• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.131-157
• /
• 2015

NHIS claimed for damages to doctors that by doing the treatment breaching medical insurance criteria caused by doctors, NHIS paid for medicine cost to pharmacy; as a result, the doctors caused the tort to NHIS. Following consecutive rulings afterwards, NHIS also argued that the medicine cost violating medical law or medical treatment expense paid to medical organizations are both the tort in civil law. NHIS claimed for all the damages, and the Supreme Court confirmed this judgment. However, within our national health insurance system, the subject of insurance payment is NHIS and the subject of medical treatment expense are also NHIS since the treatment expense is also insurance payment by asking the treatment to medical organizations. Further, national health insurance law is not made to control the violation of medical treatment cases; therefore, the breach of medical law cannot be covered by illegality of tort in civil law regarding NHIS. If that is the case, in the case that if the patients are treated according to treatment criteria via the doctors delegated the doctors' permission by Health and Welfare minister, NHIS acquired the benefits to remove the duty to give treatment payment to doctors in civil law; thus, even though the doctors have breached the medical law, NHIS does not have any damages. The fact that supreme court confirmed the ruling that the treatment is the tort in civil law towards NHIS is the judgment not counting the benefits of insurance payment as the subject but only considering the fact that NHIS paid to the doctors and this ruling have gone against the principle under civil code section 750. If the doctors have breached the medical law, the case should be sanctioned by medical law not national health insurance law, and the ruling of supreme court is assumed that they have confused both with the principle of national health insurance law and civil law.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.29 no.2 s.261
• /
• pp.144-148
• /
• 1991

보사부에서는 의료보험법 제35조 규정에 의한 진료수사기준중 "약가기준액표" 및 한방의료보험 진료수가 기준중 "한방의료보험 약가 기준액표"를 개정하고 관계기관에 이를 통보한 바 있습니다. 이에 협회에서는 치과진료에 관계된 약가기준액표만 발췌하여 게재하오니 많은 참고 있으시기를 바랍니다.

• The Korean Nurse
• /
• v.16 no.2 s.88
• /
• pp.13-22
• /
• 1977

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.236-276
• /
• 2001

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.679-706
• /
• 2004

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.413-440
• /
• 2004

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.268-276
• /
• 2018

This study examined the effects of indemnity private health insurance on the medical utilization among the Korean adults. The used data were the 2014 survey data of Korea Health Panel, and the number of subjects was 11,436. Authors employed instrumental variable regression model where the instrument variables for controlling for endogeneity of indemnity were the purchasing of private pension and number of family members. The results showed that the number of outpatient visits and the number of hospitalizations for indemnity private health insurance subscribers were higher than non-subscribers. The number of household members and the private pension variables were proved to be appropriate as instrumental variables. This paper recommends the Korean government to monitor and evaluate the effects of indemnity private health insurance on the medical utilization in order to improve the efficiency of health care finance.

• Journal of the Korean Catholic Hospital Association
• /
• v.10
• /
• pp.20-21
• /
• 1979

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.319-348
• /
• 2001

• The Korean Nurse
• /
• v.19 no.3 s.106
• /
• pp.19-20
• /
• 1980