Healthcare finance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia:a qualitative study of householders’ attitudes

Background: The public sector healthcare system in Saudi Arabia, essentially financed by oil revenues and ‘free at the point of delivery’, is coming under increasing strain due to escalating expenditure and an increasingly volatile oil market and is likely to be unsustainable in the medium to long term. Objectives: This study examines how satisfied the Saudi people are with their public sector healthcare services and assesses their willingness to contribute to financing the system through a national health insurance scheme. The study also examines public preferences and expectations of a future national health insurance system. Methods: A total of 36 heads of households participated in face-to-face audio-recorded semi-structured interviews. The participants were purposefully selected based on different socio-economic and socio-demographic factors from urban and rural areas to represent the geographical diversity that would presumably influence individual views, expectations, preferences and healthcare experiences. Results: The evidence showed some dissatisfaction with the provision and quality of current public sector healthcare services, including the availability of appointments, waiting times and the availability of drugs. The households indicated a willingness to contribute to a national insurance scheme, conditional upon improvements in the quality of public sector healthcare services. The results also revealed a variety of preferences and expectations regarding the proposed national health insurance scheme. Conclusions: Quality improvement is a key factor that could motivate the Saudi people to contribute to financing the healthcare system. A new authority, consisting of a partnership between the public and private sectors under government supervision, could represent an acceptable option for addressing the variation in public preferences

Investigating the Willingness to Pay for a Contributory National Health Insurance Scheme in Saudi Arabia:A Cross-sectional Stated Preference Approach

Background: The Saudi Healthcare System is universal, financed entirely from government revenue principally derived from oil, and is ‘free at the point of delivery’ (non-contributory). However, this system is unlikely to be sustainable in the medium to long term. This study investigates the feasibility and acceptability of healthcare financing reform by examining households’ willingness to pay (WTP) for a contributory national health insurance scheme. Methods: Using the contingent valuation method, a pre-tested interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to collect data from 1187 heads of household in Jeddah province over a 5-month period. Multi-stage sampling was employed to select the study sample. Using a double-bounded dichotomous choice with the follow-up elicitation method, respondents were asked to state their WTP for a hypothetical contributory national health insurance scheme. Tobit regression analysis was used to examine the factors associated with WTP and assess the construct validity of elicited WTP. Results: Over two-thirds (69.6%) indicated that they were willing to participate in and pay for a contributory national health insurance scheme. The mean WTP was 50 Saudi Riyal (US$13.33) per household member per month. Tobit regression analysis showed that household size, satisfaction with the quality of public healthcare services, perceptions about financing healthcare, education and income were the main determinants of WTP. Conclusions: This study demonstrates a theoretically valid WTP for a contributory national health insurance scheme by Saudi people. The research shows that willingness to participate in and pay for a contributory national health insurance scheme depends on participant characteristics. Identifying and understanding the main influencing factors associated with WTP are important to help facilitate establishing and implementing the national health insurance scheme. The results could assist policy-makers to develop and set insurance premiums, thus providing an additional source of healthcare financing

Effectiveness of a patient-centered medical home model of primary care versus standard care on blood pressure outcomes among hypertensive patients

Patients with hypertension and other comorbidities have complex health care needs that are challenging to manage in primary care. However, there is strong evidence suggesting that patient-centered approaches in primary care are effective in managing complex multimorbidity. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a patient-centered medical home model called ‘WellNet’ versus that of standard care on blood pressure (BP) outcomes among hypertensive patients. We used a cohort study design with a comparison group and case-series design to assess the ‘between-group’ and ‘within-group’ effectiveness of the WellNet program delivered across six general practices in Sydney, Australia. The treatment group included 447 eligible patients who provided consent and who received general practitioner-led care with the integration of care coordinators. The comparison group included 5237 matched patients receiving usual care at four geographically comparable general practices. To assess changes over time, paired, and independent samples t-tests were used to determine significant differences. In addition, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to identify any significant differences after adjusting for potential covariates. The adjusted model showed significant reductions in systolic BP (−3.4 mmHg; 95% CI −5.1, −1.7; p value < 0.001) in the treatment group at follow-up. However, no significant mean change was observed in diastolic BP. The proportion of patients within the recommended range was found to be significantly higher in the treatment group than in the comparison group (13.6% versus 6.4%). WellNet patients experienced statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in BP during the follow-up. The findings of this study may be beneficial to both patients and providers in terms of improved health outcomes and delivery of care, respectively