Skip to main content

Barriers of access to primary healthcare services by National Health Insurance Fund capitated members in Uasin Gishu county, Kenya

Abstract

Purpose

The study identifies provision of primary healthcare services using the capitated health model as a prerequisite for promoting positive healthcare outcomes for a country’s population. However, capitated members have continued to face challenges in accessing primary healthcare services despite enrolment in the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF). This study sought to determine if variables such as patient knowledge of the NHIF benefit package, NHIF Premium Payment processes, selecting NHIF capitated health facilities, and NHIF Communication to citizens’ influences access to primary healthcare services.

Method

A cross-sectional analytical research design was adopted. Data was collected from patients who were using NHIF cards, who were drawn from health facilities. Data was collected using a structured questionnaire where some of the questions were rated using the Likert scale to enable the generation of descriptive statistics. Data was analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Logistic regression was conducted to determine the relationship between the independent and the dependent variables.

Results

The study found that four independent variables (Patient knowledge of NHIF Benefit Package, NHIF Premium Payment processes, Selecting NHIF capitated Health Facility, and NHIF Communication to citizens) were significant predictors of access to capitated healthcare services with significance values of .001, .001, .001 and .001 respectively at 95% significance level.

Conclusions

The study found that familiarity with the NHIF benefit package significantly influenced NHIF capitated members' access to primary healthcare services in Uasin Gishu County. While most members were aware of their healthcare entitlements, there's a need for increased awareness regarding access to surgical services and dependents' inclusion. Facility selection also played a crucial role, influenced by factors like freedom of choice, NHIF facility selection rules, facility appearance, and proximity to members' homes. NHIF communication positively impacted access, with effective communication channels aiding service accessibility. Premium payment processes also significantly linked with service access, influenced by factors such as payment procedures, premium awareness, payment schedules, registration waiting periods, and penalties for defaults. Overall, patient knowledge, NHIF communication, premium payment processes, and facility selection all contributed positively to NHIF capitated members' access to primary healthcare services in Uasin Gishu County.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Health financing plays a critical role in the functioning of healthcare systems, encompassing the acquisition, pooling, and allocation of funds to address people’s healthcare needs [1]. An effective health financing system should be capable of consistently generating sufficient funds to facilitate access to high-quality health services without imposing financial burdens [2, 3]. The core functions of health financing comprise revenue collection, risk pooling, and the purchasing of health services [4, 5]. Purchasing can take either a passive or strategic approach. Strategic purchasing aims to optimize health system performance, while passive purchasing operates within predetermined budgetary constraints. Strategic purchasing, integral to achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC), prioritizes both adequate resource mobilization and efficient resource utilization [6,7,8]. Provider payment mechanisms within healthcare systems primarily include fee-for-service, salary, and capitation. Strategic employment of capitation holds promise for advancing UHC objectives. Capitation involves providers receiving fixed payments per enrolled individual over a defined period, fostering a shift towards preventive care [9]. Simplified billing procedures under capitation streamline administrative processes and incentivize preventive healthcare, thus reducing reliance on costly interventions [10,11,12].

Globally, the capitation model predominates in tax-funded health systems like those of Italy and the UK, where general practitioners deliver primary care [13, 14]. As countries commit to UHC, many are considering integrating capitation with other payment models to enhance healthcare efficiency and performance [13, 15]. However, challenges such as inadequate incentive structures and concerns about limiting consumer choice hinder widespread adoption [16, 17].

Kenya's National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) predominantly employs capitation to finance primary healthcare services, contracting various organizations to provide outpatient care. Despite the theoretical benefits of capitation in promoting preventive care and reducing hospitalization rates, challenges persist, including inadequate funding and delays in payment [18,19,20]. Kenya's efforts to achieve UHC through NHIF expansion face obstacles such as reliance on out-of-pocket payments and inconsistencies in service provision [21,22,23].

To address these challenges, this study was conducted in Uasin Gishu County, Kenya, to explore the barriers of access to primary healthcare services by national health insurance fund capitated members in Uasin Gishu county, Kenya. The findings aim to inform decision-makers and stakeholders on measures to enhance access to primary healthcare services within the national scheme.

Methods

This cross-sectional analytical research was conducted in Uasin Gishu County, Kenya, chosen due to its large population exceeding 1.3 million in 2019 and a notable inter-censual growth rate of 3.6%, surpassing the national rate of 2.9% [24]. The county's poverty rate, at 44.6% as of 2006, highlights socio-economic disparities affecting the purchasing power of primary healthcare services. Among its 125 public health facilities, there's one national referral hospital, two district hospitals, 11 sub-district hospitals, 88 dispensaries, and 23 health centres. Utilizing a multistage sampling technique, 90 facilities were selected, targeting over 10,000 capitated members [25]. Based on Krejcie and Morgan's formula [14], a sample of 384 respondents was determined, proportionately allocated to the facilities according to NHIF registration. Within each facility, simple random sampling was employed.

