The expansion and privatization of the healthcare sector have heightened the financial vulnerability of healthcare institutions, generating a fundamental conflict between the imperative of asset liquidation and the mandate to ensure the continuity of vital services while safeguarding patients’ rights. Accordingly, this study aims to analyze the protective gaps in Iranian insolvency law and explore the potential of international UNCITRAL standards in managing the financial crises of such institutions. Employing a descriptive-analytical and comparative approach, this research examines the legal status of patients and creditors under Iranian commercial laws and compares it with the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law. The findings reveal that the Iranian legal framework—owing to its exclusive reliance on a liquidation-oriented approach, failure to distinguish patients from ordinary creditors, lack of interim measures to prevent abrupt dissolutions, and disregard for the confidentiality of health data—remains inadequate in protecting the right to health. Conversely, UNCITRAL instruments facilitate the preservation of public service enterprises through mechanisms such as the stay of execution proceedings, post-commencement emergency financing, and structural reorganization. Consequently, resolving this dilemma requires designing a policy package within Iranian law encompassing interim healthcare administration, mandatory safe patient-transfer protocols, structural protection of medical records, limited statutory priority for patients’ treatment costs, and early warning duties for directors to strike a fair balance between creditors’ claims and public health interests.