• 의료법학
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.75-103
• /
• 2017

국민건강보험법상 급여에는 요양급여와 법정비급여가 있지만, 그 이외에도 임의비급여가 있다. 임의비급여는 법정 비급여가 아님에도 불구하고 의료기관이 비급여로 처리하고 환자로부터 진료비를 받는 것을 말하지만, 이러한 임의비급여에 대해서는 국민건강보험법령에서는 아무런 규정을 두지 않고 있다. 대법원 2012. 6. 18. 선고 2010두 27639, 27646 전원합의체 판결은 종전의 부정적인 법리를 폐기하면서, 민법상 기본원칙인 사적자치의 원칙에 기초한 민사법적 쟁점이 임의비급여에 기본적 전제로 포함되어 있음을 확인하였다. 대법원에서 제시한 (1) 편입 또는 조정절차 부존재, 존재하면 회피 불가피성, (2) 의학적 안전성과 유효성 및 필요성, (3) 충분한 설명과 동의 요건은 예외적 요건으로서 그 해석에 있어서 매우 신중을 기해야 할 것이다. (1)의 요건은 임의비급여에 해당하는 질병 중 치명적이거나 이환속도가 매우 빠른 질환에 해당하는 경우에는 그 해석을 엄격하게 하는 것은 매우 부적절하다고 생각된다. (2)의 요건은 그 적용의 구체적 판단을 의료계의 전문가적 감정에 일임하는 것이 합리적이고, 법원은 그 의료계의 감정이 적절하였는지 여부를 판단하는 것에 그칠 수밖에 없다. (3)의 요건은 의사의 충분한 설명과 그에 따른 환자의 동의이지만, 그 중에서 가장 중요한 것은 의사의 충분한 설명에 있다. 2010두27639, 27646 판결 이후에 선고된 대부분의 판결에서는 위 3개 요건의 불비를 이유로 기각하는 사례가 많았다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.11-38
• /
• 2012

The Supreme Court stand in the position in specific lawsuit that it doesn't allow the discretionary not covered service, but recently in revocation suit of fine disposal that is imposed on medical fee of leukemia patient, it altered the existing adjudgement and admitted the discretionary not covered service exceptionally. It put forward the allowable condition roughly in that case. According as this alteration, it has become more important to embody the allowance conditions of exceptions. The Supreme Court presented three things, which are procedural condition, medical condition and subscriber's agreement. Concerning procedural condition, several present conciliation procedures are as follows: medical care benefit arret request, relative value conciliation etc, prior request on anti-cancer drug among chemicals which exceed acceptance criteria, request of non benefit object on common drugs. To be granted the existence of those system, there should be no obstacle to use that. Even if it were so, we should take circumstances into consideration; individual situation is unescapable concerning substance and urgency of the discretionary not covered service, process of the procedure, time required etc. Regarding medical condition, safety and effectiveness will be verified through evaluation procedures of new medical skill. About the necessity, the Supreme Court made clear through a sentence that it allow the discretionary not covered service, in case that needs to treat a patient out of the standard of medical benefit. Strict interpretation is right and it answer the purpose of the sentence that the supreme court permit the discretionary not covered service, exceptionally. We need to differentiate medical necessity and medical validity. Subscriber's agreement should holds true if it entails full explanation, and if it is preliminary, explicit and individual. On this account, it should be difficult to admit that someone agree effectively when he call for the affirmation that he is recipient of medical care. Reasonable expense needs to be a part of review whether the agreement is valid. Meanwhile If we adjust system of medical expense and eventually reorganize a fee for consultation payment system (Fee-for-service controlled by item to DRG (Diagnosis Related Groups)), controversial area of the discretionary not covered service will be decreased and that will guarantee the discretion of the doctor.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.303-354
• /
• 2013

In 2012, the major jurisdictions regarding medical cases caused the controversial issues towards medical and legal fields by getting the judgments from the Supreme Court, which admitted the exceptional admissibility on discretionary grant. By regarding the serial negligence of medical organizations as a separate tort, the sentences which made up irrationality, were spoken by the court. As a result, if the treatment was made, which did not follow the entered matters in medical documents attached, the court announced the jurisdiction that presumes the negligence, which provided the evidence of negligence; on the other hand, this gave had the burden to medical branch to take great care for medicinal treatment. To be applicable for the Principle of Trust, the doctors have to give and take the necessary information for the treatment process and symptom decisions, which also commented in the court. Thus, this case made it difficult to apply the Principle of Trust and considered all the conditions as tough ones, which eventually induced lesser faults for patients' care. Moreover, the court confirmed that the medical ads sending the emails to the members belong to the internet portal sites, are not the inducing behavior by considering that the actions are only medical ads. Furthermore, in the case of Namsu Kim, the court's interpretation was rather limited the definition for medical practice that announced limited Erweiterung der Strafbarkeit cases by lower courts. As a consequence, it is very interesting whether the Supreme Court may change their position and concerning the duty of explanation, the trend to expand the contents and scopes for the duty of explanation continues by admitting instruction explanation obligation and all the compensations and so on.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제8권2호
• /
• pp.69-118
• /
• 2007