Data collection utilized a structured questionnaire, employing a three-point Likert scale, administered in English, covering socio-demographic characteristics, independent variables (NHIF benefit package, premium payment processes, communication to citizens, and healthcare provider selection), and the dependent variable (access to NHIF primary healthcare services) [26]. Logistic regression analysed the relationship between independent and dependent variables, with Likert scale responses converted into binary variables, where agreement was coded as 1 and disagreement or not sure as 0. This binary coding facilitated the analysis, reflecting patients' access or lack thereof to primary healthcare services.

Results

Two hundred eighty-two out of 384 participants responded, contributing to a 73% response rate, ideal for analysing socio-demographic characteristics such as gender, age, number of children, marital status, education, employment, household income, and NHIF contributions as presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the sample (n = 282)

The primary age group of respondents was 25 to 34 years, typically productive and focused on personal and organizational growth. They exhibited a high likelihood of seeking healthcare services, with many having young families, leading to increased capitation subscription, contribution, and utilization rates. The majority had partners, had 1–2 children, had acquired tertiary education, had employment, and had a household income adequate for NHIF premiums.

Access to NHIF primary care health services

The study dependent variable was patient’s access to NHIF Primary Care Health Services. Descriptive results are presented in Table 2 [27]. 

Table 2 Access to NHIF Primary Care Health Services

Over 70% agreement was observed regarding positive staff attitude, feeling safe while with staffs, staff competence and willingness to assist patients, NHIF service availability, and manageable waiting times. However, 226(80%) agreed to paying out-of-pocket for registration, consultation, medications, or laboratory services despite having prepaid for the services.

Logistic regression

The independent variable in this study were (NHIF Benefit Package, premium payment processes, communication to citizens, and healthcare provider selection) and the dependent variable was access to NHIF primary healthcare services. Logistic regression was undertaken of the variables to determine the barriers of access to primary healthcare services by national health insurance fund capitated members in Uasin Gishu county, Kenya.

The model used in this study was as follows:

$$f\left(z\right)=\frac{1}{1+{{e}^{-}}^{Z}}$$

where Z is a linear combination of the covariates expressed as:

The model employed in this study was formulated as follows:

$$Z = \beta 0 + \beta 1X1 + \beta 2X2 + \beta 3X3 + \beta 4X4$$

where Z represents a linear combination of the covariates, with X1, X2, X3, and X4, being the independent variables (NHIF Benefit Package, premium payment processes, communication to citizens, and healthcare provider selection). The intercept is represented by β0, whereas β1, β2, β3 and β4 denote the estimates of the increase in log odds of the dependent variable (access to NHIF primary care health services) for each unit increase in the respective independent variables. An odds ratio of 1 indicates that the independent variable has no effect on the dependent variable. An odds ratio greater than one suggests a greater risk association, while ratio less than one indicates a reduced risk or the ability of the independent variable to mitigate the risk of access to NHIF primary care health services [28].

A logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the impact of patients’ knowledge of the NHIF benefit package, premium payment process, facility selection, and communication from NHIF on their access to services. The results are presented in Table 3 [29]

Table 3 Logistic regression results

The results reveal that patients who knew the NHIF benefit package were 9.274 times more likely to receive the healthcare services compared to those unaware of the benefit package. In addition, patients who knew about the NHIF premium payment process were 5.339 times more likely to visit the NHIF recommended health facilities compared to those unaware of the process. The NHIF members who knew how to select a health facility were 6.101 times willing to access NHIF services compared to their counterparts who had no knowledge of health care facility selection. Members who receive communication were also more likely to access primary healthcare services.

Discussion

The predominant age group among respondents was between 25 and 34 years, representing individuals at their peak productivity and deeply invested in personal and professional growth. This cohort exhibited the highest likelihood of seeking healthcare services, leading to increased rates of capitation subscription, contribution, and utilization [30]. Married couples showed a higher rate of insurance coverage, attributed to their responsibilities towards dependents and a comparatively higher household income, facilitating premium payments [31]. Moreover, a majority of respondents had attained at least minimum academic and professional qualifications, enhancing their understanding of NHIF procedures and terms. They also boasted household incomes adequate for monthly NHIF contributions [32].

