Explain US health pact
What you need to know:
- The government has denied that the deal was rushed and lacked adequate safeguards.
- The government should not bulldoze its way through and must address genuine concerns.
President William Ruto’s assurance over the new Sh323 billion health pact with the United States is welcome. He says there is no threat to hijack Kenyan health data.
This way, the government has shown its commitment to protecting national interests even as it seeks deals with foreign entities.
The President has justified the signing of the Kenya-United States Health Cooperation Framework deal, insisting that it will not permit the transfer, sharing, or exposure of Kenyan health data. However, some past government-to-government deals have been suspect.
According to him, the health agreement is anchored in Kenyan law, which has been reviewed and confirmed by the Office of the Attorney-General.
Civil society groups, health-sector unions, and several lawmakers have questioned whether the agreement could grant the US unprecedented access to Kenya’s medical records.
Assurances about data privacy
The government has also denied that the deal was rushed and lacked adequate safeguards. According to President Ruto, the only difference this time is that the US Government has opted not to deal through NGOs, but to channel health resources directly through the administration for efficiency.
This is a historic deal, which is reportedly intended to steer the shift from a donor-driven model to a shared investment system. The partnership must not create any room for the "grabbing" or inappropriate access to sensitive Kenyan health data, violating privacy and national sovereignty.
Some past government agreements sparked extreme public anxiety. They include Indian conglomerate Adani Group’s massive deals in the health, energy, and transport sectors. The huge costs, the long duration of contracts, and other suspect arrangements fuelled public criticism, leading to contract cancellations.
The new health pact has sparked a lot of anxiety, leading to legal suits. It thus calls for full disclosure, including firm assurances about data privacy. The government should not bulldoze its way through and must address genuine concerns.
