By: Sheilah Ombongi
Healthcare should be considered a fundamental right, yet recent changes in policy by the Social Health Authority (SHA) have transformed it into a privilege that only those who can afford to pay in advance can access. By changing the payment structure from monthly to yearly, the SHA has created a financial obstacle that denies treatment to at-risk patients, pushing them toward precarious options like the Husler Fund. This action not only undermines fair access to care but also reveals a systemic neglect of the challenges faced by low-income families.
The SHA’s requirement for patients to pay full annual premiums upfront has plunged many into a state of crisis. Imagine a single parent dealing with a chronic illness while trying to survive on a minimum-wage salary. Monthly payments, though difficult, could be planned around expenses like rent and food, but a one-time yearly fee can be overwhelming. Cases of patients turned away from clinics, yearning for assistance yet unable to gather an entire year’s worth of premium payments, illustrate a troubling system that favors financial efficiency over the well-being of individuals.
The SHA defends the shift to yearly payments because the government feared that monthly contributions from individuals with irregular incomes would lead to insufficient funding, potentially undermining the scheme’s ability to provide universal healthcare However, this reasoning overlooks a critical aspect: healthcare cannot be postponed. Denying treatment to those without immediate funds not only worsens health conditions but also increases long-term expenses and perpetuates cycles of poverty. A diabetic individual who goes without insulin or a child who misses essential vaccinations today could lead to a far more expensive emergency situation in the future.
For individuals who cannot afford to pay, the SHA casually suggests the Husler Fund, a loan program presented as a safety net. Nevertheless, this “solution” acts merely as a temporary fix for a significant issue. The fund imposes high interest rates and strict repayment conditions that entangle borrowers in debt, essentially swapping medical emergencies for financial devastation. Even worse, its eligibility requirements exclude many potential applicants, such as gig economy workers or undocumented immigrants, leaving them without any options.
The presence of the Husler Fund highlights a more significant issue: the acceptance of debt as a means to access healthcare. Should someone battling cancer have to choose between financial ruin and medical treatment?
The SHA’s policy exemplifies a disturbing trend towards treating healthcare as a commodity. Genuine healthcare reform ought to focus on accessibility rather than revenue generation. Returning to monthly payment options would significantly ease the burden on patients. Even better would be a sliding fee structure that adjusts premiums based on income to ensure equity. Additional strategies, like governmental support for low-income families or penalties for facilities that deny urgent care, would enhance accountability.
Healthcare policies should be evaluated based on their impact on the most vulnerable populations. The SHA’s shift to yearly premiums and its dependence on the exploitative Husler Fund fails miserably to meet this standard. It is crucial to redirect the conversation toward empathy and humanity, rather than bureaucratic processes. Health authorities need to heed the concerns of those they serve and reform systems that promote healing, not harm. Until this happens, the promise of healthcare as a right remains an empty assurance.
Similar Posts by Mt Kenya Times:
- K Unity SACCO Strengthens 17-Year Partnership with Craft Silicon to Deepen Digitization and Financial Trust
- Mt Kenya Times ePAPER July 11, 2025
- Government Should Enforce Laws To Fight Plastic Pollution
- Senator Sifuna Seeks Answers On Lack Of Electricity In Nairobi County
- Postmortem Report Reveals 12-Year-Old Bridgit Njoki Died From Gunshot Wound During Saba Saba Protests
