Health insurance models are being considered as part of health system reforms in Saudi Arabia. This paper assesses the attributes of health funding models that support better control of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and perspectives on health insurance as a model from the perspective of patients, clinicians, and managers. The study employed a mixed-methods research design that included quantitative and qualitative data gathering and analysis. Study findings indicated concerns that the current health funding mechanism is financially unsustainable and, as a result, there will be a greater reliance on personal health insurance to support government spending on healthcare. Essential elements of any health insurance model to support effective NCD management identified from a review of the literature and interviews include the following: ensuring continuity of care and equity; funding chronic disease prevention interventions; prioritising primary healthcare; and maintaining the principle of community rating to prevent insurers from discriminating against members. Other desirable attributes for the funding model includes collaboration across primary, secondary, and tertiary care. Healthcare finance reform aimed at adopting and increasing personal health insurance coverage may play a critical role in extending access to healthcare, eliminating health inequities, enhancing population health, and reducing government spending on healthcare if appropriately considered.

Objective: The aims of this study were to compare and contrast the information three Australian private health insurance funds (HCF, Bupa and Medibank) have provided on their online out-of-pocket cost tools and to consider the implications this has for price transparency in Australia. Methods: Website data were downloaded from HCF, Bupa and Medibank on 18 February 2019. The information and statistics provided on these pages were reviewed, and the procedures compared across funds if their pages had referred to the same Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) item(s). Information was extracted regarding descriptions of the claims data used, the types of statistics provided, the out-of-pocket estimates, the total procedure cost, the MBS items referenced and the assumptions the funds described on their pages. Results: HCF specified the MBS items used to select the claims data for their estimates, whereas Bupa and Medibank only referred to common MBS items associated with the procedures. On average, HCF had 1.44 more MBS items listed than Bupa and 2.08 more than Medibank. The funds organised procedures differently, such as HCF providing separate cost estimates for vaginal, abdominal and keyhole hysterectomy compared with Medibank’s single estimate for hysterectomy costs. Conclusions: These funds have started to address the need for transparent out-of-pocket cost information, but the differences across these pages demonstrate complexities and the potential obfuscation of cost data. What is known about the topic?: Out-of-pocket costs are highly variable and patient ‘bill shock’ is an increasing concern in Australia. Private insurance funds have created online tools to share procedure cost estimates based on their claims data. What does this paper add?: This is the first review of Australian insurance funds’ price transparency tools. The cost information is difficult to interpret both within funds (for members) and across funds (for the system). What are the implications for practitioners?: Policy makers will need to consider the complexities and presentation options for cost estimates within the health system if they move ahead with a public price transparency tool. There is still a requirement for cost information that can facilitate price shopping across providers and funders.

Introduction: Quality Use of Medicines (QUM) is essential to improving patient safety and care outcomes. This study evaluated the attitudes, perceptions and self‑reported engagement of pharmacists in QUM practices within Saudi Arabia (SA). Methods: A cross-sectional survey was administered to hospital-based pharmacists in Ministry of Health (MOH) hospitals across SA to evaluate four QUM-related aspects: Perception and Attitudes toward QUM, Medication Review, Patient Education and Adherence, and Medication Dosage and Monitoring. Responses were rated on a 5-point scale, and data were analyzed using SPSS version 29. Results: Of 360 surveys, 318 were completed (response rate: 88%). Overall, pharmacists reported high mean scores, indicating favorable attitudes toward QUM concepts and a high perceived importance of QUM‑related activities (mean scores >4 across all domains). The highest mean score was for Perception and Attitudes toward QUM (4.63), while Medication Review had the lowest (4.24). Female pharmacists had higher mean scores across all categories, and younger pharmacists (21–30 years) also had higher scores, particularly in Patient Education and Adherence; however, these subgroup differences were not statistically significant after Bonferroni correction. Conclusion: Pharmacists in this study hold positive perception and attitudes toward QUM principles. However, the study identified gender- and age-related differences, as well as discrepancies between perception and practice, particularly in medication reviews. Thus, there is a need for targeted, tailored training and educational programs to enhance QUM practices among pharmacists in SA.