The Nairobi Hospital has caved into pressure and suspended the implementation of its newly announced service price review following backlash from stakeholders.
In a statement on August 11, the hospital revealed the retraction of the review came after a strategic meeting with 12 insurers who had earlier removed the facility from their provider panels in direct retaliation.
The hospital said in the statement that the move to suspend the implementation of the service price review was done in good faith and was aimed at fostering continued collaboration and dialogue with insurance companies.
"Following a productive strategic meeting held today with key insurance providers, The Nairobi Hospital has agreed to suspend the implementation of its recently announced price review, effective immediately," the statement read.
Insurers had initially raised concerns over the steep and abrupt rise in treatment charges, prompting their temporary suspension of services at the hospital amid reports that the price review would have seen treatment costs rise by up to 61 per cent.
One insurance company said such a hike was unsustainable since it would affect the long-term affordability for its members.
Separately, a different insurance company wrote to its staff, vowing to suspend its services from Tuesday, August 12.
According to the Nairobi Hospital, the suspension of the price review implementation came after a meeting between the hospital and several key insurers.
"The open and constructive discussions addressed concerns regarding the proposed pricing structure, ensuring alignment with our shared commitment to patient-centred care," the statement went on.
Behind the scenes, the Nairobi hospital is facing a governance crisis, with a letter from the hospital's Board of Management, chaired by Herman Manyora, accusing the Chief Executive Officer and Company secretary of making decisions without the board's approval.
The board claimed that the price hike that triggered the temporary walkout of insurers was implemented unilaterally, effectively breaching institutional governance protocols.
Further, the board also flagged the hospital's alleged infrastructure, which they claimed was deteriorating. According to the board, the failure to fix basic infrastructure was an indicator of leadership gaps.
