Scholarlink

Background <p>Kenya rolled out a UHC indigent program aimed to expand financial protection and health service access for poor households through subsidized health insurance under the national insurer, National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF). As Kenya transitions to a new social health insurance framework under the Social Health Authority (SHA), understanding the implementation experience of the UHC indigent program is critical for informing the roll out of SHA’s indigent program.</p> Methods <p>We conducted a qualitative process evaluation of the UHC indigent program using document reviews, semi-structured interviews with 23 key informants from national and county health authorities, development partners, and implementing actors, complemented by a validation workshop with 57 stakeholders. Our analysis was guided by Moore et al.‘s process evaluation framework and Wu et al.‘s policy capacity lens, examining implementation fidelity and capacities at multiple levels.</p> Results <p>The program’s implementation deviated from its original centralized design, with counties exerting control over beneficiary identification due to national data gaps, incomplete rollout of the Harmonized Testing Tool, and political and operational constraints. Variations in targeting methods, reliance on under-resourced community health actors, and delays in biometric registration contributed to partial enrolment, limited access, exclusion errors, and mistrust. Although some counties reported increased service utilization, this was limited by unregistered dependents and lack of beneficiary awareness. Stakeholders expressed concern over SHA’s use of proxy means testing for identifying the poor, citing risks of exclusion, manipulation, and failure to capture locally constructed definitions of poverty.</p> Conclusion <p>Kenya’s experience demostrates the need to align national targeting frameworks with local realities, invest in policy capacity across stakeholders, and prioritize community validation and communication in subsidy programs. As SHA rolls out a new indigent program, these lessons offer critical guidance for enhancing fidelity, equity, and accountability.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

“Poverty is a social issue, not a mathematical problem”: examining the lessons for beneficiary identification from implementation of the UHC indigent program in Kenya

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月29日

查看全文
  • Beryl Maritim,
  • Rahab Mbau,
  • Anita Musiega,
  • Anne Musuva,
  • Beatrice Amboko,
  • Benjamin Tsofa,
  • Caitlin Mazzilli,
  • Ileana Vilcu,
  • Ethan Wong,
  • Felix Murira,
  • Jacinta Nzinga,
  • Matt Boxshall,
  • Peter Mugo,
  • Rose Nabi Deborah Karimi Muthuri,
  • Wangari Ng’ang’a,
  • Nirmala Ravishankar,
  • Edwine Barasa

摘要

Background

Kenya rolled out a UHC indigent program aimed to expand financial protection and health service access for poor households through subsidized health insurance under the national insurer, National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF). As Kenya transitions to a new social health insurance framework under the Social Health Authority (SHA), understanding the implementation experience of the UHC indigent program is critical for informing the roll out of SHA’s indigent program.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative process evaluation of the UHC indigent program using document reviews, semi-structured interviews with 23 key informants from national and county health authorities, development partners, and implementing actors, complemented by a validation workshop with 57 stakeholders. Our analysis was guided by Moore et al.‘s process evaluation framework and Wu et al.‘s policy capacity lens, examining implementation fidelity and capacities at multiple levels.

Results

The program’s implementation deviated from its original centralized design, with counties exerting control over beneficiary identification due to national data gaps, incomplete rollout of the Harmonized Testing Tool, and political and operational constraints. Variations in targeting methods, reliance on under-resourced community health actors, and delays in biometric registration contributed to partial enrolment, limited access, exclusion errors, and mistrust. Although some counties reported increased service utilization, this was limited by unregistered dependents and lack of beneficiary awareness. Stakeholders expressed concern over SHA’s use of proxy means testing for identifying the poor, citing risks of exclusion, manipulation, and failure to capture locally constructed definitions of poverty.

Conclusion

Kenya’s experience demostrates the need to align national targeting frameworks with local realities, invest in policy capacity across stakeholders, and prioritize community validation and communication in subsidy programs. As SHA rolls out a new indigent program, these lessons offer critical guidance for enhancing fidelity, equity, and accountability.