Tag Archives: right to health

What will define Kenya’s Health Care System in Devolved County Governments?

 

 

President Kibaki in a past event. He presided over the handing of ambulances to District Hospitals

With the impending devolution of healthcare management functions to the counties anxiety looms over the levels of preparedness for such an undertaking in all the counties. In an earlier post a number of challenges were identified, including uneven inter-county levels of development- unequal distribution of resources for health especially the distribution of health facilities, human resources, and poorly developed communication infrastructure. Also unevenly distributed across the country are poverty levels, the effect of which is to make health services largely inaccessible to a large chunk of the population that cannot afford the high out-of-pocket expenditures, which prevail in Kenya. This post reviews the extent to which the decentralisation policy of the Ministry of Health (MOH) has been implemented and how this may impact on assumption of fully devolved management of health services by county governments.

The term “decentralisation” has been used to signify a variety of reforms characterized by the transfer of fiscal, administrative, and/or political authority for planning, management, or service delivery from the central MOH to alternate institutions. “Devolution” is a category of decentralisation; it implies the ceding of sectoral functions and resources to autonomous local governments, which in some measure take responsibility for service delivery, administration, and finance.

Despite decades of intention to decentralise, Kenya’s health care system has remained largely centralised with decisions taken at MOH headquarters from where they are conveyed top-down through the provincial medical officers to the district level. Centralised functions at the headquarters include policy formulation, coordinating activities of all health players (government and non-governmental organizations), initiating and managing implementation of policy changes on various issues including charging of user fees, and undertaking monitoring and evaluation of impact of policy changes at the district level.

Centralised decision making may have contributed to, among others, regional disparities in the distribution of health services, inequities in resource allocations, and unequal access to quality health services, resulting in the wide regional differentials in health indicators which successive demographic and health surveys (KDHS) have highlighted[i].

On paper, the MOH through the various health sector strategic plans has expressed commitment to decentralisation intended to provide increased authority for decision making, resource allocation, and management of health care to the district and facility levels. For example, in 1992 the MOH established the District Health Management Teams (DHMTs) and the District Health Management Boards (DHMBs), which were charged with managing public health services at the district level. Together, the DHMT and DHMB are supposed to provide management and supervisory support to lower level health facilities (sub-district hospitals, health centres, and dispensaries).However, despite the fact that these bodies coordinate health activities in the district and may develop plans for spending cost sharing funds, the final decisions on budgets and resource allocation is retained at the central level. Lack of funds and transport are the most commonly cited reasons for failure by DHMTs to meet their supervision targets despite the near universal existence of documented supervision plans[ii]. Budgetary remittances to the districts have neither been regular nor timely.

Health care under devolved system of governance:

The Constitution of Kenya (2010) has assigned the larger portion of delivery of health services to Counties, the exception being the National Referral Services. This implies that Counties should bear overall responsibilities for planning, financing, coordinating delivery and monitoring of health services toward the fulfilment of right to ‘the highest attainable standard of health’.

For many Kenyans, devolution is looked upon as the answer to the persistent regional disparities in the distribution of health services and inequities in resource allocations. However, much as that is an ideal goal; its realisation may not be immediate, especially because of the current varied levels of preparedness within the counties. Some counties starting at a relative disadvantage will take time to build up their capacity and ability to use devolved resources well, which may lead to even wider disparities. Such counties will require particular assistance to catch-up. In the long run, success of devolution will depend on availability of resources (both financial and human) for counties to carry out their assigned functions, and their empowerment to use resources effectively.

The draft Kenya Health Sector Strategic & Investment Plan[iii](KHSSP)July 2012 – June 2018 proposes a three-pronged framework for overall health sector leadership, i.e: Partnership, Governance and Stewardship– which taken together should address the health agenda towards the fulfillment of the right to health.

The strategic plan proposes that within the counties, the stewardship responsibilities for health services will be exercised at three levels: the National Directorates for Health, the County health management teams, and County Health facility management teams. However, scrutiny of the prescribed responsibilities, functions and roles[iv] of these bodies portrays a continuation of dominance by MOH headquarters in matters to do with policy formulation, planning and priority setting, which leaves the county management teams to be purely concerned with programme implementation (under close supervision from above). This is unfortunate since it perpetuates central planning which has not always taken into consideration the peculiarities of our country’s diversity, with consequent wide disparities in health status.

