SummaryIll-health can inflict costs on households directly through spending on treatment and indirectly through impacting on labour productivity. The financial burden can be high and, for poor households, contributes significantly to declining welfare. We investigated socio-economic inequities in self-reported illnesses, treatment-seeking behaviour, cost burdens and coping strategies in a rural and urban setting along the Kenyan coast. We conducted a survey of 294 rural and 576 urban households, 9 FGDs and 9 in-depth interviews in each setting. Key findings were significantly higher levels of reported chronic and acute conditions in the rural setting, differences in treatment-seeking patterns by socio-economic status (SES) and by setting, and regressive cost burdens in both areas. These data suggest the need for greater governmental and non-governmental efforts towards protecting the poor from catastrophic illness cost burdens. Promising health sector options are elimination of user fees, at least in targeted hardship areas, developing more flexible charging systems, and improving quality of care in all facilities. The data also strongly support the need for a multi-sectoral approach to protecting households. Potential interventions beyond the health sector include supporting the social networks that are key to household livelihood strategies and promoting micro-finance schemes that enable small amounts of credit to be accessed with minimal interest rates.

BackgroundMany health systems in Africa are funded primarily through out-of-pocket payments. Out-of-pocket payments prevent people from seeking care, can result to catastrophic health spending and lead to impoverishment. This paper estimates the burden of out-of-pocket payments in Kenya; the incidence and intensity of catastrophic health care expenditure and the effect of health spending on national poverty estimates.MethodsData were drawn from a nationally representative health expenditure and utilization survey (n = 8414) conducted in 2007. The survey provided detailed information on out-of-pocket payments and consumption expenditure. Standard data analytical techniques were applied to estimate the incidence and intensity of catastrophic health expenditure. Various thresholds were applied to demonstrate the sensitivity of catastrophic measures.ResultsEach year, Kenyan households spend over a tenth of their budget on health care payments. The burden of out-of-pocket payments is highest among the poor. The poorest households spent a third of their resources on health care payments each year compared to only 8% spent by the richest households. About 1.48 million Kenyans are pushed below the national poverty line due to health care payments.ConclusionsKenyans are becoming poorer due to health care payments. The need to protect individuals from health care related impoverishment calls for urgent reforms in the Kenyan health system. An important policy question remains what health system reforms are needed in Kenya to ensure that financial risk protection for all is achieved.

BackgroundRemoving user fees in primary health care services is one of the most critical policy issues being considered in Africa. User fees were introduced in many African countries during the 1980s and their impacts are well documented. Concerns regarding the negative impacts of user fees have led to a recent shift in health financing debates in Africa. Kenya is one of the countries that have implemented a user fees reduction policy. Like in many other settings, the new policy was evaluated less that one year after implementation, the period when expected positive impacts are likely to be highest. This early evaluation showed that the policy was widely implemented, that levels of utilization increased and that it was popular among patients. Whether or not the positive impacts of user fees removal policies are sustained has hardly been explored. We conducted this study to document the extent to which primary health care facilities in Kenya continue to adhere to a 'new' charging policy 3 years after its implementation.MethodsData were collected in two districts (Kwale and Makueni). Multiple methods of data collection were applied including a cross-sectional survey (n = 184 households Kwale; 141 Makueni), Focus Group Discussions (n = 12) and patient exit interviews (n = 175 Kwale; 184 Makueni).ResultsApproximately one third of the survey respondents could not correctly state the recommended charges for dispensaries, while half did not know what the official charges for health centres were. Adherence to the policy was poor in both districts, but facilities in Makueni were more likely to adhere than those in Kwale. Only 4 facilities in Kwale adhered to the policy compared to 10 in Makueni. Drug shortage, declining revenue, poor policy design and implementation processes were the main reasons given for poor adherence to the policy.ConclusionWe conclude that reducing user fees in primary health care in Kenya is a policy on paper that is yet to be implemented fully. We recommend that caution be taken when deciding on how to reduce or abolish user fees and that all potential consequences are carefully considered.

BackgroundPrompt access to effective malaria treatment is central to the success of malaria control worldwide, but few fevers are treated with effective anti-malarials within 24 hours of symptoms onset. The last two decades saw an upsurge of initiatives to improve access to effective malaria treatment in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa. Evidence suggests that the poorest populations remain least likely to seek prompt and effective treatment, but the factors that prevent them from accessing interventions are not well understood. With plans under way to subsidize ACT heavily in Kenya and other parts of Africa, there is urgent need to identify policy actions to promote access among the poor. This paper explores access barriers to effective malaria treatment among the poorest population in four malaria endemic districts in Kenya.MethodsThe study was conducted in the poorest areas of four malaria endemic districts in Kenya. Multiple data collection methods were applied including: a cross-sectional survey (n = 708 households); 24 focus group discussions; semi-structured interviews with health workers (n = 34); and patient exit interviews (n = 359).ResultsMultiple factors related to affordability, acceptability and availability interact to influence access to prompt and effective treatment. Regarding affordability, about 40 percent of individuals who self-treated using shop-bought drugs and 42 percent who visited a formal health facility reported not having enough money to pay for treatment, and having to adopt coping strategies including borrowing money and getting treatment on credit in order to access care. Other factors influencing affordability were seasonality of illness and income sources, transport costs, and unofficial payments. Regarding acceptability, the major interrelated factors identified were provider patient relationship, patient expectations, beliefs on illness causation, perceived effectiveness of treatment, distrust in the quality of care and poor adherence to treatment regimes. Availability barriers identified were related to facility opening hours, organization of health care services, drug and staff shortages.ConclusionsEnsuring that all individuals suffering from malaria have prompt access to effective treatment remains a challenge for resource constrained health systems. Policy actions to address the multiple barriers of access should be designed around access dimensions, and should include broad interventions to revitalize the public health care system. Unless additional efforts are directed towards addressing access barriers among the poor and vulnerable, malaria will remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality in sub-Saharan Africa.