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.

IntroductionEquity and universal coverage currently dominate policy debates worldwide. Health financing approaches are central to universal coverage. The way funds are collected, pooled, and used to purchase or provide services should be carefully considered to ensure that population needs are addressed under a universal health system. The aim of this paper is to assess the extent to which the Kenyan health financing system meets the key requirements for universal coverage, including income and risk cross-subsidisation. Recommendations on how to address existing equity challenges and progress towards universal coverage are made.MethodsAn extensive review of published and gray literature was conducted to identify the sources of health care funds in Kenya. Documents were mainly sourced from the Ministry of Medical Services and the Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation. Country level documents were the main sources of data. In cases where data were not available at the country level, they were sought from the World Health Organisation website. Each financing mechanism was analysed in respect to key functions namely, revenue generation, pooling and purchasing.ResultsThe Kenyan health sector relies heavily on out-of-pocket payments. Government funds are mainly allocated through historical incremental approach. The sector is largely underfunded and health care contributions are regressive (i.e. the poor contribute a larger proportion of their income to health care than the rich). Health financing in Kenya is fragmented and there is very limited risk and income cross-subsidisation. The country has made little progress towards achieving international benchmarks including the Abuja target of allocating 15% of government's budget to the health sector.ConclusionsThe Kenyan health system is highly inequitable and policies aimed at promoting equity and addressing the needs of the poor and vulnerable have not been successful. Some progress has been made towards addressing equity challenges, but universal coverage will not be achieved unless the country adopts a systemic approach to health financing reforms. Such an approach should be informed by the wider health system goals of equity and efficiency.

BackgroundEnsuring that the poor and vulnerable population benefit from malaria control interventions remains a challenge for malaria endemic countries. Until recently, ownership and use of insecticides treated nets (ITNs) in most countries was low and inequitable, although coverage has increased in countries where free ITN distribution is integrated into mass vaccination campaigns. In Kenya, free ITNs were distributed to children aged below five years in 2006 through two mass campaigns. High and equitable coverage were reported after the campaigns in some districts, although national level coverage remained low, suggesting that understanding barriers to access remains important. This study was conducted to explore barriers to ownership and use of ITNs among the poorest populations before and after the mass campaigns, to identify strategies for improving coverage, and to make recommendations on how increased coverage levels can be sustained.MethodsThe study was conducted in the poorest areas of four malaria endemic districts in Kenya. Multiple data collection methods were applied including: cross-sectional surveys (n = 708 households), 24 focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews with 70 ITN suppliers.ResultsAffordability was reported as a major barrier to access but non-financial barriers were also shown to be important determinants. On the demand side key barriers to access included: mismatch between the types of ITNs supplied through interventions and community preferences; perceptions and beliefs on illness causes; physical location of suppliers and; distrust in free delivery and in the distribution agencies. Key barriers on the supply side included: distance from manufacturers; limited acceptability of ITNs provided through interventions; crowding out of the commercial sector and the price. Infrastructure, information and communication played a central role in promoting or hindering access.ConclusionsSignificant resources have been directed towards addressing affordability barriers through providing free ITNs to vulnerable groups, but the success of these interventions depends largely on the degree to which other barriers to access are addressed. Only if additional efforts are directed towards addressing non-financial barriers to access, will high coverage levels be achieved and sustained.

Medicine prices are a major determinant of access to healthcare. Owing to low availability of medicines in the public health facilities and poor accessibility to these facilities, most low-income residents pay out-of-pocket for health services and transport to the private health facilities. In low-income settlements, high retail prices are likely to push the population further into poverty and ill health. This study assessed the retail pricing, availability, and affordability of medicines in private health facilities in low-income settlements within Nairobi County. Medicine prices and availability data were collected between September and December 2016 at 45 private healthcare facilities in 14 of Nairobi’s low-income settlements using electronic questionnaires. The International Medical Products Price Guide provided international medicine reference prices for comparison. Affordability and availability proxies were calculated according to existing methods. Innovator brands were 13.8 times more expensive than generic brands. The lowest priced generics and innovator brands were, on average, sold at 2.9 and 32.6 times the median international reference prices of corresponding medicines. Assuming a 100% disposable income, it would take 0.03 to 1.33 days’ wages for the lowest paid government employee to pay for treatment courses of selected single generic medicines. Medicine availability in the facilities ranged between 2% and 76% (mean 43%) for indicator medicines. Prices of selected medicines varied within the 14 study regions. Retail medicine prices in the low-income settlements studied were generally higher than corresponding international reference prices. Price variations were observed across different regions although the regions comprise similar socioeconomic populations. These factors are likely to impact negatively on healthcare access.