In providing general medical treatments, the medical service contract between the patient and the doctor is the mutually responsible onerous contract. However, the nature of the mutually assumed contract standings of the patient and the doctor has been changing since the implementation of the national health insurance program. For instance, besides the cases of beyond excessive medical charges and medical negligence, if the doctor charged for his/her medical treatments violating the post-treatment/nursing cover criteria, the overpaid medical charge, regardless of being collected with the patient's consent, has to be refunded back to the patient. Medically needed aspects, treatment results, and unfair benefits favoring the patient are not at all taken into consideration in the health insurance scheme. This makes it easier for patients to get refunds for their share of the medical payments by involving the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service or the National Health Insurance Corporation, without engaging in civil law suits (for reimbursement claim) against doctors. In other words, the doctor's responsibility to provide medical treatments and the patient's responsibility to pay for the medical treatment provided within the contractual realm are being demolished by the administrational arbitration of the National Health Insurance system. The basic rights of medical service providers, and the patient's right to choose are as important constitutional rights, as the National Health Insurance program, which is essential in the social welfare system. Furthermore, the development of the medical fields should not be prevented by the National Health Insurance system. If the medical treatment services can be divided into necessary treatments, general treatments, and high quality treatments, the National Health Insurance is supposed to guarantee the necessary and general treatments to provide medical treatments equally to all the insured with limited financial resources. However, for the high quality treatments, it is recommended that they should not be interfered by the National Health Insurance system, and that they should be left to the private contract between the patient and the doctor.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제20권2호
• /
• pp.231-260
• /
• 2019

지난 호에 이어 2018년도 주요 의료판결을 정리하였는데, 특히 설명의무와 관련된 법원의 설시는 그 한계가 어디까지인지 알 수 없을 정도로 다기(多岐)하여 가급적 많은 판결을 소개하기 위하여 노력하였고, 손해배상의 범위와 관련하여 개호비를 다액 인정한 판결과 각서의 효력이 증가된 치료비에도 미치는 것으로 본 판결도 관심을 가져볼 필요가 있다. 진료비상계 및 공제관련 판결은 서술내용에 비하여 가장 많은 토론이 이루어졌다. 의료기관 다중 운영 사례는 중간적 판결이지만, 워낙 의료계에 관심이 많은 사건이고, 임의비급여 관련 재량권 일탈 남용이 인정된 사건도 과거에 비하여 비중이 많이 줄었지만 여전히 의미가 있다고 보았다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권1호
• /
• pp.123-164
• /
• 2014

Under the new system of 'Separation of pharmaceutical prescription and dispensing' in Korea, which was implemented in 2000, physician could not dispense a medicine, and outpatient should have a physician's prescription filled at a drugstore. After pharmacist makes up outpatient's prescription, National Health Insurance Service(NHIS) pay for outpatient's medicine to pharmacist, except an outpatient's own medicine charge. And NHIS only pay for outpatient's prescription fee to physician and, physician doesn't derive profit from dispensing medicine in itself. Nevertheless, if physician writes out a prescription with violation of 'Criteria for the Medical Care Benefits', NHIS clawed back the payment of outpatient's prescription and medicine from the physician or the medical institution which the physician belongs to. In the past, NHIS's confiscation was in accordance with 'the National Health Care Insurance Act, Article 52, Clause 1'. But, since 2006 when the Supreme Court declared that there was no legal basis on the NHIS's confiscation of outpatient's medicine payment, NHIS had put in a claim for illegal prescriptions on the basis 'the Korean Civil law, Article 750(tort)'. So, Many medical institutions filed civil actions against NHIS. The key point of this actions was whether the issuing outpatient prescriptions with violations of Criteria for the Medical Care Benefits constitute of the law of tort. On this point, the first trial and the second trial took different position. Finally the Supreme Court acknowledged the constitution of the law of tort in 2013. In this paper, the author will review critically the decision of the Supreme Court, and consider the relativeness between the legal effect of Criteria for the Medical Care Benefits and the constitution of the issuing outpatient prescriptions with violations of Criteria for the Medical Care Benefits as the law of tort.

