Tribunal gives direction on disclosing HIV status of patients

A couple at VCT in Kisumu County. (Photo: Collins Oduor/Standard)

Only when a patient's HIV status is the main cause of a medical condition is a hospital allowed to reveal the status to the insurance company.

A ruling by the HIV and Aids Tribunal (HAT) has directed that an insurer can be informed of an HIV patient's condition only when the viral load is so high that it hampers the quick recovery, therefore increasing the cost of treatment.

The hospital is also allowed to disclose when recurrence of the problem (ailment) in future is reasonably foreseeable owing not merely as a matter of pure chance but on account of the HIV status of the patient.

Any disclosure other than for the reasons above would mean the patient's right to privacy has been infringed.

"It would be senseless and unjust to permit such disclosures since to do so would be a clear violation of the human rights of HIV-positive patients," read the ruling by HAT chairman Jotham Arwa.

The tribunal came to the conclusion following a case presented and concluded in December 2015 in which a woman alleged to have not only been fired wrongly by her employer on the basis of her HIV status but also denied payment of her medical bills by her insurance after her status was disclosed.

According to the case, the woman, then employed by World Neighbours and provided with inpatient and outpatient insurance, was forced to cater for her medical bills that at one point amounted to Sh138,740.

In the complaint, the woman claimed that two years into her employment, she was admitted in hospital due to bacterial meningitis owing to her status.

"Consequently, on learning of her status the insurance company declined to pay the bill of Sh49,133. However, the bill was later settled by the employer on condition that she would settle it in 12 months," read the case.

But months later, she was again taken ill and hospitalised. The bill came to Sh138,740 and again, the insurer declined to settle the bill despite the ailment falling within the cover.

The woman was later laid off for what the employer claimed was ongoing restructuring that rendered her position redundant.

She filed a complaint demanding compensation on the basis of discrimination that saw her lose her job and her medical bills not paid.

Although her evidence did not raise any suspicions that she was fired on the grounds of her status, as there were others fired who were not HIV-positive, the tribunal ordered compensation of Sh678,873 being damages to her privacy and Sh500,000 from the insurance and her employer to refund the money spent on medical bills.