Description

HCM 515-Dis 3 Replies
Replay 1 :SAHAR ABOALSAUD – D3
Differences Between Insurance and No-Charge Healthcare Systems
1. Funding and Cost Structure:
– Insurance-Based System: In Saudi Arabia, the healthcare system has increasingly incorporated
private health insurance to supplement government funding. This dual funding model aims to
diversify revenue sources and improve healthcare quality through competitive services.
(AlJohani & Bugis, 2024).
– No-Charge Healthcare System: While the Saudi government provides essential healthcare
services without direct charges at the point of use, it faces financial sustainability challenges. The
reliance on oil revenues and the need for a more diversified economic model is critical for
maintaining this system. (Walston, Al-Harbi, & Al-Omar, 2008).
2. Access and Availability:
– Insurance: Access varies based on an individual’s insurance coverage. This can result in
disparities in treatment availability and service quality. (Al-Hanawi, Mwale, & Qattan, 2021).
– No-Charge: While the government aims to provide universal coverage, the reality can include
long wait times and limited resources, particularly for specialized care. (Gurajala, 2023).
3. Patient Autonomy:
– Insurance: An insurance-based system allows patients more choices regarding providers and
treatment options. Individuals can select health plans that best fit their medical needs. (Alzahrani
et al., 2025).
– No-Charge: In a no-charge system, patients often face restrictions on provider choice, which
may limit their healthcare options. (Hazazi, Wilson, & Larkin, 2022).
4. Responsibility and Accountability:
– Insurance: The private insurance model creates shared responsibility among insured
individuals, which can help to spread healthcare costs. However, those without insurance can be
vulnerable to high medical expenses. (AlJohani & Bugis, 2024).
– No-Charge: The government is primarily responsible for health delivery, which sometimes
leads to inefficiencies and inadequate service provision. (Almodhen & Moneir, 2023).
Providing excessive free care in Saudi Arabia can have significant implications for
healthcare organizations:
1. Financial Strain:

An increased demand for free services without a proportional increase in budgetary support can
lead to financial challenges for healthcare providers. Such strain can reduce overall service
quality and lead to service cutbacks or closures. (Almodhen & Moneir, 2023).
2. Over-utilization of Health Resources:
Free healthcare may also lead to abuses, including overutilization of services, demand for
unnecessary referrals, and prescriptions for unnecessary medication, increasing healthcare costs.
An overreliance on free services can reduce resources, decrease the availability of vital care, and
negatively impact patient outcomes. (Alzahrani et al., 2025).
3. Staff Burnout:
Higher patient volumes without adequate staff support can lead to burnout among healthcare
workers, affecting the morale and quality of care delivered. (Hazazi, Wilson, & Larkin, 2022).
4. Sustainability:
Long-term reliance on a no-charge model could compromise the sustainability of the healthcare
sector, necessitating significant reforms or increased funding to keep the system operational and
practical. (Gurajala, 2023).
5. Risky Behaviors:
Since the financial burden of healthcare costs is reduced or eliminated, people may feel less
pressured to maintain healthy lifestyles. For example, smoking or poor dietary choices, as the
health repercussions may not be as financially daunting. (Alzahrani et al., 2025).
Convincing the Community that Private Healthcare Insurance is Necessary
1. Equitable Distribution of Services:
Private insurance could ensure that healthcare facilities are developed in underserved areas,
giving rural populations better access and reducing the burden on urban centers.
2. Quality of Care:
Emphasize how insurance-funded healthcare can improve outcomes through investments in
technology and facilities, enhancing patient experiences and satisfaction. (AlJohani & Bugis,
2024).
3. Choice and Personalization:
Insurance gives patients more options regarding providers and treatments, fostering a sense of
control over their healthcare journey. (Gurajala, 2023).
4. Preventative Services:
Highlight the role of insurance in covering preventative care with regular visits, which is easier
to commit to because of the short waiting time, which is essential for early diagnosis and
reducing long-term healthcare costs. (Al-Hanawi, Mwale, & Qattan, 2021).

