Policy levers and priority-setting in universal health coverage: a qualitative analysis of healthcare financing agenda setting in Kenya

Abstract

Background: Competing priorities in health systems necessitate difficult choices on which health actions and investments to fund: decisions that are complex, value-based, and highly political. In light of the centrality of universal health coverage (UHC) in driving current health policy, we sought to examine the value interests that influence agenda setting in the country's health financing space. Given the plurality of Kenya's health policy levers, we aimed to examine how the perspectives of stakeholders involved in policy decision-making and implementation shape discussions on health financing within the UHC framework. Methods: A series of in-depth key informant interviews were conducted at national and county level (n = 13) between April and May 2018. Final thematic analysis using the Framework Method was conducted to identify similarities and differences amongst stakeholders on the challenges hindering Kenya's achievement of UHC in terms of its the optimisation of health service coverage; expansion of the population that benefits from essential healthcare services; and the minimisation of out-of-pocket costs associated with health-seeking behaviour. Results: Our findings indicate that the perceived lack of strategic leadership from Kenya's national government has led to a lack of agreement on stakeholders' interpretation of what is to be understood by UHC, its contextual values and priorities. We observe material differences between and within policy networks on the country's priorities for population coverage, healthcare service provision, and cost-sharing under the UHC dispensation. In spite of this, we note that progressive universalism is considered as the preferred approach towards UHC in Kenya, with most interviewees prioritising an equity-based approach that prioritises better access to healthcare services and financial risk protection. However, the conflicting priorities of key stakeholders risk derailing progress towards the expansion of access to health services and financial risk protection. Conclusions: This study adds to existing knowledge of UHC in Kenya by contextualising the competing and evolving priorities that should be taken into consideration as the country strategises over its UHC process. We suggest that clear policy action is required from national government and county governments in order to develop a logical and consistent approach towards UHC in Kenya.

Health coverage and what Kenya can learn from the COVID-19 pandemic

“…The government of Kenya made changes to its national insurance scheme and introduced the National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) cover in 2004 as a means of facilitating access to cheaper health in the country in line with the World Health Organization’s Universal health coverage goals [ 11 ]. However, since it was introduced, the NHIF has struggled to cater to the growing population and the growing health care needs of Kenyan citizens.…”

Survey on the indexes of health equity in the physical environment and infrastructures of Kermanshah province, Iran

“…The imbalance in the physical environment and infrastructures in Kermanshah province means that the implemented policies have not led to health equity in the province. In studies conducted outside Iran, policy-making and planning have also been mentioned as important issues on health equity [ 38 , 39 ]. Concentration of services in urban places created bipolar areas and also led to migration from the rural to urban areas, and subsequently creating the inequity and misdistribution of services and facilities in the province.…”

Performance assessment of the county healthcare systems in Kenya: a mixed-methods analysis

“…To make further progress towards UHC, there is a compelling need to improve the performance of the healthcare systems and make more efficient use out of the limited resources-especially since external support is expected to decline over the coming years. 20 Recent evidence suggests the Kenyan healthcare system performs poorly as anywhere between 20% and 50% of the resources devoted to health in Kenya are used inefficiently. [33][34][35][36][37] Critically, these studies focus primarily on measuring the performance of the healthcare system but provide little evidence on potential solutions to improve healthcare system performance.…”