SHA Backtracks After Teacher Denied IVF Over Marriage Certificate Requirement
A controversy has erupted over access to fertility treatment under the newly introduced SHA-CUPPET medical cover after a teacher seeking IVF treatment was allegedly asked to provide a marriage certificate before her application could be approved.
The incident has sparked debate over reproductive healthcare rights, discrimination, and whether access to fertility treatment should be tied to marital status.
The fertility treatment benefit was unveiled as part of an expanded health cover package for teachers under the Social Health Authority (SHA) and the Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET). The initiative was widely welcomed by thousands of teachers struggling with infertility, many of whom viewed the cover as a rare opportunity to access treatment that is often financially out of reach.
For one high school teacher, however, the promise of hope quickly turned into disappointment.
The teacher, whose identity has been withheld for privacy reasons, has reportedly battled infertility for more than eight years due to blocked fallopian tubes. After years of unsuccessful attempts to conceive and expensive medical consultations, she believed the new fertility package would finally give her a chance to become a biological mother.
According to her account, her doctor submitted a request for IVF pre-authorization, only for the application to be declined. The response reportedly listed several requirements, including the submission of a marriage certificate or an affidavit as proof of marriage.
The requirement immediately raised concerns among teachers and reproductive health advocates who argued that infertility is a medical condition and access to treatment should not be determined by an individual’s marital status.
“There should be no conditions to access healthcare because infertility is a healthcare matter. Once someone has been diagnosed with infertility, treatment should be based on medical need,” one stakeholder argued.
KUPPET has strongly criticized the alleged requirement, maintaining that no such condition was included in the negotiated medical cover agreement. The union insists that teachers contribute to the scheme as individuals and should not be subjected to requirements that are unrelated to their medical eligibility.
Union officials accused SHA of introducing conditions that were never discussed during negotiations and vowed to oppose any attempts to deny teachers access to treatment based on their personal relationships or marital status.
“This is a teacher who is paying for the cover, not a spouse. It is not SHA’s business to know who someone’s spouse is,” a KUPPET official stated.
The union further argued that reproductive healthcare should be accessible to all eligible contributors and warned that any attempt to impose additional restrictions could deny deserving members the opportunity to receive life-changing treatment.
Following public criticism, the Social Health Authority moved to clarify its position.
In an official statement signed by SHA Chief Executive Officer Dr. Mercy Mwangangi, the authority stated that a marriage certificate is not a requirement for accessing IVF services and that the reference to the document in the communication was made in error.
“SHA wishes to clarify that a marriage certificate is not a requirement for accessing IVF services. The reference to a marriage certificate in the communication was made in error,” the statement said.
The authority advised the hospital involved to resubmit the application through the appropriate verification and pre-authorization process for fresh review.
While the clarification has been welcomed by many teachers, the incident has raised broader concerns about communication failures within the healthcare system and the potential barriers faced by individuals seeking fertility treatment.
The case has also reignited conversations around reproductive rights, equality in healthcare access, and the growing demand for fertility services in Kenya.
For many teachers struggling with infertility, the SHA fertility treatment benefit remains a significant breakthrough. However, stakeholders are now calling for clear guidelines and proper implementation to ensure that no eligible member is denied treatment because of administrative errors or unclear procedures.
As the debate continues, many are hoping the controversy will lead to greater clarity and improved access to fertility treatment for all eligible beneficiaries under the scheme.