Planning at the county level should enable better definition of local priorities and design of innovative models of service delivery that adapt to local conditions, e.g. serving pastoralist communities in arid and semi-arid areas. It also can improve quality and legitimacy owing to user participation in decision making; and greater equity through distribution of resources toward traditionally marginal regions and groups. Local hiring of service providers can improve staffing levels and appropriate deployment, especially in rural health facilities.

One major challenge facing proposed county health services is the serious shortage of resources, human and material, especially due to financial limitations. Currently the public health sector is seriously under-funded and is generally operating on shoe-string budgets, inadequate infrastructure and lack of essential supplies. Although better distribution and deployment of health personnel may somewhat alleviate current acute shortages in some counties, still more will be needed. Many counties will especially require strengthening in health planning and monitoring.

[i] Ministry of Health (MOH) 2006 Reversing the trends, The Second National Health Sector Strategic Plan of Kenya: Annual Operational Plan 2 2006/07. Nairobi, Kenya.

[ii] Ndavi, P.M., S. Ogola, P.M. Kizito, and K. Johnson. 2009. Decentralizing Kenya’s Health Management System: An Evaluation. Kenya Working Papers No. 1. Calverton, Maryland, USA: Macro International Inc.

[iii] Ministry of Medical Services and Ministry of Public Health & Sanitation KENYA HEALTH SECTOR STRATEGIC & INVESTMENT PLAN (KHSSP) July 2012 – June 2018: Transforming Health: Accelerating attainment of Health Goals

[iv] National Directorates for Health: provide overall direction- policy formulation, national strategic planning, priority setting, budgeting and resource mobilization, regulating, setting standards, formulating guidelines, monitoring and evaluation, and provision of technical backup to the county level. County Health Management Teams: Provide Strategic and operational leadership and stewardship for overall health management in the County, including resource mobilization, creation of linkages with national level referral health services, monitoring and evaluation, coordination and collaboration with State and Non state Stakeholders at the County level health services. County Health Facility Management Teams: Develop and implement facility health plans for levels 1–3 health care services; coordinate and collaborate with stakeholders through County Health Stakeholder Forums; undertake in-service training and capacity building; and supervision, monitoring and evaluation.

 

Advertisements

Selected case studies of women who were denied enjoyment of ‘right to health’ in Kenya

 

A review of ‘Human Rights Issues in maternal health care in Kenya: Do Kenyan women enjoy the right to maternal health?’ and ‘Barriers to enjoyment of health as a human right in Africa’ provides a useful background to the case studies.

The recently launched report by the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights[i] highlights several incidents and situations where women were denied their right to health care services both because of non-availability of resources and non-affordability of services, as well as misdeeds on the part of health care providers. People living with disabilities (PWDs), in particular, complained of mistreatment, especially delays in getting attended to in health facilities. Most health institutions were not disabled-friendly in terms of infrastructure and means of communication, for example, facilities for sign language or Braille.

A Level 2 Health Facility at Mtwapa, Mombasa County (Picture: J Mati)

Witnesses raised several complaints related to the inefficient referral systems in several health facilities that caused considerable delays in obtaining higher level care, not infrequently resulting in fatal consequences for the women and their babies. This was particularly a serious problem when it came to referral of patients from levels 1 and 2 to appropriate higher level facilities.

In some cases, women in rural areas had to be transported on wheel barrows by family members or on donkey carts. Where hospitals had ambulances, the patients or the relatives were required to pay amounts ranging from KSHs. 500 to KSHs. 3,000 supposedly to fuel the vehicles. In situations where people were unable to pay, patients were denied treatment. In other instances, blood was not readily available in hospital blood banks, or the facilities lacked adequate infrastructure to obtain blood for emergency transfusions.

In Tana River, for example, a woman who developed complications after delivering at a dispensary (level 2) died while waiting to raise funds, through harambee, to fuel a government ambulance to take her to Hola District Hospital. A similar report is given in connection with a maternal death due to lack of transport between Magarini Dispensary and Malindi District Hospital, both in Kilifi County.

In Lamu County, patients who needed to be referred to Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa were reportedly required to pay between KSHs. 8,000 and KSHs. 10,000 to fuel the hospital’s ambulance. Where there are no ambulances, as in Wajir and Marsabit District Hospitals families had either to hire expensive taxis or resort to donkeys and camels to transport their sick members.

Witnesses testified that the high cost of hospital delivery, especially the fees charged at level 4 and 5 facilities, was a key hindrance to accessing skilled attendance at delivery. A witness during the inquiry stated thus: ‘Many women deliver at home because they do not have enough money to go to the hospital’.

