• Journal of Oral Medicine and Pain
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.215-230
• /
• 2005

The study was intended to investigate how dentists in private dental clinic thought on the present claim and review of dental insurance to reflect it in future establishing dental insurance policies. 1,465 dentists who were running own dental clinic in Pusan Metropolitan City and the south part of Kyungsang province were surveyed in February, 2004. A total of 406 copies of finished questionnaire were finally retrieved and analyzed. The findings are as follows. 1. About insurance claim affairs : Most of the subject of insurance claim was by dentist himself or dental hygienist(nurse). Agency claiming was carried under 20% of total insurance claim. 2. The degree of attendance on insurance lecture : The degree of attendance on insurance lecture was relatively low. 3. Filing a protest against insurance claim : Filing a protest against insurance claim was reavealed about half-and-half for "have been" or "have not been". 4. Private clinic dentist,s opinion about the regulations affecting review of dental insurance : Private clinic dentists opinion about current guide for insurance review of dental fee was“the guidance is difficult and unfair cutback of claim fee may be carried”. 5. The affairs about health insurance review agency : About 70% of private clinic dentists have dissatisfaction on health insurance review agency. 6. Standpoint of private clinic dentists about issuance of receipt for dental fee : About 70% of private clinic dentist have an difficulty in issuance of receipt for dental fee. 7. The affairs about change insurance noncoverage treatment to insurance coverage treatment : Most of private clinic dentists hoped that insurance coverage about full mouth scaling, pit and fissure sealant, fluoride application. But they do not hoped that insurance coverage about geriatric denture, prothodontic treatment except precious metal, photopolymerization resin treatment.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.175-209
• /
• 2019

The bundled discounting which the dominant undertakings engage in is problematic in terms of competition restraint. Bundled discounts generally benefit not only buyers but also sellers. Specifically, bundled discounts usually costs a firm less to sell multiple products. In addition, Bundled discounts always provide some immediate consumer benefit in the form of lower prices. Therefore, competition authorities and courts should not be too quick to condemn bundled discounts and apply the neutral and objective standard in bundled discounting cases. Cascade Health v. Peacehealth decision starts ruling from this prerequisite. This decision pointed out that the dominant undertaking can exclude rivals through bundled discounting without pricing its products below its cost when rivals do not sell as great a number of product lines. So bundled discounting may have the anticompetitive impact by excluding less diversified but more efficient producers. This decision did not adopt Lepage case's standard which does not require the court to consider whether the competitor was at least as efficient of a producer as the bundled discounter. Instead of that, based on cost based approach, this decision said that the exclusionary element can not be satisfied unless the discounts result in prices that are below an appropriate measures of the defendant's costs. By adopting a discount attribution standard, this decision said that the full amount of the discounts should be allocated to the competitive products. As the seller can easily ascertain its own prices and costs of production and calculate whether its discounting practices exclude competitors, not the competitor's costs but the dominant undertaking's costs should be considered in applying discount attribution standard. This case deals with bundled discounting practice of multiple healthcare services by the dominant undertaking in healthcare market. Under the Korean healthcare system and public health insurance system, the price competition primarily exists in non-medical care benefits because public healthcare insurance in Korea is in combination with the compulsory medical care institution system. The cases that Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Law deals with, such as cartel and the abuse of monopoly power, also mainly exist in non-medical care benefits. The dominant undertaking's exclusionary bundled discounting in Korean healthcare markets may be practiced in the contracts between the dominant undertaking and private insurance companies with regards to non-medical care benefits.

• 한국노년학
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.177-194
• /
• 2009

Korea government has launched long-term care insurance from 2008. However, one of the most important issues, whether or not providing cash benefit, is still unresolved. In this paper, in order to provide policy guidelines for the long-term care insurance, I attempt to estimate the Willingness-To-Accept (WTA) of the cash subsidy for informal care by using Double Bounded Dichotomous Choice method, a branch of Contingent Valuation Method (CVM). In doing so, I also estimated the determinants of the preference for cash benefit. Data were obtained from face-to-face survey interviews with 300 informal care-givers at three major general hospitals in Seoul, Korea. The questionnaire was constructed with two scenarios (mild/severe symptom). The results from logistic regression analyses and the estimation of WTA indicate that informal care-givers are willing to accept the cash benefit as low as 628 thousands won for mild fragile elderly and 1,072 thousands won for severe fragile elderly. The strength of this paper is that I estimated the WTA of the cash benefit by reflecting the changes in preferences of informal care-givers. The analytic results from the this paper suggest that the cash benefit in long-term care insurance is indispensible in achieving the goal of the long-term care system.

