Concerns are growing over the integrity of the Social Health Authority (SHA) system, prompting calls for a government investigation to ensure proper oversight. Recent revelations suggest that private entities control the system, raising alarms about its management.
A critical audit by Auditor General Nancy Gathungu has confirmed that the government no longer exercises authority over the SHA system. The findings have sparked serious concerns about data security and the overall governance of Kenya’s public healthcare framework.
The report reveals that the private consortium overseeing the system imposes charges of 2.5 per cent on member contributions, five per cent on claims by health facilities, and 1.5 per cent for track-and-trace services. Despite the government injecting 104.8 billion shillings into the system, these private and foreign entities maintain exclusive control, restricting the government’s ability to manage essential health data independently.
Following the report’s release, Westlands MP Tim Wanyonyi demanded that the identities of those behind the consortium be disclosed, stressing that Kenyans deserve to know who controls a system funded by public contributions. He also questioned why competitive procurement was bypassed in favour of the Specially Permitted Procurement Procedure to engage the consortium.
‘The public must have access to the agreement that transferred our healthcare system into private hands. Additionally, we demand an immediate review of the exploitative deductions, particularly the five per cent levy on claims, which will place undue strain on hospitals and patients,’ Wanyonyi asserted.
He further pushed for renegotiating the contract to restore government ownership, arguing that no nation should permit private entities to control its healthcare infrastructure.
Gathungu warned that the lack of transparency surrounding the system poses a severe threat to public funds and the effective delivery of healthcare services. ‘The system was acquired under the Specially Permitted Procurement Procedure but was neither part of the procurement plan nor included in the medium-term budgetary expenditure framework,’ her report noted.
She further highlighted that the contractor was selected through direct procurement rather than competitive bidding, contravening Article 227(1) of the Kenyan Constitution 2010. Despite the project’s substantial financial impact, Gathungu pointed out that it lacks a foundational baseline survey, raising concerns about its feasibility and the likelihood of increasing healthcare costs for citizens.
In a statement to news outlets, MP Wanyonyi reiterated the need for government accountability, warning that Kenyans would not accept silence on the issue. ‘We demand transparency, accountability, and a healthcare system that genuinely serves all citizens, rather than benefiting a select few,’ he declared.
Of even greater concern, Wanyonyi revealed that the contract terms prohibit the government from developing or accessing any alternative healthcare system, effectively eliminating future options. Moreover, any disputes arising from the contract are to be resolved by the London Court of International Arbitration, bypassing Kenya’s legal framework.
The SHA system was originally designed to enhance health insurance, making quality healthcare more affordable and accessible while reducing financial barriers for citizens.