 Corruption, especially among hospital management staff, was also cited as a barrier to accessing maternal health services. According to witness accounts from Kitale, corruption in health facilities meant that patients ended up paying for drugs and other items that ought to be provided for free. Similarly, bribes were solicited to facilitate earlier scheduling of surgical treatment, as stated by a witness at the Coast: “For one to get an operation done quickly at Coast General Hospital one has to pay bribes or know someone because there are long queues, so I left”.

Mistreatment in health facilities by unkind, cruel, sometimes inebriated hospital staff, who scolded, abused and even beat patients also features prominently in the report. So are delays in getting attended to in health institutions, particularly in the labour ward, where witnesses complained of being neglected during labour, in some cases ending in delivering unattended within the hospital. An example is the case of a woman who waited at the out-patients from 5am to 4pm before being admitted to the labour ward, ending up with a stillborn child. Women complained of being admitted in overcrowded wards and sharing of beds; up to three women with their babies sharing one bed, even when some of them were still bleeding, which exposed them to potential risk of infection, including HIV and Hepatitis B. Detaining of women for non-payment of hospital charges obviously contributes to congestion in hospital wards.

There were complaints of frequent lack of essential medicines, equipment, commodities and supplies in public health facilities resulting in denial of services to the needy. It was common in most public facilities for patients to be asked to purchase medicines, gloves and dressings, besides being referred to private institutions for specialised radiological and ultrasound diagnostic examinations. Essential resources for effective provision of sexual and reproductive health services were lacking in many health facilities. For example, many lacked the drugs needed for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) following sexual abuse including rape. The Inquiry established that non-availability of family planning commodities was a fundamental barrier to accessing comprehensive family planning in Kenya, this being illustrated by the frequent stock outs of commodities. There were complaints of frequent shortages of various contraceptives which denied clients a wide choice of family planning methods.

Several witnesses complained of negligent actions by doctors and midwives, for example, forgetting items such as surgical instruments or swabs in a patient’s abdomen; performing procedures such as hysterectomy without prior informed consent; poorly managed labour leading to ruptured uterus, maternal morbidities such as VVF and RVF, intra-uterine foetal death or a mentally handicapped child,. Other examples of negligent actions or omissions were performing episiotomy and failing to repair it, and failure to recognise accidental injury during surgery and failing to repair it immediately. There were women who complained that not enough information was given to them about the various diagnostic and treatment modalities they had been subjected to by health providers. In particular, there was inadequate information given to the patients before and after surgical procedures.

 The Report cites an article published in The Daily Nation Newspaper of 18th January 2011 on a case of maternal death associated with abortion:

“A woman aged 40 years who was held at Murang’a police station for allegedly procuring an abortion died after she developed complications while in the police cells. The Police said the woman was reported to have terminated the pregnancy by swallowing some chemical, and locked her up in a cell at the police station. They said she later developed complications and was being rushed to hospital when she died en route.”

 It can be argued that had the police taken the woman to a health care professional, instead of holding her in remand at the police station, she most likely would have survived. In other words this was a case of preventable death associated with denial of enjoyment of right to health. Yet this was after the promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 which has relaxed the rigidity on termination of pregnancy that existed previously. Article 26 (4) permits safe abortion if in the opinion of a trained health professional, there is need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written law.

What can be learned from the above case studies?

Clearly, they demonstrate that Kenya has yet to address the well known factors and barriers that have over the years sustained the prevailing high rates of maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity. Maternal health services that are inaccessible, non-affordable and of poor quality, have been perpetuated by several serious weaknesses in the health systems- inadequate capacity in terms of human resources and health infrastructure, negligence and malpractices especially among over-worked de-motivated health service providers, and various socio-cultural barriers, among others. Addressing these barriers is a prerequisite to meeting local and international goals and targets including the Vision 2030 and Millennium Development Goals.


[i] A Report of the Public Inquiry into Violations of Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights in Kenya

Lack of concurrence between policy and practice is a serious blow to achievement of MDG5 in Kenya

What holds Kenya back in its efforts to achieve MDG 5 is staring us in the face. We just need to look and see the many areas of non-concurrence between policy and practice, for example, while on the one hand the policy is that of equitable access to RH services, in practice on the other hand, many Kenyans, especially those living in marginalized far-flung areas, have nothing close to equitable access to such RH services. This also applies to the poor irrespective of where they reside.

