ArticleBMC health services research2024
Examining patient choice and provider competition under the National Health Insurance Fund outpatient cover in Kenya: does it enhance access and quality of care?
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Levels and Determinants of Health Insurance Coverage in Kenya: Cross-Sectional Evidence from KDHS 2022.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile patient choice and provider competition are predicted to influence provider behaviour for enhancing access and quality of care, evidence on provider perceptions and response to patient choice and provider competition is largely missing in low-resource settings such as Kenya. We examined provider and purchaser perceptions about whether patient choice and provider competition influenced provider behaviour and enhanced access and quality of outpatient care in Kenya.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative study to explore this across two purposefully selected counties. We conducted 15 in-depth interviews (IDIs) with health facility managers and National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) staff across the two counties. We examined these across five areas summarised as either local market conditions or patient feedback following the Vengberg framework.
resultsNHIF members' choice of outpatient facilities compelled private and faith-based providers to compete for members while public providers did not view choice as a way of spurring competition. Besides, all providers did not receive any information regarding the exit of NHIF members from their facilities. Providers felt that that information would be crucial for their planning, especially in enhancing service accessibility and quality of care. Most providers ensured the availability of drugs, provided a wider range of services and leveraged on marketing to attract and retain NHIF members. Finally, providers highlighted their redesign of service delivery to meet NHIF members' needs whilst enhancing the quality-of-care aspects such as waiting time and having qualified health workers.
conclusionThere is a need for NHIF to share NHIF members' exit information with providers to support their service delivery arrangements in response to NHIF members' needs. Besides, this study contributes evidence on patient choice and provider competition and their influence on access and quality of care from a low-resource setting country which is crucial as NHIF transitioned to the Social Health Authority.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.