However, patient awareness of NHIF primary health service benefits remained limited, with approximately 25% expressing disagreement or uncertainty regarding their entitlements [23, 33]. Understanding of NHIF benefits significantly influenced access to capitated health services positively [34]. While NHIF continuously reviews its benefit package, many members only become aware of the outpatient services when they necessitate them, possibly due to the on-demand nature of outpatient care utilization [35, 36].

Effective communication from NHIF positively impacted access to primary care health services under capitation. Despite positive feedback regarding NHIF's provision of necessary information, a significant portion of respondents expressed dissatisfaction with NHIF's responsiveness to public complaints and its clarity regarding service packages. NHIF primarily communicates through its website and media advertisements, but the limited reach of these channels potentially hinders members' awareness of their entitlements, affecting healthcare access and potentially leading to under or over-provision of services [18, 23, 37,38,39]. Equity and efficiency in healthcare provision can be achieved by empowering the service providers and the members with the information by adopting effective communication channels [40, 41]. The findings agree with other studies which show that some of the communication media used by the NHIF included television, radio, newspaper, social media, mobile phones, billboards, and sensitization campaigns [33, 42]. They agree with the findings of another study where reportedly 57% of the respondents are provided information by NHIF while 43% are not receiving any communication from NHIF regarding the health services covered [23, 33, 43]. In addition, the results also highlight that no legislation provides for feedback or complaints mechanism from members or beneficiaries [18, 23, 44].

Approximately 20% of respondents were unaware of the premium payment process, indicating a lack of clarity regarding NHIF contributions [45,46,47,48]. The perception of NHIF-accredited health facilities significantly influenced service utilization, with patients associating the facilities' image with service quality [35, 36, 49]. However, the accreditation status varied among clinics and higher-level facilities, potentially impacting service uptake [50, 51]. Additionally, individuals diagnosed with chronic illnesses exhibited a higher likelihood of selecting healthcare providers and utilizing services, with private providers restricted to specific service categories compared to government hospitals [52, 53].

Limitations

Using structured questions to collect self-reported data. Participants may provide inaccurate or biased responses due to social desirability bias or recall bias. Additionally, respondents' comprehension of the questions or their willingness to disclose certain information could vary, leading to inconsistencies in the data collected. This could affect the validity and reliability of the study's findings.

The findings of the research may have limited generalizability beyond the specific context of Uasin Gishu County. Factors influencing access to primary healthcare services can vary significantly depending on geographical location, cultural norms, healthcare infrastructure, and other contextual factors. Therefore, the determinants identified in this study may not be applicable to capitated members in other regions of Kenya or in different counties; limiting the broader applicability of the research findings and the study also targeted NHIF accredited public health facilities in Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. Privately owned hospitals were excluded. Hence the study findings can be generalized to public facilities.

Conclusions

Out of pocket payment despite prepayment remains a key barrier of access to primary healthcare services. NHIF capitated members are generally aware of their healthcare entitlement. However, efforts are needed to enhance more awareness regarding entitlement to surgical services, inclusion of dependents, access to information about the benefit package, feedback and complaint mechanisms, premium payment process, awareness of the premium to be paid, payment schedule, the waiting period before registration and accessing services, and penalties in the event of default. This information could be used to advocate for the implementation of effective communication systems that allow for real-time dissemination of information and feedback, as well as to conduct regular in-service training and recruiting a well-educated workforce that is familiar with NHIF procedures and terms in order to promote the NHIF in the face of capitated members' social-demographic profiles, and to increase knowledge of the health coverage plan for the informal sector and flexible payment platforms. Utilizing vernacular to reach more communities, particularly in rural areas could broaden outreach.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. World Health Organization. The world health report: health systems financing: the path to universal coverage: executive summary. World Health Organization; 2010.

  2. Liaropoulos L, Goranitis I. Health care financing and the sustainability of health systems. Int J Equity Health. 2015;14(1):1–4.

  3. Lagomarsino G, Garabrant A, Adyas A, Muga R, Otoo N. Moving towards universal health coverage: health insurance reforms in nine developing countries in Africa and Asia. The Lancet. 2012;380(9845):933–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. World Health Organization. An empirical model of access to health care, health care expenditure and impoverishment in Kenya: learning from past reforms and lessons for the future. World Health Organization; 2006.

  5. Abiiro GA, Alatinga KA, Yamey G. Why did Ghana’s national health insurance capitation payment model fall off the policy agenda? A regional level policy analysis. Health Policy Plan. 2021;36(6):869–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Honda A. What is strategic purchasing for health? World Health Organization; 2014.

