The Minister for Health, Kwabena Minta Akandoh, is facing public backlash after claiming that the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) has now begu
The Minister for Health, Kwabena Minta Akandoh, is facing public backlash after claiming that the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) has now begun covering the treatment of sickle cell disease, a policy that was first introduced under the Akufo-Addo administration in 2022.
The controversy erupted after Akandoh’s remarks at the Africa CDC High-Level Side Event on Sickle Cell Disease, where he presented the inclusion of sickle cell treatment as a fresh government initiative.
Almost immediately, social media users called out the minister, accusing him of rebranding existing policies for political gain.
On X (formerly Twitter), critics flooded the conversation with reminders that the NHIS sickle cell policy was launched three years ago.
“Sickle cell has always been on NHIS. These settings and propaganda should stop,” one user wrote. Another shared a MyJoyOnline report from August 2022, stating: “Dr Mahamudu Bawumia implemented this policy in 2022. Stop stealing policies and rebranding them as your own.”
Background of the Policy
The origins of the policy date back to 2019 when then-Vice President Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia announced Ghana’s adoption of hydroxyurea, a globally recognized drug proven to improve the quality of life for people living with sickle cell disease.
At the time, Ghana became the first African country to roll out hydroxyurea under national health insurance.
By July 1, 2022, the NHIS officially covered hydroxyurea alongside other sickle cell treatments.
The move was celebrated internationally and became a flagship health achievement of the Akufo-Addo-Bawumia government. It was also a key talking point during the New Patriotic Party’s 2024 election campaign.
Political Implications
Akandoh’s comments have reignited discussions around the politics of health policies in Ghana—particularly the tendency of successive governments to claim ownership of existing initiatives rather than build on them with transparency.
Critics argue that such rebranding undermines public trust and shifts attention away from the need for consistent improvements in health delivery.
COMMENTS