Health Policy and Management (보건행정학회지)

Korean Academy of Health Policy and Management (한국보건행정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Factors Affecting the Insured Organizations Participation in Decision Making Process in Health Insurance Policy Committee

건강보험정책심의위원회 가입자 단체의 의사결정 참여에 영향을 미치는 요인

  • Han, Joo-Sung (Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Chang-Yup (Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2017.08.12
  • Accepted : 2017.11.29
  • Published : 2017.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Due to the asymmetry of information and knowledge and the power of bureaucrats and medical professionals, it is not easy for citizens to participate in health care policy making. This study analyzes the case of the insured organization participating in the Health Insurance Policy Committee (HIPC) and provides a basis for discussing methods and conditions for better public participation. Methods: Qualitative analysis was conducted using the in-depth interviews with the participants and document data such as materials for HIPC meetings. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively sampled six participants from organizations representing the insured in HIPC. The meanings related to the factors affecting participation were found and categorized into major categories. Results: The main factors affecting participating in the decision making process were trust and cooperation among the participants, structure and procedure of governance, representation and expertise of participants, and contents of issues. Due to limited cooperation, participants lacked influence in important decisions. There was an imbalance in power due to unreasonable procedures and criteria for governance. As the materials for meetings were provided inappropriate manner, it was difficult for participants to understand the contents and comments on the meeting. Due to weak accountability structure, opinions from external stakeholders have not been well received. The participation was made depending on the expertise of individual members. The degree of influence was different depending on the contents of the issues. Conclusion: In order to meet the values of democracy and realize the participation that the insured can demonstrate influence, it is necessary to have a fair and reasonable procedure and a sufficient learning environment. More deliberative structure which reflects citizen's public perspective is required, rather than current negotiating structure of HIPC.

Keywords

References

  1. Kim HS. Significance and application of participatory decision making. Proceedings of forums on public conflict and participatory decisionmaking; 2005.
  2. Chung HW. A study on the role and operation of National Pension Fund Management Committee: focusing on role and influence of the representative of pension contributor. Soc Welf Policy 2008;33:423-447.
  3. Kim CY. Participation and democracy in health policy: is it effective?: how will the effectiveness be secured? Proceedings of conference on health and welfare alliance for criticism and alternatives; 2012; Seoul, Korea.
  4. Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin FP. Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med 2003;57(2):239-251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00343-x.
  5. Kim CY. Theories of health security. Paju: Hanul Academy; 2009.
  6. Kim CB. People are kicked out of the policy making process of National Health Insurance? Mon Welf Trend 2010:69-72.
  7. Choi HK. An analysis of the dynamic process of setting fees for medical services. Health Soc Sci 2007;22:67-95.
  8. Shin YS, Kim SU, EA K. A plan to re-organize the health insurance policy determination body. Sejong: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs; 2014.
  9. Sa JM. Citizen participation in policy process. Korean Public Adm Policy 2006;4(1):69-99.
  10. Rowe G, Frewer LJ. Evaluating public-participation exercises: a research agenda. Sci Technol Hum Values 2004;29(4):512-556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903259197
  11. Charles C, DeMaio S. Lay participation in health care decision making: a conceptual framework. J Health Polit Policy Law 1993;18(4):881-904. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-18-4-881.
  12. Pivik JR. Practical strategies for facilitating meaningful citizen involvement in health planning. Saskatoon: Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada; 2002.
  13. Kwon S, You M, Oh J, Kim S, Jeon B. Public participation in healthcare decision making: experience of citizen council for health insurance. Health Policy Manag 2012;22(4):467-496. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4332/kjhpa.2012.22.4.467.
  14. Abelson J; New Brunswick Health Research Foundation, Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. Effective strategies for interactive public engagement in the development of healthcare policies and programs: a research project. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; 2010.
  15. Mitton C, Smith N, Peacock S, Evoy B, Abelson J. Public participation in health care priority setting: a scoping review. Health Policy 2009;91(3): 219-228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.01.005.
  16. Bruni RA, Laupacis A, Martin DK; University of Toronto Priority Setting in Health Care Research Group. Public engagement in setting priorities in health care. CMAJ 2008;179(1):15-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.071656.
  17. Weeks EC. The practice of deliberative democracy: results from four large-scale trials. Public Adm Rev 2000;60(4):360-372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00098.
  18. Irvin RA, Stansbury J. Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort? Public Adm Rev 2004;64(1):55-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x.
  19. Eun JH, Yang HM, Yoon JS, Park HY, Seo SA, Jung CJ. Research on a conflict resolution using participatory decision-making techniques. Seoul: The Korea Institute of Public Administration; 2008.
  20. Lee WY. Research for patient and public involvement in health care policy-making process: case studies of England NHS under new labor government (1998-2009). Korea Soc Policy Rev 2012;19(4):175-205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17000/kspr.19.4.201212.175.
  21. Van de Bovenkamp HM, Trappenburg MJ, Grit KJ. Patient participation in collective healthcare decision making: the Dutch model. Health Expect 2010;13(1):73-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00567.x.
  22. Choi HK. An analysis on the process of setting fees for medical and pharmaceutical services in the national health insurance and the role of the government in the process. Korean Public Adm Rev 2004;38(2):127-147.
  23. Lee PS. Problems and improvements of the decision-making structure of HIPC. Healthc Policy Forum 2012;10(3):57-61.
  24. Kim JH. Evaluation and improvement of national health insurance fee contract system. Proceedings of discussion for evaluation and improvement of national health insurance fee contract system; 2013.
  25. Kwon SM, Oh JH, MA K. Principles and implementation of priority setting for the expansion of health insurance coverage. Seoul: Seoul National University Graduate School of Public Health, National Health Insurance Service; 2010.
  26. Yoon HS. Problems of decision-making process related the health insurance as a result of the coverage expansion policy. Sejong: Korea Development Institute; 2007.
  27. Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. Seoul: Hankyungsa; 2005.
  28. Kim YC. Qualitative methodology. Paju: Academy Press; 2012.
  29. Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2007.
  30. Wood DJ, Gray B. Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. J Applied Behav Sci 1991;27(2):139-162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886391272001.
  31. Yoon SH. "Does the provider group expand the financial pie?" They get together before fee negotiation. MedicalTimes. 2015 Mar 19.
  32. Schmitter PC. Modes of interest intermediation and models of societal change in Western Europe. Comp Polit Stud 1977;10(1):7-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001041407701000102.
  33. Kim SH. Dynamics of corporatism decision making process: two level game theory approach. Proceedings of the Summer Conference of KAPA; 2004: The Korean Association for Public Administration. Seoul: The Korean Association for Public Administration; 2004.