The necessity of ban on opening and operating the multiple medical institutions in medical law in Dental case

의료법에서의 의료기관 이중개설 금지조항의 필요성에 대한 치과 사례연구

  • Ju, Jin-han (Korea Dental Association Health Policy Institute) ;
  • Lee, Ga-yeong (Korea Dental Association Health Policy Institute) ;
  • Jung, Ku-chan (Korea Dental Association Health Policy Institute) ;
  • Lee, Jae-yong (Korea Dental Association Health Policy Institute) ;
  • Min, Gyeong-ho (Korea Dental Association Health Policy Institute)
  • 주진한 (대한치과의사협회 의료정책연구원) ;
  • 이가영 (대한치과의사협회 의료정책연구원) ;
  • 정구찬 (대한치과의사협회 의료정책연구원) ;
  • 이재용 (대한치과의사협회 의료정책연구원) ;
  • 민경호 (대한치과의사협회 의료정책연구원)
  • Received : 2019.06.28
  • Accepted : 2019.07.30
  • Published : 2019.08.31

Abstract

In accordance with Article 33(8) of the Korean Medical Law, it is stated that a medical person cannot open or operate a medical institution by borrowing the name of another medical person. However, the publicity of medical care is threatened by the recent illegal network dental clinics. The purpose of this study is to investigate the actual condition of illegal network dentistry and to analyze the cases and to find out the reason why the prohibition of double opening & operating of medical institution. As a result, the illegal network dental clinics treated less health care insurance treatment such as dental caries and periodontal treatment than general dental hospitals. In contrast, the rate of implementation of illegal network dentistry was high in endodontics treatment and extraction, which could lead to uninsured treatments such as crowns and implants. As a result of Supreme Court precedent analysis, it is concluded that illegal act is not only the opening of a medical institution by borrowing the name of other medical personnel, but also the duplicated operation which has the authority to make decision about management matters of medical institutions. The results of the patient's case survey also showed that excessive dental treatment due to such as dental staff incentive system. In conclusion, the illegal network dental clinics not only threatens the oral health of the public, but also causes leakage of health insurance premiums. In other words, the ban on opening and operating the multiple medical institution should be strictly applied as a strong protection device for protecting the patient in dental case.

Keywords

References

  1. 김준래. 의료법상 의료기관 개설제한의 위반유형에 관한연구. 의료법학 2014:15(2):345-366
  2. 대한의사협회. 외국 의료관련 법률 시리즈 II: 독일편. 대한의사협회. 2004.
  3. 대한의사협회. 외국 의료관련 법률 시리즈 I: 일본편. 대한의사협회. 2004.
  4. 김성수. 복수의료기관 개설 및 운영금지의 위헌성 여부. 병원경영정책연구 2016:5:14-21.
  5. 보건복지부. 2019년 의료기관 개설 및 의료법인 설립 운영편람. 보건복지부. 2019.
  6. 김준래. 네트워크병원과 의료기관 복수 개설.운영 금지 제도에 관한 고찰. 의료법학 2016:17(2):281-313.
  7. 국민건강보험공단. 2010 -2011년 치과 행위별 진료현황. 국민건강보험공단. 2016.
  8. 국민건강보험공단. 2013-2014년 치과 행위별 진료현황. 국민건강보험공단. 2016.
  9. 돈이 먼저인 네트워크치과들. 한겨례. 2012. 5.10.
  10. 11개 치과의원 불법 운영한 MSO 적발. 치과신문; 2018.11 8.
  11. 치과그룹 前원장의 고백 "내 가족에겐 차마…". Kormedi 2012. 8. 1.
  12. 어느 가짜 병원장의 고백. 한겨례 2012. 5.14.
  13. 대치과의사협회 치과의료정책연구원. 미국 치과의료 위기와 탐욕의 네트워크치과. 대한치과의사협회. 2013.
  14. 싼맛 혹했다가 쓴맛...반값 임플란트, 고생만 했죠. 머니투데이 2019. 4.19.
  15. 위매화 : 의료민영화 논쟁과 의료공공성 확보. 강원대학교 정보과학 행정대학원 2011.