• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.261-271
• /
• 2021

Background: In 2018, the government increased the fee for the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) image deciphering services of the external hospital to discourage the redundant MRI scan and to induce appropriate use of the MRI services. It is important to evaluate the effect of the policy to provide the basis for establishing other MRI-related policies. Methods: The healthcare data of the patients who had brain MRI scans were organized by episode and analyzed using the panel study in order to find out the effect of the MRI-related policy on the substitution effect and the medical expenses. Results: As a result of the increase in the fee of deciphering the MRI image, there has been an uplift in deciphering the MRI scan of the external hospital. It implies that more hospitals chose to use the MRI scan taken by other clinics or hospitals, rather than the MRI scan taken at their own facilities. Conclusion: The research results imply that a policy that facilitates the exchange of the medical image data between the hospitals is needed in order to establish an efficient management system of the healthcare resources. Such improvement is expected to reduce the social cost and contribute to the stability in the finance of national health insurance.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.1-25
• /
• 2007

Relative value scales introduced in 2001 remarkably improved health insurance fee schedule, but current relative value scales have many problems. In the beginning the government intended to introduce 'resource based relative value scales(RBRVSs)' like USA, but political adjustment of RBRVS studied in 19.17 weakened the relationship between relative value scale and resource consumption. So unbalance of health insurance fees are existing till now. Also relative value was not divided to physician work and practice expense, and malpractice fee was not divided separately. To correct the unbalance of current relative value scales, the refinement project of health insurance relative value scales started in 2003. The project team divided relative value scales into three components, which are physician work, practice expense, malpractice fee. Physician work was studied by professional organizations like Korean medical association. To develop the practice expense relative value, project team organized clinical practice expert panels(CPEPs) composed of physicians, nurses, and medical technicians. CPEPs constructed direct expense data like labor costs, material costs, equipment costs about each medical procedures. The practice expense relative values of medical procedures were developed by the allocation of the institution level direct & indirect costs according to CPEPs direct costs. Institution level direct & indirect costs were collected in 21 hospitals, 98 medical clinics, 53 dental clinics, 78 oriental clinics, and 46 pharmacies. The malpractice fee relative values were developed through the survey of malpractice related costs of hospitals, clinics, pharmacies. Putting together three components of relative values in one scale, the final relative values were made. The final relative values were calculated under budget neutrality by medical departments, that is, total relative value score of a department was same before and after the revision. but malpractice fee relative value scores were added to total scores of relative values. So total score of a department was increased by the malpractice fee relative value score of that department This project failed in making 'resource based' relative value scales in the true sense of the word, because the total relative value scores of medical departments were fixed. However the project team constructed the objective basis of relative value scale like physician's work, direct practice expense, malpractice fee. So step by step making process of the basis, the fixation of total scores by the departments will be resolved and the resource based relative value scale will be introduced in true sense.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.164-177
• /
• 2020

This study aims to compare the experience of selected countries in operating separate payment system for new healthcare technology and to find implications for price setting in Korea. We analyzed the related reports, papers, laws, regulations, and related agencies' online materials from five selected countries including the United States, Japan, Taiwan, Germany, and France. Each country has its own additional payment system for new technologies: transitional pass-through payment and new technology ambulatory payment classification for outpatient care and new technology add-on payment for inpatient care (USA), an extra payment for materials with new functions or new treatment (C1, C2; Japan), an additional payment system for new special treatment materials (Taiwan), a short-term extra funding for new diagnosis and treatment (NUB; Germany), and list of additional payments for new medical devices (France). The technology should be proven safe and effective in order to get approval for an additional payment. The price is determined by considering the actual cost of providing the technology and the cost of existing similar technologies listed in the benefits package. The revision cycle of the additional payment is 1 to 4 years. The cost or usage is monitored during that period and then integrated into the existing fee schedule or removed from the list. We conclude that it is important to set the explicit criteria to select services eligible for additional payment, to collect and analyze data to assess eligibility and to set the payment, to monitor the usage or cost, and to make follow-up measures in price setting for new health technologies in Korea.