5. Addressing Concerns (Economic Considerations):
As noted, Saudi Arabia’s population is rapidly growing, and the healthcare sector must adapt.
Stress that a healthy workforce bolsters the economy, and insurance models can promote more
robust community health, thus supporting local economies. (Walston, Al-Harbi, & Al-Omar,
2008).
6. Long-term Vision (Sustainability and Balance):
Advocate for a hybrid model that combines public and private sectors to ensure everyone can
access quality care while promoting a sustainable healthcare system. (Alzahrani et al., 2025).
7. Community Engagement:
To build trust and involve community leaders and healthcare professionals in discussions. Health
professionals can share first-hand experiences that resonate with the community.
References:
– Al-Hanawi, M. K., Mwale, M. L., & Qattan, A. M. N. (2021). Health Insurance and Out-OfPocket Expenditure on Health and Medicine: Heterogeneities along Income. Frontiers in
pharmacology, 12, 638035.
– AlJohani, B. A., & Bugis, B. A. (2024). Advantages and Challenges of Implementation and
Strategies for Health Insurance in Saudi Arabia: A Systemic Review. Inquiry : a journal of
medical care organization, provision and financing, 61,
469580241233447.
– Almodhen, F., & Moneir, W. M. (2023). Toward a Financially Sustainable Healthcare System in
Saudi Arabia. Cureus, 15(10), e46781.
– Alzahrani, A. A., Pavlova, M., Alsubahi, N., Ahmad, A., & Groot, W. (2025). Impact of the
Cooperative Health Insurance System in Saudi Arabia on Universal Health Coverage-A
Systematic Literature Review. Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 13(1),
60.
– Gurajala S. (2023). Healthcare System in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: An Expat Doctor’s
Perspective. Cureus, 15(5), e38806.
– Hazazi, A., Wilson, A., & Larkin, S. (2022). Reform of the Health Insurance Funding Model to
Improve the Care of Noncommunicable Diseases Patients in Saudi Arabia. Healthcare, 10(11),
2294.
– Walston, S., Al-Harbi, Y., & Al-Omar, B. (2008). The changing face of healthcare in Saudi
Arabia. Annals of Saudi medicine, 28(4), 243–250.

Replay 2: NORAH ALGHERIBI – Differences Between Insurance and No-Charge
Healthcare Systems
As the CEO of a healthcare organization, presenting a well-rounded perspective to community
members about the geographic distribution of healthcare services and the ethical implications of
insurance versus free healthcare systems is essential. This discussion must address the
differences between the two systems, the potential consequences for healthcare organizations
providing excessive free care, and the benefits of private insurance to ensure public
understanding and support.
Differences Between Insurance and No-Charge Healthcare Systems
1. Funding Mechanism:
•

Insurance Systems: Operate on a premium-based model, where individuals,
employers, or government entities contribute. These funds are pooled and used to
cover medical expenses for insured individuals. Private insurance can also offer
customizable plans, catering to diverse health needs and financial situations
(Rahman & Salam, 2022).

•

No-Charge Systems: Funded primarily through taxation or state revenues, these
systems aim to provide universal coverage, ensuring that financial barriers do not
prevent individuals from accessing essential care.

2. Accessibility:
•

No-charge systems promote equity by providing universal access, regardless of
socioeconomic status. However, this can lead to challenges such as long waiting
times, limited resource availability, and variability in the quality of services
(Rahman & Salam, 2022).

•

Insurance systems often enable quicker access to care, with patients benefiting
from shorter wait times and more specialized services. However, disparities can
arise for uninsured or underinsured populations.

3. Ethical Considerations:
•

In no-charge systems, care is viewed as a basic human right, promoting social
justice and equity. However, finite resources may lead to rationing and
prioritization of services, potentially compromising patient outcomes for less
critical cases.

•

Insurance systems can incentivize efficiency and innovation but may be criticized
for limiting care access based on financial capacity, raising questions about
fairness and equity.

Impact on Healthcare Organizations Providing Excessive Free Care
Healthcare organizations offering extensive free care face significant challenges, including:

1. Financial Strain:
•

Delivering uncompensated care can lead to financial instability. Hospitals may
struggle to pay for staffing, technology upgrades, or facility maintenance,
ultimately compromising the quality of care (Rahman & Salam, 2022).

2. Overburdened Resources:
•

Free care systems often face increased patient loads, leading to overworked staff,
burnout, and reduced morale. This can further impact the quality of care provided
and result in higher turnover rates.

3. Dependency on External Funding:
•

Such organizations often rely heavily on government subsidies, donations, or
grants, which may not always be consistent or sufficient.

4. Market Imbalances:
•

Excessive free care may discourage private sector participation in healthcare
markets, reducing overall competition, innovation, and investment.

Convincing the Community of the Necessity of Private Healthcare Insurance
1. Balanced Approach:
•

Explain that a blended healthcare system, incorporating both public and private
insurance, ensures a sustainable and equitable model. Private insurance reduces
the strain on public systems, allowing better resource allocation for vulnerable
populations.

2. Enhanced Accessibility:
•

Private insurance offers quicker access to specialized services, reducing waiting
times and ensuring that critical cases receive timely intervention.

3. Financial Sustainability:
•

Highlight how shared financial responsibility through insurance minimizes the
burden on taxpayers while maintaining the quality and availability of healthcare
services. Insurance systems also enable cost-sharing between patients and
providers, leading to more sustainable healthcare financing (Rahman & Salam,
2022).

4. Incentives for Innovation:
•

Private insurance fosters competition, driving healthcare organizations to adopt
cutting-edge technologies and improve service quality. This innovation benefits
the entire healthcare system, including public care facilities.

5. Addressing Concerns:

•

Address community fears about affordability by emphasizing government
initiatives for subsidized insurance plans, employer-provided benefits, and options
tailored for low-income families. Programs such as the Basic Health Insurance
Policy in Saudi Arabia ensure baseline coverage for all residents (Council of
Health Insurance, 2022).

6. Global Examples:
•

Present successful case studies from countries like the United States and
Germany, where private insurance systems have coexisted with public healthcare
programs. Highlight how these models balance access, affordability, and quality.