Among the earlier posts by Africa Health Dialogue there was one entitled “What’s in the way of achieving improved maternal health in Kenya?” in which three key barriers to attainment of improved maternal health in Kenya were discussed: the lack of equity in health planning and implementation; inadequacy of funding to the health sector; and inequitable distribution of resources for health especially financial and human resources.

Since the publication of that post, a lot has changed: first, the urgency of the matter in consideration is much greater now- there is much less time left to 2015; secondly, Kenya now has a Constitution that is specific in its provision of health as a basic right. Article 43 (1) (a) states:  “Every person has the right to the highest attainable standard of health, which includes the right to health care services, including reproductive health care”. The constitution is not saying that only the urban rich and those living in the more accessible counties have the right to the “highest attainable standard of health”. No, it is all Kenyans, wherever they may be!

In addition, we also have a National Reproductive Health Policy (2007) with its stated goal of enhancing the RH status of all Kenyans by (among others) increasing equitable access to RH services and improving responsiveness to client needs. According to the Policy all pregnant women should have access to skilled care throughout the continuum of pregnancy, childbirth and postnatal periods. Skilled attendance implies access to appropriately trained health providers whether in a health facility or through domiciliary care. It also implies access to a rapid means of referral to a higher level of care in case of an emergency. In consideration of the above, at least three questions immediately arise: (a) to what extent are maternal health services equitable; (b) are the current health interventions responsive to client needs and (c) how accessible is skilled attendance by all pregnant women in Kenya?

Review of maternal health indicators as published in successive national surveys, such as the Kenya Demographic and Health Survey (KDHS) and the Kenya Service Provision Assessment Survey (KSPA), shows that health services are far from being equitably distributed in Kenya. Women from the more marginal areas which are lacking in communication infrastructure, especially roads, and those who are in the lower socio-economic strata, are all grossly disadvantaged. In fact, these are the women who register the worst maternal health indicators (whether it be maternal mortality ratio, contraceptive prevalence rate, total fertility rate, attendance by a skilled health professional; or availability and quality of antenatal and delivery services in local health facilities, etc. etc. Unfortunately, forgetting them is not an option; Kenya will never achieve MDG5 without their contribution! That’s the way it is.

In many parts of Kenya it’s nightmarish ferrying a woman in labour to a health facility.

CASE STUDY: The following narrative is based on a true event which took place in eastern part of Mwingi in the Kitui County:

Kavata was a married mother of three, all normal deliveries at home assisted by a TBA from the neighbourhood. During her fourth pregnancy she had attended an antenatal clinic at a dispensary, beginning from the sixth month. She made a total of three antenatal clinic visits before she went into labour. At the clinic she had been advised that even though her pregnancy was progressing satisfactorily, she needed to ensure that this time round she delivered at a health centre because of her history of heavy bleeding during her last delivery. The health centre, located about 15km from her home, had only one qualified midwife, who also had other duties apart from midwifery.

Kavata went in labour at night but could not get to the health centre at that hour; the only matatu in the area made the trip twice a day, early in the morning and early in the afternoon. Walking at that time was out of the question for fear of marauding wild animals and muggers in the area. So, at 6am next day she was in the matatus heading for the health centre where she arrived at 9am. However, she could not be admitted immediately to the maternity ward because the midwife had not reported to work until 10am.

By 2pm the midwife observing that labour was not progressing normally radioed the District Hospital located about 80km away, requesting for an ambulance to transfer the patient for more specialized care. This was not possible – the only functional land rover at the hospital had travelled to Nairobi to fetch supplies. Now the only transport option available at that time for Kavata was a ride at the back of a lorry, perched on top of cowpea bags. The lorry made several stops collecting more bags on the way. By the time Kavata arrived at the District Hospital her uterus had already ruptured and she had bled profusely. Her baby had already died; she too died before anything could be done to save her life.

The big question is “Was Kavata and the many other women who are continually going her way, also expected to enjoy the “right to the highest attainable standard of health, which includes the right to health care services, including reproductive health care”? Is there concurrence between policy and practice: on the one hand the policy is that of equitable access to RH services, but on the other hand, in practice people like the late Kavata and many others have nothing close to equitable access to such services?

Implementing the Reproductive Health Provisions of the Kenya Constitution

Implementation of RH provisions of Kenya Constitution- KMA conf

Implications of Kenya’s New Constitution to programming of health services

Implications of Kenya’s New Constitution to Health Care Programming
wordpress stats plugin

%d bloggers like this: