• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.45-72
• /
• 2012

The National Health Insurance Corporation has been retrieving from health care providers the payments made to them by insured patients as a result of the health care providers' arbitrary denial of coverage under the National Health Insurance, and has been disbursing such retrieved monies back to the patients, pursuant to Article 57, Sections 1 and 4 of the National Health Insurance Act. However, such practice is an application of the law that lacks legal exactitude. Another problem with such practice is that there is no legal provision under any laws or notices that expressly prohibits arbitrary denial of coverage. A legislative solution, therefore, is called for to address these issues.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.173-214
• /
• 2013

Traditionally, the Supreme Court has held that medical treatment agreements covered by national health insurance should be distinguished from other medical treatment agreements which are viewed as a consummation of the autonomous free will between doctor and patient. Namely, the Supreme Court views medical treatment agreements covered by national health insurance to be bound by the National Health Insurance Law with the intent to promote the applicability and comprehensiveness of the national health insurance scheme. Yet, issues of voluntary non-reimbursable treatments are triggered not only by the mistakes or moral hazard of medical care institutions but also by systemic limitations of national health insurance coverage criteria. Thus, there is a need for legislative measures that allow certain medical treatments to be included or reflected in the national health insurance coverage system so that patients may receive prompt and flexible medical treatments. To reflect such concerns, the Supreme Court made an exception for voluntary non-reimbursable treatments and developed a strict test to be applied in such cases in Supreme Court Judgment 2010 Doo 27639, 27646 (ruled on June 8, 2012 by the Grand Bench). Such judgment, however, is not a fundamental overturn of the Supreme Court's prior rulings that voluntary non-reimbursable treatments are not allowed under the law. It is only a slight revision of its previous stance for cases in which there is a lack of legislative measures to make coverage of a new yet valid medical treatment possible under the current national health insurance coverage system.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.33-67
• /
• 2020

The hospitals that are owned by non-medical personnel result when non-medical personnel with resources conspire with newly graduated medical doctors who cannot afford the enormous amount of capital required at the beginning of the establishment of a medical institution. Such hospitals, though they may have met the external requirements as medical institutions, disrupt the medical market as it should be centered by medical personnels, In addition, such hospitals are causing a huge social problem as it is illegally receiving and reducing various benefits such as medical care benefits and subsidies from the government, resulting in a significant financial leak in the national health insurance. The illegality of the opening of a non-medical personnel hospital is so high that it nullifies the contractual arrangement for the establishment, imposes criminal penalties on all persons involved in the establishment under the Korean Medical Law, and imposes administrative sanctions on medical personnel. In case the hospital was aware of the illegality of its opening, but had applied to receive medical care benefits from the National Health Insurance Act and the Medical Care Act, such actions will result in the return of the benefits under the National Health Insurance Act and the Medical Care Assistance Act, subject to the penalty for the crime of fraud, and aggravated punishment for specific economic crimes based on the amount of gain, as well as civil liability for torts. In this study, we will examine the current status of the regulations on the non-medical personnel hospital and present the basis for future legislative directions by looking at the legal regulations and the attitude of the precedents.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.227-261
• /
• 2015

Cooperative associations are established in order to enhance the rights and the interests of their members and serve the local communities, and actually do much for the local society. And among these, consumer cooperatives are spontaneously founded, particularly in the spirit of mutual help, in order to promote the common welfare of the members. Meanwhile, because the current medical law qualifys noncommercial corporation to open medical institution, consumer cooperative and noncommercial- corporation cooperative which are established under the Cooperative Act have the right to do. However, though cooperative association should be founded for common interests of the members who are weaker parties of society, it became rapidly to be abused as means of circumvention of law. Especially as National Health Insurance Corporation stepped up the investigation and the collection of unfair profits against the hospital owned by non-medical personnel who are unable to establish a medical institution, setting up medical institutions as a roundabout way to avoid the restricts dramatically increased in number. In this study, we are going to introduce the current dualised normative system regulating the establishment of a medical cooperative association, and find a way to improve the system and make up for the week points. And we will look though the present situation about medical cooperative association's opening, operating, and closing, and review the normative and systematic improving plans.