Back

Cancer Medicine Prices, Availability, and Affordability in Kisumu County, Kenya

OKETCH, J. O.; Amolo, S. A.; Onguru, D. O.

2026-05-28 oncology
10.64898/2026.05.27.26354206 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: The rising prices of cancer medicines have intensified concerns about treatment access and health system sustainability particularly in low- and middle-income settings. Systematic facility level evidence on what medicines is actually available, at what prices, and at what cost to patients remains scarce, constraining evidence-based policy reform. Methods: Using adapted WHO/Health action international methodology, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of 52 cancer medicines across five therapeutic classes at five health facilities in Kisumu County, Kenya. Availability was measured as the proportion of facilities stocking each medicine. Affordability was assessed using days' wages required for the lowest-paid government worker to purchase standard treatment regimens, calculated per one chemotherapy cycle and maximum possible cycles. Results: Overall medicine availability was 48.1%, with marked inter-facility variation. Affordability analysis revealed severe financial barriers. The breast cancer AC regimen required 19.6-47.4 days' wages per full course; cervical cancer cisplatin, 19.8-49.2 days' wages; colorectal FOLFOX, 80.0-303.6 days' wages; and prostate docetaxel reached 437 days' wages at the highest-cost facility. The Social Health Authority's (SHA) KES 550,000 annual ceiling adequately covered cytotoxic regimens for common cancers at competitive prices but was exceeded by 24-116% for HER2-positive breast cancer requiring trastuzumab, with further strain for recurrent cervical and metastatic prostate cancers. Conclusions: Cancer medicines in Kisumu County are inconsistently available and highly variable in price resulting in inequitable access. We call for urgent retail price markup regulation, expanded pooled procurement through KEMSA, inclusion of priority targeted therapies on the Kenya Essential Medicines List, and SHA benefit packages redesigned around full-course regimen costs.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.4%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 13%
14.2%
3
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 1%
8.3%
4
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 2%
8.3%
5
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.7%
50% of probability mass above
6
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.8%
7
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.9%
8
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
9
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.0%
10
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
11
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
12
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.7%
13
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
14
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.3%
15
The Lancet Regional Health - Americas
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.2%
16
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
17
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
18
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
19
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
20
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
21
Tropical Medicine & International Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%
22
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
23
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
24
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%