systems. He stressed that foreign assistance, when delivered with discipline and accountability, should build lasting national capacity. In his words, the handover symbolizes a stronger Ugandan health system that benefits Uganda, the region, and the wider world.

For Makerere University School of Public Health, the moment was deeply consistent with its long institutional identity. The School began in the 1950s as preventive medicine, grew into one of sub-Saharan Africa’s earliest public health institutions, and has remained closely linked to the Ministry of Health through teaching, service, research, and workforce development.

Emphasizing the Ministry’s continued reliance on national expertise and long-standing institutional partnerships, the Permanent Secretary underscored the critical role of the Makerere University School of Public Health in sustaining and advancing Uganda’s health systems:

“We are still going to work with you… because you are our important resource in the country. You have the skill, you have the experience—and above all, you are Ugandans,” Dr. Diana Atwine said emphatically.

Her remarks stresses not only MakSPH’s technical capacity, but also the trust it has built over years of collaboration with government positioning the School of Public Health as the Ministry of Health’s strategic partner in driving nationally owned, sustainable health system improvements.

MakSPH has worked across more than 25 countries in Africa in recent years, trained thousands of public health professionals, and sustained long-term partnerships with organizations including CDC, NIH, the Global Fund, Johns Hopkins, WHO, the UN agencies and others. Its own strategic direction emphasizes community engagement, policy influence, partnership, and translating research into practical public good.

That is why Prof. Rhoda Wanyenze, Dean of MakSPH and Principal Investigator of METS, described the handover not as an ending, but as a transition. “As an academic institution, we are always exploring—looking for innovative, creative ways of doing things. We test them, and then work with key actors to take them over, scale them up, and sustain them,” she said. Later, she added, “This is not the end. This is the beginning of a new phase.”

For Wanyenze, that philosophy has always been intentional. “This is not our data, this is not our house, this is Ministry of Health,” she emphasized, an approach that places national ownership at the center from the very beginning. The School’s role, then, is not to hold systems, but to build them, prove them, and let them go when they are ready to stand.

And when that happens, she argues, it is not a loss but success. “When what we have contributed to is taken over, sustained, and continues to grow—that is success.”

For years, much of Uganda’s health system operated with limited visibility, records stacked in paper files, data delayed, and decisions often made without a clear picture of what was happening on the ground. That is what makes this moment different.

After more than 15 years of investment and collaboration, Uganda is now taking over a digital health infrastructure built not just to collect data, but to actually use it, making information more timely, accessible, and practical for decision-making. The handover of the Monitoring and Evaluation Technical Support (MakSPH-METS) programme assets and systems marks more than a transfer of equipment or platforms; it reflects a shift toward a system that can better generate and use its own data.

In the end, the legacy of MakSPH-METS is not only the hardware, but something less visible and more important: a stronger ability to make informed decisions, knowing where the burden lies, where gaps remain, where stockouts occur, where patients are lost, and where progress is being made.

View on MakSPH