Sh1.2 billion has been siphoned from payments intended for hospitals treating patients under the state-owned Social Health Authority (SHA) scheme. This massive diversion of public funds, allegedly without legal authority or parliamentary approval, benefits a private technology firm, Finsprint Limited. The contested charge, a two percent levy, is deducted directly from healthcare providers' claims, reducing the amounts paid to those serving the nation's sick.
Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah, alongside Dr Benjamin Gikenyi Magare and Eliud Karanja Matindi, has filed a petition at the High Court in Vihiga. They demand interim orders to suspend the deduction of this HIMS System Utilisation Fee until the case concludes. The petitioners also seek to halt the implementation of any instrument authorizing these deductions, challenging the very legitimacy of the financial drain on the national health system.
Elite Capture of Public Funds
The mechanism for this financial extraction is the Health Information Management System (HIMS), the digital platform hospitals use to submit claims and receive reimbursement. Finsprint Limited, identified in court filings as the private firm managing this fee, has reportedly received Sh1.2 billion from SHA claims paid up to July 1. This figure represents the petitioners' calculation, not a court determination.
According to Business Registration Service records, Finsprint Limited was incorporated on July 12, 2020, now in its sixth year of operation, with a nominal share capital of just Sh100,000. Its directors are Issa Sheikh Mohamed of Nairobi and Abdulhakim Ibrahim Sheikh of Mombasa. Mr. Ibrahim holds 425 of its 1,000 shares. The majority shareholder, with 575 shares, is Impactsoft Technologies Group Limited, a Kenyan company whose registered address remains undisclosed in registry records.
The petitioners accuse the regime of imposing this deduction without legal authority, parliamentary approval, or public participation. Dr. Magare, who discovered the deduction on April 8 of the same year while processing claims, states he wrote to SHA, the Digital Health Agency, the Health Ministry, and the National Treasury on July 1 seeking a legal basis. He received no explanation. "The respondents did not give any explanation or any feedback, nor did they provide the role of the second respondent (Finsprint Limited) who is believed to be the beneficiary of the two per cent HIMS System Utilisation fee," the petition states.
Transnational Connections and Data Risk
An online search for Impactsoft Technologies, Finsprint's majority shareholder, revealed a company operating from Wylie, Texas, describing itself as a global provider of information technology solutions and services. While Business Registration Service records don't confirm this as the same entity, the potential for transnational interests to infiltrate and profit from national health infrastructure raises serious questions about sovereignty and elite capture.
Beyond the financial drain, the petition also warns of significant risks to patient data. Exposing this sensitive information to a third party like Finsprint Limited would, they claim, violate constitutional privacy protections and the Data Protection Act. Dr. Magare forcefully argues against the current arrangement: "A government (whether national or county) or any other body is not allowed to be an agent of private entities, where they collect money from poor Kenyans and instead of paying service providers, the same is diverted to private entities."
The Cost to the People
The petitioners contend that this two percent HIMS System Utilisation fee amounts to taxation outside the constitutional framework for public revenue collection. They assert that no legislation or statutory authority authorizes the deduction from healthcare providers' claims, calling it a levy that lacks both a legal and constitutional basis. "There is no clear road map where the fee goes and how it is budgeted and appropriated," Dr. Magare added.
The Social Health Authority had disbursed approximately Sh60.7 billion in claims, from which the Sh1.2 billion was deducted. This represents a direct financial cost to the national health system and, ultimately, to the citizens it serves. The dispute unfolds amid broader scrutiny of SHA's transition from the National Health Insurance Fund to the new universal health insurance system. Private hospitals have also questioned unexplained deductions and sought disclosure of the contractual or legal basis for these charges. At the time of publishing, the respondents had not filed responses, and the court had not yet determined the allegations. The people await answers.