What Murang’a’s digital health shutdown means for patients

Is the AfyaKE system really shut down and why?

The AfyaKE platform in Murang’a is not definitively shut down; the county governor says it has been switched off while the Health Ministry says it remains operational and merely uncontrolled. Governor Irungu Kang’ata publicly protested a shutdown he says was imposed by the National Government on October 14, 2026, demanding integration with the Social Health Authority (SHA) rather than a complete stop. He claims the Ministry’s Health Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale had earlier assured him that AfyaKE would be linked to SHA, a promise he says was broken when the system was allegedly turned off and replaced by the fee‑based Taifa Care platform. Duale counters that the Ministry never switched off AfyaKE, does not own or control the private platform, and that no certification application was ever submitted by Murang’a or its developers. He also states that all SHA beneficiaries will continue to receive care through existing SHA channels, implying no interruption to services despite the alleged migration. The governor further argues that the.go.ke domain used by AfyaKE is a government‑reserved address registered under the Treasury, suggesting the county has legitimate authority over the system. Duale dismisses claims that the Digital Health Agency refused to certify AfyaKE, noting that no application was made, and reaffirms the Ministry’s commitment to support county digital health programmes. The dispute extends beyond Murang’a: the disruption is reported to affect other public institutions that adopted AfyaKE, including the Department of Defence and hospitals in Tharaka Nithi county. Kang’ata also notes that the system helped grow the county’s annual health revenue from Sh80 million to Sh800 million by sealing previous loopholes, underscoring his view that the shutdown harms fiscal gains. Meanwhile, the Ministry maintains that it has no access to AfyaKE’s source code and therefore could not have disabled it, reinforcing the claim that the platform remains technically functional. Both sides cite statements from the same Health Cabinet Secretary, Aden Duale, but interpret his remarks differently: one sees a promise of integration, the other sees a statement of non‑ownership and non‑intervention.

Which health services are currently unavailable?

The shutdown has stopped facilities from pulling up electronic patient records, meaning doctors can no longer see diagnoses, medication histories, lab results or billing details that were stored in AfyaKE. Without those files, hospitals are forced to rely on patients’ recollection of their own medical histories, as staff have begun using manual logs and asking patients to recount past visits. This loss also blocks the ability to submit reimbursement claims to the Social Health Authority, putting revenue streams at risk and threatening the financing of services that depend on those refunds.

Telemedicine services have been scaled back because health workers are being retrained on a new system, leaving fewer remote consultations available to patients who previously used the digital platform for virtual care. The reduction in telemedicine adds to the overall disruption, especially for those who depended on remote appointments for chronic disease management or follow‑up visits. Meanwhile, the county’s claim that the platform was switched off ahead of the October 30 migration deadline aligns with reports that Level 2 and 3 facilities lost service first, followed by the Level 5 Referral Hospital, indicating a staged loss of functionality across the network.

The digital health shutdown has removed three core services: instant access to patient records, automated claim processing under SHA, and the telemedicine channel that linked patients to clinicians. The county’s earlier statement that AfyaKE operated in 165 facilities underscores how widespread the impact is when those facilities suddenly revert to paper‑based or manual processes. Officials have warned that the disruption threatens patients’ lives, increases operational costs and could affect programmes that support vulnerable households, such as the Kang’ata Care initiative covering over 42,000 families.