Geographic Distribution of Healthcare Services
1. Accessibility in Rural Areas:
•

Explain the importance of strategically locating healthcare facilities to serve rural
and underserved areas. Geographic inequities in care can be addressed through
policies encouraging facility placement based on population needs and disease
burden (Rahman & Salam, 2022).

2. Role of Technology:
•

Advocate for the use of telemedicine and mobile health clinics to bridge gaps in
geographic accessibility. These innovations can ensure equitable care delivery in
remote areas while reducing costs.

3. Decentralized Systems:
•

Encourage the development of decentralized healthcare systems to reduce
congestion in urban hospitals and improve access for all population segments.

Conclusion
Private healthcare insurance and no-charge healthcare systems both have unique strengths and
challenges. By advocating for a balanced approach, healthcare organizations can promote
sustainability, equity, and quality. Convincing the community of the importance of private
insurance requires transparent communication about its benefits, ethical considerations, and
financial sustainability. It is crucial to leverage public-private partnerships to achieve a
healthcare system that ensures equitable access while maintaining financial viability.
References
•

Rahman, R., & Salam, M. A. (2022). Policy discourses: Shifting the burden of healthcare
from the state to the market in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. INQUIRY: The Journal of
Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing, 58,
00469580211017655.

•

Council of Health Insurance. (2022, January 7). Basic Health Insurance Policy. Retrieved
from
ge%20%20%28%20effective%201%20October%202022%29.pdf

•

World Health Organization. (2010). Health systems financing: The path to universal
coverage. WHO.

Replay 3: ARWA ALMUBAYDH – a CEO of a healthcare organization
Differences Between Insurance-Based and No-Charge Healthcare Systems
1. Funding and Accessibility:
Insurance-based healthcare systems are typically funded through premiums paid by individuals
or employers, potentially supplemented by government subsidies, resulting in varying levels of
care and access depending on a person’s insurance coverage. Conversely, no-charge healthcare
systems, often termed universal healthcare, are funded by government taxation, providing all
individuals with access to essential healthcare services without direct charges at the point of
service, which aims to ensure equitable access to healthcare for everyone. (Wager & Cox, 2024)
1. Quality and Efficiency:
Insurance-based healthcare systems often experience high variability in the quality of care, as
insurance plans may restrict where patients can receive care and what services are covered,
leading to disparities. Despite these limitations, competition among healthcare providers in these
systems can spur innovation and efficiency. On the other hand, no-charge healthcare systems,
aimed at providing universal access, sometimes grapple with challenges like longer wait times
and potential underfunding. However, these systems remove financial barriers to healthcare
access, which can contribute to improved public health outcomes overall. (Lopez et al., 2020)
1. Choice and Provider Competition:
In insurance-based healthcare systems, patients often enjoy a wider array of choices regarding
providers and services, fostering competition among healthcare entities, which can lead to
enhanced quality of services. Conversely, no-charge healthcare systems, while still offering some
degree of choice, typically involve more significant government control over funding, resulting
in potentially more limited options for patients compared to their insurance-based counterparts.
(Wallace, 2020); (Montgomery, 2023)
Impacts of Providing Excessive Free Care
•

Financial Sustainability: Too much free care can strain the financial resources of a
healthcare organization, potentially leading to budget cuts, reduced quality of service, or
the necessity to reduce the workforce. (Lopez et al., 2020)

•

Resource Allocation: An excessive amount of free care might lead to challenges in
resource allocation, affecting the availability of timely and quality care for all patients.

•

Long-Term Viability: Without a balanced approach, continuously providing free care
can jeopardize the long-term viability of healthcare organizations, affecting their ability
to invest in new technologies and hire or retain skilled professionals.

Convincing the Community on the Necessity of Private Healthcare Insurance
Insurance premiums play a critical role in maintaining the financial health of healthcare systems
by funding investments in advanced technology and facilities that enhance service quality.

Private insurance also offers greater choice and personalization in healthcare, allowing
individuals to select from a wider range of doctors, specialists, and services tailored to their
specific needs. Furthermore, the revenue generated from private insurance premiums supports
research and development, fueling medical advancements and innovations that benefit the
broader community. Additionally, insurance models operate on the principle of risk pooling,
where risks are shared among a large group of people, making healthcare more affordable and
accessible, particularly for those facing significant medical expenses. This combined approach
helps sustain healthcare systems, promotes continuous improvement, and ensures broader access
to quality care. (Wager & Cox, 2024); (Lopez et al., 2020)
Reference:
Lopez, E., Claxton, G., Ochieng, N., & 2020. (2020, July 7). Comparing Private Payer and
Medicare Payment Rates for Select Inpatient Hospital Services.
KFF.
Montgomery, K. (2023, April 23). Differences Between Universal Coverage and Single-Payer.
Verywell Health; Verywellhealth.
Wager, E., & Cox, C. (2024, May 28). International comparison of health systems.
KFF.
Wallace, A. (2020). Recent immigrant children A profile of new arrivals to U.S. schools. Open
GLAM.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment