Health care purchasing in Kenya: Experiences of health care providers with capitation and fee‐for‐service provider payment mechanisms

BACKGROUND: Provider payment mechanisms (PPMs) play a critical role in universal health coverage due to the incentives they create for health care providers to deliver needed services, quality, and efficiency. We set out to explore public, private, and faith‐based providers' experiences with capitation and fee‐for‐service in Kenya and identified attributes of PPMs that providers considered important. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study in two counties in Kenya. Data were collected using semistructured interviews with 29 management team members in six health providers accredited by the National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF). RESULTS: Capitation and fee‐for‐service payments from the NHIF and private insurers were reported as good revenue sources as they contributed to providers' overall income. The expected fee‐for‐service payment amounts from NHIF and private insurers were predictable while capitation funds from NHIF were not because providers did not have information on the number of enrolees in their capitation pool. Moreover, capitation payment rates were perceived as inadequate. Capitation and fee‐for‐service payments from NHIF and private insurers were disbursed late. Finally, public providers had lost their autonomy to access and utilise capitation and fee‐for‐service payments from the NHIF. CONCLUSION: Through their experiences, health care providers revealed characteristics of PPMs that they considered important.