The saga surrounding former SHA CEO Wachira’s recent suspension has brought to light numerous challenges within the agency’s operations and exposed tensions between SHA leadership and other governmental bodies.
This scrutiny comes amid accusations that Wachira prioritized payments to two insurance companies over settling critical hospital bills, against directives from the SHA board.
According to reports, State House intervened after complaints emerged over delayed hospital payments despite the agency’s possession of substantial funds earmarked for this purpose.
At the center of the controversy lies Wachira’s decision to divert Ksh 1.5 billion initially allocated for hospital reimbursements to two insurance firms instead.
When questioned by the SHA board regarding his deviation from their orders, Wachira reportedly cited a need for authorization from the Ministry of Health.
However, upon investigation, it was revealed that this clearance had been granted weeks earlier by the Health Cabinet Secretary.
This discrepancy intensified concerns, leading to increased oversight of Wachira’s financial management and eventual State House involvement in urging his suspension.
Attempts by Wachira to recover the funds from the insurance companies failed, adding further frustration and casting doubt on his leadership.
Insiders allege that Wachira has consistently resisted the SHA’s mission since his appointment, particularly regarding SHA’s transition from the previous National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) framework.
Having previously held a position at NHIF, Wachira is suspected of harboring reluctance toward SHA’s reforms, which aim to increase healthcare accessibility and affordability through streamlined management of funds and direct reimbursements to hospitals.
Critics within SHA have suggested that Wachira’s decisions may have been influenced by his loyalty to NHIF’s structure, which SHA is gradually phasing out in favor of a more centralized model.
Moreover, Wachira’s recent authorization of Ksh 1.3 billion in payments to service providers unrelated to hospitals has further intensified scrutiny of his decision-making.
This allocation, part of a larger Ksh 3 billion fund meant to ease hospital cash flow, was intended to alleviate hospitals’ financial strain during SHA’s transition phase.
Announced during Mashujaa Day celebrations as a government pledge to support healthcare providers, this fund was viewed as a critical resource to support healthcare infrastructure.
By directing these funds to alternative service providers without consulting the SHA board or chairman, Wachira’s decision fueled perceptions that he was mismanaging SHA’s resources, potentially at the cost of patients’ healthcare access.
This series of financial maneuvers, particularly without prior approval for high-value transactions exceeding Ksh 50 million, has raised eyebrows within SHA’s leadership.
The board responded by placing Wachira on a 90-day leave, framing this decision as an opportunity to conduct an internal investigation into his professional conduct.
SHA’s statement following his suspension also highlighted the ongoing crisis of unpaid hospital bills, which has led numerous hospitals to demand cash payments from patients in defiance of SHA’s core objective of promoting accessible healthcare for all.
This cash-demand practice contradicts SHA’s stated mission and suggests a fundamental disconnect between the agency’s goals and its operational realities.
In response to the probe, Wachira reportedly submitted documents justifying his financial allocations, emphasizing that the payments were essential to maintain service continuity.
However, SHA leadership has remained resolute, emphasizing that he breached agency protocol by acting unilaterally without board or chairman consent.
The agency’s governing framework requires board approval for high-value transactions, and his deviation from these guidelines has led many to question his suitability for SHA’s top leadership role.
As SHA’s investigation continues, questions linger over whether Wachira’s actions were intended to undermine the agency’s operations or were instead the result of isolated decisions made in haste.
The probe is expected to delve deeper into allegations that Wachira discouraged former NHIF employees from transitioning to SHA, which, if substantiated, could indicate an attempt to derail SHA’s mandate.
Given his history with NHIF, this revelation has fueled speculation about his commitment to SHA’s objectives.
This controversy surrounding Wachira’s tenure has underscored critical issues facing SHA’s management and governance.
