• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.11-39
• /
• 2011

[ ${\S}27$ ]Abs. 3 das Gesuntheitsdienstgesetz (the Medical Service Act) in Korea lautet: Niemand in der Absicht, sich oder einem Dritten einen $Verm{\ddot{o}}gensvorteil$ zu verschaffen, der Medizininstitut bzw. dem Mediziner (die Medizinerin) den Patienten vorstellen, ${\ddot{u}}bweweisen$, verleiten oder einen anderen zu dieser Handlung anstiften darf, wie z.B. die Selbstbeteiligung des Patienten nach dem Krankenkassengesetz (the National Health Insurance Act) oder dem Gesetz ${\ddot{u}}ber$ Beistand der ${\ddot{a}}rztlicher$ Betreuung (the Medical Care Assistance Act) skontieren oder befreien, Geld offerieren oder dem Allgemeinheit das Verkehrswesen anbieten usw. Nach dem Wortlaut ist jedoch unklar, ob unter diese Vorschriften der Fall subsumiert werden kann, wenn eine Medizininstitut bzw. ein(e) Mediziner(in) in der Absicht, sich einen $Verm{\ddot{o}}gensvorteil$ zu verschaffen, sich den Patienten verleitet. Nach dem Korean Supreme Court ist eine Medizininstitut bzw. ein(e) Mediziner(in) nur dann das Subjekt der Verleitungshandlung, wenn sie bzw. er ein Mittel gegen fairen oder $ordungsm{\ddot{a}}{\beta}ien$ Medizinmarkt verwendet oder dem Patienten eine ${\ddot{a}}rztlich$ rechtswidrige Behandlung (z.B. einen rechtswidrigen Schwangerschaftsabbruch) verspricht. In diesem Beitrag wird dagegen die Auffassung mittels der teleologischen Reduktion vertritt und argumentiert, dass ein ${\ddot{a}}rztlich$ rechtswidriges Behandlung nach dem Rechtsgut und dem Normzweck unter ${\S}27$ Abs. 3 das Gesuntheitsdienstgesetz nicht subsumiert werden, sondern allein nach eigenem Unrecht bestraft werden kann.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.195-218
• /
• 2017

The increase in medical expenses for convalescent hospitals is increasing abnormally, which puts enormous burden on the National health insurance finances. This is a phenomenon that has been associated with the social phenomenon of rapid aging. The fact that the convalescent hospitals are paid the fixed amount per day for hospitalization became the incentive for some hospitals to use the patients as means of making money. And these hospitals intend to get regular care or take medicines at other hospitals in order to reduce medical expenses, even when the medical fee is paid. In order to prevent such financial leaks, the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service adjusted the patient group for inpatients in a hospital with the above behavior, and then cut the cost of medical care benefits. However, Above decision was canceled by the court on the grounds that there was no basis rule. However, based on the above case, I think that it can be an opportunity to draw up the problem and to improve of the Medical Fee System of hospital. The modified medical fee system can strengthen the medical function of the convalescent hospital. In addition, it seems reasonable to exclude admission for "physically disabled group". Even if admission is allowed for the physically disabled group due to social needs, it should be excluded from the National health insurance for the fianacial soundness and the sustainability of the system.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.143-174
• /
• 2019

