• 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.