• Korean Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.250-257
• /
• 2017

Objective: The prevalence rate of osteoarthritis in Koreans aged 50 years or older is 14.3%, and the total amount of medical costs is more than KRW 1 trillion. Recently, the reimbursement guidelines for osteoarthritis treatment have changed. Methods: In this study, we sought to describe prescription patterns of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and gastro-protective agent (GPA) and analyze the clinical and economic impacts of the new policy using the national health insurance claims data. The incidence of upper gastrointestinal adverse event by policy change was identified through the odds ratio, and changes in medicine and medical costs related to osteoarthritis through mean and median. Results: There were 204,552 patients before the reimbursement guidelines relaxation and 239,710 after it, a 17.2% rise. The prescription ratio was 3.3% for the patients prescribed with COX-2 selective NSAIDs alone and 1.3% for those with both COX-2 selective NSAIDs and GPA combination before the reimbursement guidelines relaxation. The reimbursement guidelines relaxation significantly increased their ratios to 6.9% and 2.8%, respectively. Gastrointestinal adverse events significantly reduced by 1.21%p after reimbursement guidelines relaxation. The average medicine cost per person increased significantly to KRW 140,291 from KRW 137,323 after the reimbursement guidelines relaxation, while the average medical cost per person slightly decreased from KRW 311,605 to KRW 310,755 after the relaxation, showing no meaningful difference. Conclusion: The reimbursement guidelines relaxation may influence on decreasing the upper gastrointestinal adverse event, increasing the medicine costs and maintaining the medical costs for osteoarthritis.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.3-33
• /
• 2020

Telemedicine can be defined as "medical activities performed remotely by medical personnel using information and communication technology." So far, many scholars in Korea have understood that only telemedicine between medical personnel is allowed and telemedicine between medical personnel and patients is prohibited based on Article 34 of Medical Service Act. However, Article 34 is only a restriction on the performing place of medical profession, not a prohibition on telemedicine itself. And, there are no regulations prohibiting telemedicine under the korean medical law. So, it is difficult to say that telemedicine is generally prohibited under the korean medical law, apart from the health insurance medical treatment benefit standards. However, there is controversy in interpretation regarding the meaning of "direct diagnosis" in Articles 17 and 17-2 of Medical Service Act. The Constitutional Court of Korea interpreted this as "face-to-face diagnosis", while the Supreme Court of Korea interpreted it as "self diagnosis". In light of the dictionary meaning of 'direct' and the interpretation of related medical law regulations, I think the Supreme Court's interpretation is valid. Although "direct diagnosis" does not mean "face-to-face diagnosis", the concept of "diagnosis" implies "principle of face-to-face diagnosis". In addition, "non-face-to-face diagnosis" are only allowed to supplement "face-to-face diagnosis", so the problems caused by "non-face-to-face diagnosis" can be fully overcome. In the end, the limit of telemedicine is how faithful the diagnosis was.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.167-174
• /
• 1997

Purpose : The main Purpose of this study is to develop new payment rates for services of Radiation Oncology, considering costs of treating patients. Material and Methods : A survey of forty hospitals has been conducted in order to analyze the costs of treating patients. Before conducting the survey, we evaluated and reclassified the individual service items currently using as Payments units on the fee-for-service reimbursement system. This study embodies the analysis of replies received from the twenty four hospitals. The survey contains informations about the hospitals' costs of 1995 for the reclassified service items on Radiation Oncology. After we adjust the hospital costs by the operating rate of medical equipment, we compare the adjusted costs with the current Payment rates of individual services. Results : The current payment rates were 5.05-6.58 times lower than the adjusted costs in treatment planning services, 2.22 times lower in block making service, 1.57-2.86 times lower in external beam irradiation services, 3.82-5.01 times lower in intracavitary and interstitial irradiation and 1.12-2.55 times lower in total body irradiation. Conclusion : We could conclude that the current payment system on Radiation Oncology does not only reflect the costs of treating patients appropriately but also classify the service items correctly. For an example, when the appropriate costs and classification are applied to TBI, the payment rates of TBI should be increased five times more than current level.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.299-346
• /
• 2016

