By Kepher Otieno - Reporter
Kenya, 6 December 2025 - Public concern over the safety of Kenyan health data has echoed sharply in recent days, prompting the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi to issue firm assurances that the new KSh 208 billion Kenya–U.S. health partnership will not expose personal medical records to foreign access.
Embassy officials stressed that the deal “does not give the United States access to individual patient information” and that all data-sharing will remain within Kenyan law, emphasising that only anonymised, aggregated health statistics may be exchanged for program evaluation.
This reassurance followed a wave of public anxiety triggered by claims that the agreement could allow U.S. agencies to tap into national health databases and retrieve sensitive records such as HIV, TB, and vaccination histories.
In response, the Embassy clarified that the pact neither demands nor permits such access, adding that Kenya’s own regulatory institutions retain full control over health data governance.
The five-year agreement, valued at KSh 208 billion, represents a shift toward direct government-to-government cooperation.
Rather than operating through external NGOs, the United States will channel funding directly into Kenyan state health systems, supporting disease control, health systems strengthening, procurement of essential medical commodities, and investment in digital health infrastructure.
Kenyan officials have presented the agreement as a milestone in national health financing, asserting that it will allow the country to shape its own priorities while fostering long-term health system sustainability.
Yet the digital health component has also been the focal point of public unease. Concerns have centred on whether the integration of new digital systems, supported in part by U.S. funding and technical expertise, might create vulnerabilities or backdoor access to national health repositories.
To this, Embassy representatives have reiterated that data privacy protections are embedded within the framework, remarking that “Kenya’s data remains Kenya’s data.”
They emphasised that any information used for monitoring program performance is stripped of identifiers, and that the agreement upholds the principles of the Data Protection Act and the Digital Health Act.
Kenyan authorities have echoed this stance, asserting that the Digital Health Authority and the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner will oversee any data-related procedures to ensure conformity with domestic legal standards.
According to health officials, the partnership merely codifies practices that have been in place for years, rather than introducing new data-sharing protocols.
As the government promotes the deal as a catalyst for achieving universal health coverage, analysts acknowledge that the funding could significantly improve service delivery, upgrade medical infrastructure, and enhance supply-chain reliability for essential medicines.
More from Kenya
It also aims to strengthen Kenyan oversight of donor-supported health programs by shifting responsibility for financial management and procurement to state institutions.
This reorientation is expected to reduce duplication, improve accountability, and build national capacity.
Still, scepticism persists, especially in the absence of a publicly released full text of the agreement.
Critics argue that withholding the document fuels mistrust at a time when health data sovereignty is a politically sensitive issue.
They warn that even the perception of foreign intrusion into medical records could undermine public confidence in digital health systems, discouraging patients from seeking care or providing accurate information. Some civil society groups have urged the government to publish the entire agreement and subject it to parliamentary and public scrutiny.
The Embassy’s attempt to cool public concern marks an important step in stabilising the narrative, but the long-term credibility of the partnership will depend on sustained transparency.
The government will need to demonstrate that the protections it cites are not merely theoretical but are actively enforced in system design, access controls, and data-sharing protocols.
Success will also hinge on ensuring that health facilities—especially in under-resourced counties—have the infrastructure and training necessary to implement digital systems securely and ethically.
As Kenya prepares to absorb unprecedented direct investment into its health sector, the debate over data privacy reveals deeper anxieties about digital sovereignty and external influence.
The assurances from the U.S. Embassy have softened the immediate backlash, but public trust will depend on how faithfully the government and its partners follow through.
If implemented with care, the agreement could strengthen both health outcomes and digital governance.
If handled poorly, it risks entrenching suspicion at a moment when public confidence is crucial.