Our Constitution obliges the state to protect the health of the people, and the Medical Law, which embodied Constitution, sets out in detail the matters related to open the medical institution, and one of them is to prohibit the operation of multiple medical institutions. By the way, virtually multiple medical institutions could be opened and operated because the Supreme Court had interpreted that several medical institutions could be opened if medical activities were not performed directly at the additional medical institution which was opened under the another doctor's license. However, some health care providers opened the several medical institutions with another doctor's license for the purpose of the maximization of profit, and did illegal medical cares like the unfair luring of patients, over-treatment, and commission treatment. Also, realistic problems such as the infringed health rights have arisen. Accordingly, lawmakers had come to amend the Medical Law to readjust the system of opening for medical institution so that medical personnel could not open or operate more than one medical institution for any reason. For this reason, the Constitutional Court recently declared a constitutional decision through a long period of in-depth deliberation because the constitutional petition and the adjudication on the constitutionality of statutes had been filed on whether Article 33 paragraph 8 of the revised medical law is unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court acknowledged the "justice of purpose" in view of the importance of public medical institutions, of the prevention from seduction of for-profit patients and from over-treatment, and of the fact that health care should not be the object of commercial transactions. Given the risk that medical personnel might be subject to outside capital, the concern that the holder of the medical institution's opening certificate and the actual operator may be separated, the principle that the human body and life should not be just a means, and the current system's inability to identify over-treatment, it also acknowledged the 'minimum infringement'. Furthermore, The Constitutional Court judged it is constitutional in compliance with the principle of restricting fundamental rights, such as 'balance of legal interests'. In this regard, legislative complements are needed in order to effectively prevent the for-profit management and the over-treatment the Constitutional Court is concerned about. In this regard, consumer groups actively support the need for legislation, and health care providers groups also agree on the need for legislation. Therefore, the legislators should respect the recent Constitutional Court's decision and in the near future complete the complementary legislation to reflect the people's interests.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.281-313
• /
• 2016

Our Constitution obliges the state to protect the health of the people, and the Medical Law, which embodied Constitution, sets out in detail the matters related to open the medical institution and one of them is to prohibit the operation of multiple medical institutions In the past, there was a provision stipulating the same purpose. But because the Supreme Court interpreted that several medical institutions could be opened if the medical treatment was not made at the additional medical instition which was opened in the another doctor,s license, multiple medical institutions could be opened and operated. However, some health care providers opened the several medical institutions to another doctor's license just by the excuse of the business management and then did illegal medical cares like the unfair luring of patients, overtreatment, and commition treatment for more profits. So, the health rights of the people came to be infringed on. Accordingly, lawmakers amended the Medical Law for medical personnel not to open and to operate more than one medical institution. As the amended medical law prohibited a medical personnel to open multiple medical institution, some medical personnels insisted that the amended medical law is unconstitutional under which they could not be able to open and operate medical institutions on based on free investment and bring out the benefits of network hospitals. But the regulation to prohibit multiple institutions does not apply only to a medical personnel. Many other experts like lawyer and pharmacist can open only one office under such a restriction. If the regulation goes out of force, the procedure that multiple medical institutions should be opened and operated in the capacity as a medical corporation or a non-profit corporation does not have to be followed. And we should keep in mind that the permission for medical personels to open multiple medical institutions could lead virtually to commercial hospital. If in the nation with a very low rate of public medical service, If only a few medical personnels with capital own many medical institutions and operate commercially them, this could cause a falling-off in quality of medical service, ultimately infringe on the health rights and the life right of the people.

• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.21 no.5
• /
• pp.565-576
• /
• 2020

This study compares and analyzes satisfaction with Korean and Canadian primary medical care based on a survey of Koreans living in Canada. Based on data collected from Koreans who live in Canada, a paired sample t-test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and GLM were used. The main conclusions of this study are as follows. First, overall satisfaction with Korean primary care was high. Second, the results of the analysis were stable, regardless of gender, age, education, and residential area. Third, overall satisfaction with Korean medical care was higher than for medical care in Canada. Fourth, satisfaction was high in terms of treatment skill and technology, and promptness in appointments, but was low in terms of medical expense. Fifth, there was a high level of confidence in physician skills and practices, but there was no significant difference in terms of sufficient counseling and explanations. Finally, the survey found that the tendency to increase medical treatment volume in order to increase a physician's own income was large. As a result of detailed analysis, it was concluded that Korea's primary care is more competitive than in Canada, but the primary medical doctors' patient interview and explanation obligations, and incentives to control income and medical expenses, need to be improved.