UHC Forward: Towards Universal Health Coverage

EPSs and EPSSs are free to establish payment levels and payment mechanisms for services that they purchase from providers. Both entities have used the fee schedules, adjusted for inflation, developed by the pre-reform public health plans as ceilings for price negotiations. As of 2008, provider associations were forcefully seeking the establishment of price floors by the MPS.

There are two payment mechanisms common to both EPSs and EPSSs. In general, preventive and primary care services are contracted on a capitation basis. Most specialist and hospital care, however, is paid for either on a fee-for-service basis or by a services package.

The CR and SR enrollees must also pay copayments, which vary according to an individual’s income. CR copayments are charged according to salary income. Enrollees with salaries lower than 2 minimum monthly salaries (mms) have a maximum copayment of USD46.70 annually. The maximum copayment for enrollees with incomes in the range of 2-5 mms is USD 195.20 annually. Finally, enrollees with incomes greater than 5 mms have a maximum copayment of USD390.30 annually. SR copayments are set according to SISBEN category. The poorest enrollees, who are classified in category 1, pay co copayments. On the opposite end of the scale, enrollees classified in category 3 pay 10% of the service value.

Providers have historically been reimbursed by the regulated fee-for-service system since the beginning of the national health insurance program (NHIP). There is no difference between public and private providers from the health insurer side regarding fee schedules or reimbursement rates. The fee-for-service system has led to an increase in volume and intensity of services in the long run. However, because fee regulation is applied to all providers, both public and private, it has contributed to overall cost containment and a rapid extension of population coverage. South Korea has single pooled purchasing, and claim reviews and payments are centralized and monitored by the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MoHW).

In 1997 the government launched a Diagnosis Related Group Pilot program for voluntary participating health facilities. The pilot program showed positive impacts on the behavior of health providers, such as the reduction in the length of stay, medical expenses, the average number of tests and a decreased use of antibiotics. However, there is strong opposition from providers, which has blocked the extension of DRG as a provider payment mechanism throughout the country.

The pharmaceutical dispensing was separated from prescribing in 2000. This bars pharmacists from selling antibiotics to customers without a prescription. As such, physicians are not allowed to dispense medicines.

The National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) and private insurers have negotiated fixed reimbursement rates for in-patient care. The reimbursement amount varies slightly with the level of provider, the diagnosis, and the type of care required. “Contract A” and “Contract B” providers are typically reimbursed through case based or fee-for-service provider payments. “Contract C” providers are reimbursed through a per diem rebate system. Claims are submitted by hospitals directly to the National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF), and then hospitals are paid for procedures and users are reimbursed. Most claims are reimbursed within 14 days of the claim received. This process is computerized and is designed to be transparent to the providers.

Moving forward, the NHIF intends to increasingly employ case-based payments for inpatient services. As the NHIF adds outpatient care to the benefits package with implementation of the recently gazette changes, capitation to comprehensive-care facilities will be the intended payment mechanisms. The fee-for-service system has been identified as one of the key drivers of escalating health care costs, as it creates incentives to encourage over-servicing and supplier-induced demand.

The majority of services covered by the NHIF are delivered through private facilities, indicating a preference by the bulk of salaried workers (who make up the majority of those covered by NHIF) toward private providers rather than public institutions.

Of overall health expenditures in Kenya, Secondary and Tertiary care providers traditionally absorb approximately 70% of health expenditures, though health centers and primary care units provide the bulk of services. Health personnel expenditures are high—accounting for about 50% of the budget—compared to expenditures on drugs, pharmaceuticals, and operations and maintenance. Expenditures for curative care constitute more than 48% of the total MOH budget.

Health care facilities also receive payments from the Ministry of Health (MOH), which releases funds to the district and national level hospitals. Allocations to the district health centers and dispensaries are in the form of line-item budgets, whereas national level hospitals receive global budgets. Salaries to staff are paid directly by the MOH. Drugs are also procured centrally, by the Kenya Medical Suppliers Agency (KEMSA) and then delivered to district and local level facilities. At the local level, the process of disbursement of funds is slow, which causes uncertainty for the providers, impedes their planning process, and encourages district level managers to await funding before they procure services, and creates an incentive to under-service clients.