The controversies surrounding the Social Health Authority (SHA) in Kenya, specifically involving Principal Secretary Harry Kimtai, have sparked widespread debate due to the increasing costs and opaque procurement processes.
This ambitious project aims to digitize healthcare records and streamline service delivery, but its price tag has inflated dramatically, reaching a staggering Ksh. 104 billion.
The system, a collaboration between Safaricom, Apeiro Limited, and Konvergenz Network Solutions, has raised concerns due to questionable procurement practices and the unexpected involvement of newly-formed entities.
One of the primary concerns is the entry of Apeiro Limited, a Dubai-registered company that was established just months before the tender was awarded.
This has fueled speculation over whether the procurement process was conducted transparently or if vested interests influenced the deal.
Safaricom, a giant in Kenya’s telecommunications sector, leads the consortium, but questions remain as to why a recently registered company like Apeiro was involved in such a crucial national project.
PS Kimtai defended the use of direct procurement, citing legal allowances, but this has not quelled public unease.
Kenya’s Public Procurement and Disposal Act emphasizes the need for competitive bidding, allowing direct procurement only in rare situations, such as when only one provider can meet specific needs.
In addition to the procurement concerns, the SHA’s technical rollout has been plagued by issues.
Several healthcare facilities across the country have struggled with the system, forcing patients to pay out of pocket as the system failed to process claims.
While PS Kimtai acknowledged these problems, he assured the public that the system is now fully operational and promised ongoing training for healthcare providers.
Still, these glitches have exacerbated frustrations, especially considering the massive financial investment.
What adds more controversy to the situation is the consortium’s failure to fully disclose details to the National Assembly’s Health Committee.
This lack of transparency has led to heightened scrutiny from both lawmakers and the public, who feel that the procurement process lacked accountability.
There is growing concern that the true beneficiaries of this project are the companies and individuals behind the scenes, rather than the Kenyans, whom the SHA was meant to serve.
The financial strain on the project is worsened by the Treasury’s reluctance to allocate more funds to health initiatives.
For instance, a request for Ksh. 8.2 billion to fund health projects, including upgrading key health facilities, was ignored.
This has placed additional pressure on the Ministry of Health to ensure that existing projects like the SHA are financially sustainable without relying on future budget increases.
According to Kimtai, over 12 million Kenyans have registered for the system, and hospitals nationwide are now required to ensure that patients are not denied service due to the transition from the previous National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF).
The SHA’s long-term goal is to digitize patient records, improve service delivery, and ensure universal healthcare access, but the controversies over rising costs and questionable transparency remain big obstacles.
While the SHA promises a more integrated and efficient healthcare system, the project’s steep costs, technical failures, and opaque procurement process have cast doubt over whether it will achieve its intended goals or simply serve as another example of mismanaged public funds.
Kenyans are left with more questions than answers about who truly benefits from this monumental investment in the country’s health sector.
Add Comment