  7. Alawode GO, Adewole DA. Assessment of the design and implementation challenges of the National Health Insurance Scheme in Nigeria: a qualitative study among sub-national level actors, healthcare and insurance providers. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Nyandekwe M, Nzayirambaho M, Kakoma JB. Universal health insurance in Rwanda: major challenges and solutions for financial sustainability case study of Rwanda community-based health insurance part I. Pan Afr Med J. 2020;37(1).

  9. Langenbrunner J, Cashin C, O’Dougherty S, editors. Designing and implementing health care provider payment systems: how-to manuals. World Bank Publications; 2009.

  10. James BC. The Case for Capitation. Harvard Business Review. 2016. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/07/the-case-for-capitation.

  11. Busby M, Chapple L, Clover H, McCreanor J, Chapple I. Capitation care fee banding: aspects of reliability and validity of an online tool. Br Dent J. 2018;225(8):751–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Obadha M, Chuma J, Whongu J. Preferences of healthcare providers for capitation payment in Kenya: a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy Plan. 2020;35(7):842–54.

  13. Park M, Braun T, Carrin G, Evans DB, World Health Organization. Provider payments and cost-containment: lessons from OECD countries. World Health Organization; 2007.

  14. Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. Determining sample size for research activities. Educ Psychol Measur. 1970;30(3):607–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Feldhaus I, Mathauer I. Effects of mixed provider payment systems and aligned cost sharing practices on expenditure growth management, efficiency, and equity: a structured review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Koenecke A. A game theoretic setting of capitation versus fee-for-service payment systems. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(10): e0223672.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Sachs JD. Achieving universal health coverage in low-income settings. The Lancet. 2012;380(9845):944–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Munge K, Mulupi S, Barasa EW, Chuma J. A critical analysis of purchasing arrangements in Kenya: the case of the National Hospital Insurance Fund. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(3):244.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Obadha M, Chuma J, Kazungu J, Barasa E. Health care purchasing in Kenya: Experiences of health care providers with capitation and fee-for-service provider payment mechanisms. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2019;34(1):e917–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Xu W, Cai GJ, Li GN, Cao JJ, Shi QH, Bai J. Age or health status: which influences medical insurance enrollment greater? J Global Health. 2016;6(2).

  21. Barasa EW, Maina T, Ravishankar N. Assessing the impoverishing effects, and factors associated with the incidence of catastrophic health care payments in Kenya. Int J Equity Health. 2017;16(1):1–4.

  22. Barasa E, Nguhiu P, McIntyre D. Measuring progress towards sustainable development goal 3.8 on universal health coverage in Kenya. BMJ Global Health. 2018;3(3):e000904.

  23. Mwangi EM, Tenambergen W, Mapesa J, Mutai I. Citizen engagement in social health insurance purchasing, in selected counties in Kenya. Int J Community Med Public Heal. 2019;6(10):4145–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. KNBS K. Kenya Population and Housing Census Volume I: Population by County and Sub-County. Vol. I. 2019;2019.

  25. Salari P, Di Giorgio L, Ilinca S, Chuma J. The catastrophic and impoverishing effects of out-of-pocket healthcare payments in Kenya, 2018. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(6):e001809.

  26. World Health Organization. (2008). Health System Financing. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/toolkit_hss/EN_PDF_Toolkit_HSS_Financing.pdf.

  27. Explanation of the benefit package for the National Scheme. 2015. Retrieved from http://publications.universalhealth2030.org/uploads/nhif_benefits_package.pdf.

  28. Mulupi S, Kirigia D, Chuma J. Community perceptions of health insurance and their preferred design features: implications for the design of universal health coverage reforms in Kenya. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(1):1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ongiri IS, Kubani JA. Unions demand talks on NHIF rates. Daily Nation. 2015:17.

  30. Orangi S, Kairu A, Malla L, Ondera J, Mbuthia B, Ravishankar N, Barasa E. Impact of free maternity policies in Kenya: an interrupted time-series analysis. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(6):e003649. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-003649.

  31. Nyman JA. The theory of demand for health insurance. Stanford University Press; 2003.

  32. Jowett M. Theoretical insights into the development of health insurance in low-income countries. 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Chuma J, Maina T. Catastrophic health care spending and impoverishment in Kenya. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-413.

  34. Ilinca S, Di Giorgio L, Salari P, Chuma J. Socio-economic inequality and inequity in use of health care services in Kenya: evidence from the fourth Kenya household health expenditure and utilization survey. Int J Equity Health. 2019;18:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-019-1080-2.