There were also various decisions made in medical area in 2015. In the case that an inmate in a sanatorium was injured due to the reason which can be attributable to the sanatorium and the social welfare foundation that operates the sanatorium request treatment of the patient, the court set the standard of fixation of a party in medical contract. In the case that the family of the patient who was declared brain dead required withdrawal of meaningless life sustaining treatment but the hospital rejected and continued the treatment, the court made a decision regarding chargeable fee for such treatment. When it comes to the eye brightening operation which received measure of suspension from the Ministry of Health and Welfare for the first time in February, 2011, because of uncertainty of its safety, the court did not accept the illegality of such operation itself, however, ordered compensation of the whole damage based on the violation of liability for explanation, which is the omission of explanation about the fact that the cost-effectiveness is not sure as it is still in clinical test stage. There were numerous cases that courts actively acknowledged malpractices; in the cases of paresis syndrome after back surgery, quite a few malpractices during the surgery were acknowledged by the court and in the case of nosocomial infection, hospital's negligence to cause such nosocomial infection was acknowledged by the court. There was a decision which acknowledged malpractice by distinguishing the duty of installation of emergency equipment according to the Emergency Medical Service Act and duty of emergency measure in emergency situations, and a decision which acknowledged negligence of a hospital if the hospital did not take appropriate measures, although it was a very rare disease. In connection with the scope of compensation for damage, there were decisions which comply with substantive truth such as; a court applied different labor ability loss rate as the labor ability loss rate decreased after result of reappraisal of physical ability in appeal compared to the one in the first trial, and a court acknowledged lower labor ability loss rate than the result of appraisal of physical ability considering the condition of a patient, etc. In the event of any damage caused by malpractice, in regard to whether there is a limitation on liability in fee charge after such medical malpractice, the court rejected the hospital's claim for setoff saying that if the hospital only continued treatments to cure the patient or prevent aggravation of disease, the hospital cannot charge Medical bills to the patient. In regard to the provision of the Medical Law that prohibit medical advertisement which was not reviewed preliminarily and punish the violation of such, a decision of unconstitutionality was made as it is a precensorship by an administrative agency as the deliberative bodies such as Korean Medical Association, etc. cannot be denied to be considered as administrative bodies. When it comes to the issue whether PRP treatment, which is commonly performed clinically, should be considered as legally determined uninsured treatment, the court made it clear that legally determined uninsured treatment should not be decided by theoretical possibility or actual implementation but should be acknowledged its medical safety and effectiveness and included in medical care or legally determined uninsured treatment. Moreover, court acknowledged the illegality of investigation method or process in the administrative litigation regarding evaluation of suitability of sanatorium, however, denied the compensation liability or restitution of unjust enrichment of the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service and the National Health Insurance Corporation as the evaluation agents did not cause such violation intentionally or negligently. We hope there will be more decisions which are closer to substantive truth through clear legal principles in respect of variously arisen issues in the future.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.78-86
• /
• 2024

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of the specialty hospital system by comparing the medical use of inpatients who had artificial joint replacement surgery in specialty hospitals and non-specialty hospitals. Methods: This study utilized 2021-2022 healthcare benefit claims data provided by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. The dependent variable is inpatient medical use which is measured in terms of charges per case and length of stay. The independent variable was whether the hospital was designated as a specialty hospital, and the control variables were patient-level variables (age, gender, insurer type, surgery type, and Charlson comorbidity index) and medical institution-level variables (establishment type, classification, location, number of orthopedic surgeons, and number of nurses). Results: The results of the multiple regression analysis between charges per case and whether a hospital is designated as a specialty hospital showed a statistically significant negative relationship between charges per case and whether a hospital is designated as a specialty hospital. This suggests a significant low in charges per case when a hospital is designated as a specialty hospital compared to a non-specialty hospital, indicating that there is a difference in medical use outcomes between specialty hospitals and non-specialty hospitals inpatients. Conclusion: The practical implications of this study are as follows. First, the criteria for designating specialty hospitals should be alleviated. In our study, the results show that specialty hospitals have significantly lower per-case costs than non-specialty hospitals. Despite the cost-effectiveness of specialty hospitals, the high barriers to be designated for specialty hospitals have gathered the specialty hospitals in metropolitan and major cities. To address the regional imbalance of specialty hospitals, it is believed that ease the criteria for designating specialty hospitals in non-metropolitan areas, such as introducing "semi-specialty hospitals (tentative name)," will lead to a reduction in health disparities between regions and reduce medical costs. Second, it is necessary to determine the appropriateness of the size of hospitals' medical staff. The study found that the number of orthopedic surgeons and nurses varied in charges per case. Therefore, it is believed that appropriately allocating hospital medical staff can maximize the cost-effectiveness of medical services and ultimately reduce medical costs.