• 한국산학기술학회논문지
• /
• 제21권5호
• /
• pp.274-280
• /
• 2020

이 연구의 목적은 건강보험심사평가원에서 공개한 2015년 4월부터 2018년 4월까지 상급종합병원의 비급여 진료비 자료를 사용하여 비급여 진료비 항목별로 현황 및 평균 비용과 변이가 있는지 파악하는 것이다. 조사대상은 2015년, 2016년, 2017년, 2018년 4월 기준 상급종합병원 44개 기관 중 취소되거나 신규로 지정된 기관은 제외하고 최종 41개 상급종합병원의 비급여 진료비 현황이다. 연구방법은 건강보험심사평가원 정보공개창구에서 공개 자료를 요청한 후 승인을 받아 진행하였다. 분석방법은 일반적 특성과 연도별 비급여 항목 현황은 빈도분석, 연도별 변이 파악은 변동계수(C.V.)를 선정하여 분석하였다. 연구 결과, 비급여 진료비 세부항목의 현황을 비교 분석한 결과 비급여 항목의 개수가 2015년에는 총 51개였지만, 2016년 53개, 2017년, 98개로 점점 증가 추세를 보였으며 2018년에는 총 193개 항목으로 급격히 증가하였다. 상급종합병원 비급여 진료비 변이에 따른 항목 표준화를 위해서 정부는 비급여 진료비 표준화를 확대하고 의료기관은 표준화된 비급여 진료비 항목이나 명칭 등을 사용하도록 의무화하여야 한다.

• 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.

• 대한임상독성학회지
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.1-7
• /
• 2021

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review to investigate the socio-economic benefits of the poison control center (PCC) and to assess whether telephone counseling at the poison control center affects the frequency of emergency room visits, hospitalization, and length of stay of patients with acute poisoning. Methods: The authors conducted a medical literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Two reviewers evaluated the abstracts for eligibility, extracted the data, and assessed the study quality using a standardized tool. Key results such as the cost-benefit ratio, hospital stay days, unnecessary emergency room visits or hospitalizations, and reduced hospital charges were extracted from the studies. When meta-analysis was possible, it was performed using RevMan software (RevMan version 5.4). Results: Among 299 non-duplicated studies, 19 were relevant to the study questions. The cost-benefit ratios of PCC showed a wide range from 0.76 to 36 (average 6.8) according to the level of the medical expense of each country and whether the study included intentional poisoning. PCC reduced unnecessary visits to healthcare facilities. PCC consultation shortened the length of hospital stay by 1.82 (95% CI, 1.07-2.57) days. Conclusion: The systematic review and meta-analysis support the hypothesis that the PCC operation is cost-beneficial. However, when implementing the PCC concept in Korea in the future, it is necessary to prepare an institutional framework to ensure a costeffective model.