In a notable decision, the Kenyan Court of Appeal has overturned a previous ban and given the green light to the Social Health Insurance Fund (SHIF), a contentious healthcare insurance levy championed by President William Ruto.
The SHIF aims to provide affordable healthcare to all Kenyans but has faced widespread criticism, with many viewing it as a new tax that could exacerbate the cost-of-living crisis, leading to protests last year.
The High Court had halted the SHIF’s rollout in November following a petition by businessman Joseph Enock Aura, challenging certain aspects of the scheme.
The suspension, along with the halting of a controversial housing levy, prompted President Ruto to accuse unnamed judges of corruption and claim that the judiciary was colluding with the opposition to hinder government projects, triggering protests from lawyers.
Replacing the decades-old National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF), which has suffered significant losses to corruption, the SHIF has undergone legal scrutiny.
The three-judge bench, while lifting the ban, suspended sections requiring mandatory registration to the scheme, citing concerns about the potential harm to the health rights of citizens not involved in the litigation.
President Ruto has taken a series of unpopular measures since he took office in 2022
All workers are expected to contribute 2.75% of their salaries towards the new health fund.
The new law does not address what happens when individuals cannot afford contributions but President Ruto said his government would pay for those unable.
Critics of the new health plan say the 2.75% deduction is a huge increase on what they paid to the NHIF, coming on top of the recent rise in fuel prices and living costs.
Some also fear that the new social healthcare body will spend most of the collected funds on administrative expenses like the current NHIF, leaving few resources for direct healthcare costs.
In June last year, Mr Ruto signed the Finance Act, another unpopular piece of legislation that introduced a 1.5% housing levy payable by both employers and employees.
The government says it seeks to provide affordable housing to low income earners. The levy has also been challenged in court.
Although I believe every thought you have for your post is excellent and will undoubtedly be successful, the postings are too brief for new readers. Maybe you could extend them a little bit the next time? I’m grateful for the post.