SHA’s Sh1.2billion mystery: Private firm under scrutiny over 2 per cent hospital claims levy
Finsprint Limited, a private firm involved in the SHA payment system, is alleged to have received about Sh1.2 billion through deductions applied to hospital claims processed up to July 1, 2026.
A private technology company contracted to facilitate payments under the Social Health Authority (SHA) has been drawn into a legal battle over a disputed two per cent fee deducted from billions of shillings paid to healthcare providers.
Finsprint Limited, a private firm involved in the SHA payment system, is alleged to have received about Sh1.2 billion through deductions applied to hospital claims processed up to July 1, 2026.
The deductions are at the centre of a fresh constitutional petition filed at the High Court by Nakuru-based surgeon Dr Magare Gikenyi Benjamin, Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah and Eliud Matindi.
The petitioners are seeking conservatory orders suspending what they describe as an unconstitutional and unlawful two per cent Health Information Management System (HIMS) utilisation fee deducted from claims submitted by healthcare providers through SHA.
They want the court to stop the continued collection of the fee pending the hearing and determination of their petition, arguing that the levy has no statutory basis and amounts to an illegal charge imposed without parliamentary approval.
“That the 2 per cent HIMS System Utilization fee is not based on any legislation. In any event, the 2010 constitution architecture does not allow government to do business with its own people except through taxes and charges which are all consolidated together, budgeted and appropriated,” the petition states.
The petitioners have also asked the court to bar the respondents, their agents or any other persons from implementing or enforcing any letter, circular, gazette notice or directive authorising the deduction from claims processed under SHA or related digital health platforms.
Gikenyi says he first discovered the deductions on April 8, 2026, while providing medical services at an SHA-accredited health facility.
Gikenyi subsequently wrote to SHA, the Digital Health Authority, the Ministry of Health and the National Treasury on July 1 seeking an explanation and the legal basis for the deductions. According to the petition, none of the institutions responded by providing a satisfactory explanation.
The petitioners argue that the government has failed to identify legislation authorising the levy or explain how the money collected is administered, managed and appropriated.
They have invoked Articles 209 and 210 of the Constitution, which they say require taxes and charges imposed by government to be established through legislation.
They also accuse the authorities of introducing the fee without public participation, contrary to constitutional requirements under Articles 10 and 232.
The petitioners’ further question how the two per cent rate was arrived at, saying no formula, study or public justification has been provided.
They contend that the deductions impose an additional financial burden on healthcare providers, increase the cost of healthcare and undermine constitutional principles on prudent management of public finances.
The petition also raises questions over the destination and management of the money, alleging a lack of transparency on where the deductions are remitted and claiming that the arrangement benefits unidentified private entities rather than the Consolidated Fund.
The petitioners have further raised concerns over equality, consumer protection, accountability and data protection, arguing that patients’ personal information processed through the digital system could be exposed to unidentified entities in breach of the Data Protection Act.
Court documents indicate that SHA had disbursed approximately Sh60.7 billion in healthcare claims by July 2026.
A two per cent deduction on that amount translates to more than Sh1.2 billion, the amount the petitioners allege has been collected through the disputed arrangement.
They warn that continued deductions could lead to further unlawful collection of public funds while deepening financial losses for healthcare providers.
The petitioners have asked the High Court to certify the case as urgent, suspend the disputed fee through conservatory orders and fast-track the hearing to determine whether the levy and the payment arrangement comply with the constitution.
