A British tourist who became seriously ill in Kenya in September 2024 due to a pre-existing liver condition was left with an $80,000 (KSh10.35 million) medical bill after her travel insurer refused to cover the costs, despite her having a valid policy.
Cabinet Secretary for Health Aden Duale has gazetted the minimum benefit thresholds for Kenya’s Mandatory Inbound Travel Health Insurance Programme, a policy nearly three years in the making. It deserves to be understood properly, because the policy is sound even where the road to implementing it has been bumpy.
On July 30, 2026, Duale set a cumulative cover of not less than $50,000 (Ksh6.47 million) for every foreign visitor entering the country for less than 12 months.
The requirement traces back to Section 26(6) and (7) of the Social Health Insurance Act of 2023. The law states that any non-Kenyan intending to stay in the country for more than 12 months must register with the Social Health Insurance Fund (SHIF), while those staying for less than 12 months must hold a travel health insurance cover designated by the Cabinet Secretary.
This is Kenya’s response to a global shift. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, a growing list of countries, including the 30 Schengen states, the UAE, Russia and Egypt, now require visitors to carry health insurance that specifically covers medical emergencies, not just accidents, trip cancellations or lost luggage.
Kenya received 2.7 million international tourists in 2025. What if 60 per cent carry no travel insurance?
Cabinet adopted this approach in December 2023 as part of the broader visa-free travel policy, with implementation meant to begin in January 2024 alongside the rollout of the Visa Free policy. Instead, the programme has spent more than two years stuck in procurement disputes and controversy over implementation models and which providers should run it, delaying a policy that should have been protecting travellers and easing pressure on Kenyan hospitals since early 2024.
The scale of the gap is significant. Kenya received 2.7 million international tourists in 2025, according to the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife’s Kenya Tourism Sector Performance Report 2025. If 60 per cent of these visitors carry no travel insurance at all, means about 1.62 million tourists arrived last year with no cover.
Of the remaining 40 per cent who do carry insurance, most hold ordinary ‘travel insurance’ designed only to cover flight delays, lost bags and theft, with only limited emergency medical add-ons. Critically, these policies typically exclude pre-existing conditions, pandemics and tropical diseases such as malaria, which are precisely the risks a visitor to Kenya is most likely to face.
This is not hypothetical. A British holidaymaker who fell seriously ill in Kenya in September 2024 with a pre-existing liver condition faced an $80,000 (Ksh10.35 million) medical bill because her travel insurer would not pay out, despite holding a valid policy.
The data backs this up. A UK survey found 61 per cent of travel insurance buyers had a pre-existing medical condition or history of one, while ABTA, the UK travel industry association, reports that nearly two-fifths of British holidaymakers travel with no insurance at all. If this is true of wealthy, well-insured markets, the exposure among visitors from elsewhere is likely far greater.
Thailand’s mandatory travel health insurance integrates proof of cover into the visa process
Kenya is not inventing this model from scratch. Thailand’s mandatory travel health insurance programme, which requires a minimum coverage amount, integrates proof of cover into the visa process, and channels purchases through a centralised online platform, offers a useful case study. It shows both the upside, smoother enforcement and predictable revenue for the local insurance sector, and the pitfalls: administrative bottlenecks at entry points, resistance from budget travellers, and coverage gaps for high-risk activities.
Kenya’s own framework has chosen what is called the “designated” approach, where the government prescribes a specific vetted product, rather than the “non-designated” approach, where travellers bring their own cover from home. This mirrors the UAE model and is the right choice. It allows the government to enforce minimum standards, guarantee the credibility of the cover, and close the fraud loophole where an immigration officer has no way of verifying a foreign-issued insurance document.
Done properly, a designated scheme benefits everyone. For the country, it protects public hospitals from absorbing the unpaid bills of uninsured visitors and strengthens Kenya’s reputation as a destination with a mature, trustworthy healthcare system.
For travellers, the benefit is straightforward. Instead of guessing whether a foreign policy will actually pay out for malaria treatment or a pandemic-related hospitalisation, they get one product, recognised at the border, built specifically to Kenya’s healthcare realities. Additionally, a high-quality insurance product, which would otherwise be expensive if bought by one person, is fairly cheaper when sold to millions of travellers due to economies of scale.
Notably, the Ministry of Health (MoH) set benefit standards benchmarked on those required by Schengen countries, meaning a Kenyan-designated cover would be more than adequate even for travellers from high-income markets, and most visitors would have no need to purchase additional cover at all.
MoH must undertake rigorous due diligence in vetting the proposed insurance cover
This is where the current implementation process needs scrutiny, transparency and stakeholder participation. The MoH, which the law requires to oversee the implementation of the programme, must undertake rigorous due diligence and be involved in vetting the proposed insurance cover and providers through the inter-ministerial mechanisms and standards the MoH itself published in its Administrative Framework.
A designated scheme is only as good as the product behind it. If the designated cover does not actually pay out for the risks travellers face in Kenya, the country will have built an elaborate compliance exercise that delivers no real protection, while giving the impression that visitors are covered when they are not. If the quality of the product and provider does not meet international standards, Kenya is likely to suffer reputational damage and serious negative consequences for the tourism industry.
None of this is a reason to abandon the policy. It is a reason to implement it as designed. The MoH has already done the technical work, publishing detailed standards covering benefit schedules, IT security, provider capitalisation, claims infrastructure and a nationwide network of healthcare facilities.
What is needed now is for the selection of the insurer, re-insurer and administrator to follow that published framework transparently, with the MoH exercising its legal mandate to vet the product, rather than the outcome being negotiated around it. Kenya has a chance to launch a programme that genuinely protects visitors and the public health system, as Schengen countries, the UAE and others have done. It would be a shame to let nearly three years of delay end in a scheme that looks compliant on paper but fails travellers where it matters most.
Dennis Mutuku is the CEO, Vantage Point Ventures, a boutique consultancy focused on public service innovation through private sector partnerships.
dmutuku@vantagepointventures.co.ke.
