Health Policy and Management (보건행정학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Ideology of Social Health Insurance and Health Policy

건강보험의 이념과 의료정책

  • Lee, Kyu Sik (Department of Health Administration, Yonsei University College of Health Science)
  • 이규식 (연세대학교 보건과학대학 보건행정학과, 한국보건행정학회)
  • Received : 2018.07.19
  • Accepted : 2018.07.31
  • Published : 2018.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Health care has two different facets. One is commodity and another is a right of human being. Health care as a commodity is utilized by demand approach in market. Demand is determined by economic factors such as price and income. From the last third of the 19th century until the early 1920s, priority of sickness insurance was replacing the income that workers lost as a result of illness and injury. By the 1920s, the capacity of applied biological and medical science was remarkably developed. Development of medical science stimulated the cost of medical care, and the burden of increased medical care cost required new role of medical care security system. In 1942, Beveridge report was published in United Kingdom, and health care was considered as a right of human being. In 1948, United Nations declared heath care as a right in the Universal Declaration of Human Right. In most countries introduced new medical care security policy based on health care as a right. The viewing health care as a commodity must be shifted toward need based care as a right. Need were understood to rest on demographic, epidemiological, scientific, and medical knowledge factors. Bring needed care to the population could best be achieved institutionally by a hierarchy of provider organizations, guided by planning bodies, which would provide comprehensive benefits. In Korea, health care in social health insurance (SHI) is considered as a commodity not a right. However, health policies under SHI must be need approach based on health care as a right. Mismatch between health policies and ideology of SHI made big troubles. It is important to realize ideology of SHI for good health policies.

Keywords

References

  1. Ham C. Health policy in Britain. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan; 1985.
  2. Easton D. Political system. New York (NY): Knopf; 1953.
  3. Fox DM. Health policy and the politics of research in the United States. J Health Polit Policy Law 1990;15(3):481-499. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-15-3-481
  4. Niki R. Perspective and method of analysis and prediction of my medical policy: from the special lecture of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Japanese Society of Medical Congress. Health Econ Policy Newsl [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2016 Oct 5];146:18-23. Available from: http://www.inhcc.org/jp/research/news/niki/20160901-niki-no146.html.
  5. Goodman JC. National health care in Great Britain: lesson for the USA. Dallas (TX): Fisher Institute Publication; 1980.
  6. Beveridge WH. Social insurance and allied services. New York (NY): Macmillan; 1942.
  7. Klein R. The new politics of the national health service. 3rd ed. London: Longman; 1995.
  8. Blendon RJ, Benson JM, DesRoches CM. Americans' views of the uninsured: an era for hybrid proposals. Health Aff (Millwood) 2003;Suppl Web Exclusives:W3-405-414. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.w3.405.
  9. Barr DB. Introduction to U.S. health policy: the organization, fnancing, and delivery of health care in America. Baltimore (MD): The Johns Hop-kins University Press; 2007.
  10. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Welfare white paper: Haysei 8. Tokyo: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare; 1996.
  11. Patel K, Rushefsky ME. Health care politics and policy in America. Armonk (NY): M.E. Sharpe Inc.; 1995.
  12. Ron A, Abel-Smith B, Tamburi G. Health insurance in developing countries: the social security approach. Geneva: International Labour Office; 1990.
  13. Lee KS. Medical security: theory and world trends. Seoul: Gyechuk Munwhasa; 2016.
  14. Saltman RB, Dubois HF. The historical and social base of social health insurance systems. In: Saltman RB, Busse R, Figueras J, editors. Social health insurance systems in western Europe. Berkshire: Open University Press; 2004. pp. 21-32.
  15. Melhado EM. Economists, public provision, and the market: changing values in policy debate. J Health Polit Policy Law 1998;23(2):215-263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-23-2-215.
  16. Fox DM. Health policies, health politics: the British and American experience, 1911-1965. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press; 1986.
  17. Lee KS. Healthcare policy. 2nd ed. Seoul: Gyechuk Munwhasa; 2018.
  18. Ettelt S, McKee M, Nolte E, Mays N, Tomson S. Planning health care capacity: whose responsibility? In: Rechel B, Wright S, Edwards N, Dowdeswell B, McKee M, editors. Investing in hospitals of the future. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Ofce for Europe; 2009. pp. 47-66.
  19. Lee KS. Ideology and reality in health policy. Health Policy Manag 2007;17(3):106-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4332/kjhpa.2007.17.3.106.
  20. Karsten SG. Health care: private good vs. public good. Am J Econ Sociol 1995;54(2):129-144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.1995.tb02684.x.
  21. Schenone K. Health care a public or private good?: MGMT 7730: economics and institutions. Troy (NY): Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; 2012.
  22. Lee KS. Defnition of public health care and it's policy directions. Public Health Af 2017;1(1):79-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29339/pha.1.1.79.
  23. Le Grand F. Foreword. In: Harding A, Preker AS, editors. Private participation in health services. Washington (DC): The World Bank; 2003. pp. ix-xi.
  24. Phelps CE. Public sector medicine: history and analysis. In: Lindsay CM, editor. New directions in public health care: a prescription for the 1980's. 3rd ed. San Francisco (CA): Institute for Contemporary Studies; 1980. pp. 129-166.
  25. Lee KS. Social health insurance and commercial behavior in medical care: issue paper 36. Seoul: Korea Institute for Health and Welfare Policy; 2018.