In hospital hallways, where pains intersect, the patient sees only a 'gateway of hope' towards recovery in their medical file, while behind it lurk administrative conflicts that do not realize that any delay in a decision, or stubbornness in a procedure, is a failure in the patient's right.

Today we face a crisis of trust that has turned between the parties of the treatment process, where the patient stands helpless, bearing the consequences of an eternal conflict between insurance companies and service providers, as if his health has become a tax paid by this tug-of-war. Insurance companies view doctors' decisions with suspicion, wary that treatment plans might be a means to maximize profits and inflate bills, prompting them to adopt rejection policies as an administrative shield. On the other hand, we cannot ignore the fact that some service providers exaggerate requirements, sometimes turning the patient from 'a human hoping for recovery' into a 'commercial deal' that requires maximizing returns, ignoring the solid scientific foundations of medical care.

For my part, I contacted the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties, which stated that it registers practitioners and grants them memberships but does not issue them professional practice licenses, as professional practice licenses are issued by the Ministry of Health. It added that membership in the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties is available to all doctors working in insurance companies, and there is nothing preventing that.

This deep gap cannot be bridged by mutual accusations or by tightening administrative restrictions. There has been a practical initiative worthy of contemplation, proposing that insurance company doctors be subject to licensing by the 'Saudi Commission for Health Specialties' to ensure competence and impartiality, so that rejection or acceptance is based on sound clinical medical logic, not random accounting estimates.

This proposal, as much as it is a regulatory measure, is a 'public interest' that begins with preserving the patient's rights, passes through enhancing the credibility of hospitals, and reaches the stability of insurance company performance. Yet, this direction still awaits a response that understands its strategic dimensions.

Nevertheless, fairness remains a duty; health insurance - with all its challenges and setbacks - remains a much better option than returning to times of long waits in public hospitals or the burden of high 'cash' costs in the private sector that can exhaust a family. The current situation, despite all its drawbacks, is a station on a long road to building an effective system.

Governance is an ethical covenant, and the insurance sector will only be set right when we all realize that the 'bill,' no matter how high its figures, will never equal the value of a single moment when a patient returns home healthy. We need a revolution in consciences before a revolution in regulations, to stop trading people's lives in markets of profit and loss, and to restore the medical profession's human luster that is not negotiable. The patient is not just a number in a record, but a trust that requires appreciation before justification.