• Neonatal Medicine
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.25-35
• /
• 2009

목적 : 본 연구는 전국의 7개 대학병원 NICU를 대상으로, NICU 입원 현황, 입원 비용을 살펴 보아, 실제 NICU 환아들에 대한 입원비용의 내용을 분석하고, 이것의 문제점을 찾아 보아, 입원비용의 환자 본인 부담 감소 및 기타 제도적인 제안을 통해 향후 NICU 관리의 향상을 목적으로 본 연구를 실시하였다. 방법 : 전국에 분포한 7개 대학병원의 NICU를 대상으로 2005년 7월부터 2006년 6월까지 일 년 간 입원현황 및 입원비용에 대해 설문지를 통한 조사를 실시하여 분석하였다. 총 78개 병원에서 1년간 NICU 입원 환자 수는 총 3,488명이렀다. 조사 분석 내용은 (1) NICU 입원 현황(체중별 분포, 출생체중과 입원기간의 관계 분포). (2) 입원 비용(보험급여, 비급여 비용과 비율, 출생체중별 이비원비. 입원일수에 따른 총 입원비, 1인당 비급여 비용의 분포, 비급여 항목 등이다. 결과 : NICU 입원아 중에서 미숙아를 포함하는 LBWI 군과 고위험신생아가 반반씩이었다. 입원기간은 1,000g 이하인 경우 평균 2.5-3개월, 1,000-1,499g은 1.5-2.5개월, 1,500-1,999g은 1-1.5개월, 2,000-2,499g은 0.5개월, 2,500g 이상은 7일-10일이었다. 총입원진료비에서 보험급여가 77.1%, 비급여가 22.9% (법적비급여 19.5%, 임의 비급여 3.4%)이었다. 1인당 총 입원비 평균은 총액이 4,360천원 이었고 이중 급여 부분이 3,677천원, 비급여가 1,007천원이었다. 출생체중별 입원비는 체중 500g 미만 35,000천원, 500-999g 18,000천원, 1,000-1,499g 16,000천원, 1,500-1,999g 4,200천원, 2,000-2,499g 1,600천원, 2,500-2,999g 1,500천원, 3,000-3,499g 1,400천원, 3,500-3,999g 1,200천원, 4,000g 이상 1,100천원 이었다. 입원일 수 따른 총 입원비의 중앙값은 1-4일 850천원, 6-9일 1,300천원, 10-14일 1,800천원, 15-19일 3,150천원, 20-24일 4,250천원, 25-29일 5,500천원, 30-34일 7,000천원, 35-39일 8,250천원, 40-44일 9,000천원, 45-50일 11,000천원, 50-54일 12,500천원, 55-59일 13,500천원, 60-64일 14,500천원, 65-69일 16,000천원, 70-74일 18,000천원, 75-79일 23,000천원, 80-84일 24,000천원, 85-89일 25,000천원, 90-94일 27,000천원, 95-99일 28,000천원, 100-199일 30,000천원, 200일 이상 35,000천원이었다. 결론 : NICU는 미숙아 뿐만 아니라, 질병 신생아들을 치료하는 중요기능을 가지고 있었다. 출생체중별 분포 및 입원기간의 분포를 파악할 수 있었다. NICU 입원비는 출생체중이 작을수록, 입원기간이 길수록 많이 발생하고 있는데, 총입원액 중에서 환자가족이 부담하는 비급여 부분이 아직도 약 1/4을 차지하고 있어, 보호자들의 부담이 많다. 이에 대한 정부의 제도적 뒷받침이 필요하다고 생각된다.

• 한국임상수의학회지
• /
• 제23권4권
• /
• pp.383-387
• /
• 2006

본 연구는 개의 위 수축 횟수의 변화에 미치는 안침의 효과를 규명하기 위하여 수행되었다. 임상적으로 건강한 24두의 잡종견을 사료 급여군과 사료 비급여군으로 나누었으며, 각각의 군에서 안침군과 대조군으로 구분하여 각각 실시하였다. 위 수축운동 횟수는 초음파로 안침 전, 직후, 30분, 60분 및 120분째에 측정하였다. 실험군(위/비장 영역)에서의 위 수축운동 횟수가 대조군(임의영역)에 비해 감소소견을 나타내었으며, 특히 안침요법 후 30분(p<0.05), 60분(p<0.05) 및 120분(p<0.01)에 각각 유의성 있는 감소소견을 나타내었다. 사료를 미급여한 조건에서, 실험군(위/비장영역)에서의 위 수축운동 횟수가 대조군(임의영역)에 비해 안침 후 다소 감소하는 소견을 나타내었으나, 군간 유의성은 나타내지 않았다. 이상의 결과를 종합해 볼 때, 사료를 급여한 조건에서 위/비장 영역에 대한 안침이 개의 위 수축운동 횟수를 감소시켰다.