• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.21 no.5
• /
• pp.274-280
• /
• 2020

The purpose of this study was to identify the average cost and present status of non-benefit medical expenses by using the data of tertiary hospitals released by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service(HIRA), and to compare the data to find cost variations. The target of analysis was the present status of the non-benefit medical expenses reported by 41 tertiary hospitals among the 44 previously designated hospitals (three were excluded due to revocation or new designation) for 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 (until April). This study was conducted after approval of using the released data of the HIRA's data opening system. This study was analyzed by its general characteristics, annual non-benefit medical expenses by frequency analysis, and annual understanding of variation by designating Coefficient of Variation (C.V.). The research found out that the number of details of non-benefit medical expense was gradually increased: the numbers of categories were 51 in 2015, 53 in 2016, and 98 in 2017, but there was a rapid increase in 2018 by 193. As a result, to standardize non-benefit medical expense items across tertiary hospitals due to their variations in the expenses, the government should expand standardized non-benefit medical expenses and make it mandatory for medical institutions to use the standardized items or names of such expenses.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• 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.

• Journal of The Korean Society of Clinical Toxicology
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• 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.