  35. Mwaura GW, Kamano JH. Effects of Perceived Image of NHIF Outpatient Facilities on Utilization of Primary Care Services by Private University Employees in Nairobi County. n.d.

  36. Njagi P, Arsenijevic J, Groot W. Decomposition of changes in socioeconomic inequalities in catastrophic health expenditure in Kenya. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(12):e0244428.

  37. Pauly MV. The economics of moral hazard: comment. Am Econ Rev. 1968;58(3):531–7.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Suchman L. Accrediting private providers with National Health Insurance to better serve low-income populations in Kenya and Ghana: a qualitative study. Int J Equity Health. 2018;17:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-018-0900-8.

  39. Einav L, Finkelstein A. Moral hazard in health insurance: what we know and how we know it. J Eur Econ Assoc. 2018;16(4):957–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvx050.

  40. Carrin G, James C. Key Performance Indicators for the Implementation of Social Health Insurance. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(1):15–22. https://doi.org/10.2165/00148365-200504010-00004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ndungu TT. Factors influencing uptake of national health insurance in the informal sector: a case of ithanga division in murang’a county. Kenya: University of Nairobi; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Mbau R, Kabia E, Honda A, Hanson K, Barasa E. Examining purchasing reforms towards universal health coverage by the National Hospital Insurance Fund in Kenya. International journal for equity in health. 2020;19:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. World Health Organization. Monitoring the building blocks of health systems: a handbook of indicators and their measurement strategies. World Health Organization; 2010.

  44. Morris S, Devlin N, Parkin D, Spencer A. Health insurance and healthcare financing. Economic Analysis in Health Care. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 2007. p. 149–82.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Namuhisa JA. Determinants of uptake of National Hospital Insurance Fund scheme by the informal sector in Nairobi county. Kenya: Unpubl MBA Proj Kenyatta Univ Kenya; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ochieng DL. Factors influencing uptake of national hospital insurance fund cover by rural households in Kasipul division, Rachuonyo south sub county, Homa Bay County (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi). n.d.

  47. Mugenda OM, Mugenda AG. Research methods: Quantitative & qualitative approaches. Nairobi: Acts press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Kituku AM, Amata E, Wachira M. Determinants of the uptake of NHIF medical cover by informal sector workers: A case of UNAITAS SACCO members in Muranga County. 2016.

  49. Otieno PO, Wambiya EO, Mohamed SM, Mutua MK, Kibe PM, Mwangi B, Donfouet HP. Access to primary healthcare services and associated factors in urban slums in Nairobi-Kenya. BMC Public Health. n.d.;20:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09379-2.

  50. Sieverding M, Onyango C, Suchman L. Private healthcare provider experiences with social health insurance schemes: findings from a qualitative study in Ghana and Kenya. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(2):e0192973. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192973.

  51. Clark T, Foster L, Bryman A, Sloan L. Bryman's social research methods. Oxford University Press; 2021.

  52. Mwaura GW, Kamano JH, Mwangi AW, Lusimbo L, Mugo R, Too K, Andale T, Itsura P, Kibachio J, Gathecha G, Aruasa W. Awareness, Uptake and factors associated with NHIF uptake in Western Kenya: A case of 4 counties-Busia, Trans Nzoia, Vihiga and Siaya. n.d.

  53. Rono GJ. Out-Of-Pocket Payment for Healthcare and Its Effects on Household Welfare in Rural and Urban Areas of Kenya [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://ir-library.ku.ac.ke/handle/123456789/17969.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank the county government of Uasin Gishu-county directors, the healthcare facility managers, service providers and their clients for their support in the study. I am also gratefully to my supervisors Dr. Eunice Muthoni Mwangi and Ms. Lillian Wambui Muiruri for their guidance through the process from inception to ensuring the objective of this study is achieved.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and /or publication of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

The author confirms sole responsibility for the following: study conception and design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of results and manuscript preparation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara Nawire Were.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical clearance was obtained from Kenya Methodist University Scientific and Ethics Review Committee (KeMU/SERC/HSM/22/2022), the National Commission of Science and Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI/P/22/19153), and the County Director of Health. Participants provided informed consent, assured of confidentiality and anonymity. They were informed of the voluntary nature of participation and their right to withdraw at any time.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Were, B.N., Mwangi, E.M. & Muiruri, L.W. Barriers of access to primary healthcare services by National Health Insurance Fund capitated members in Uasin Gishu county, Kenya. BMC Health Serv Res 24, 1025 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11282-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11282-8

Keywords