• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.57 no.9
• /
• pp.514-522
• /
• 2019

In accordance with Article 33(8) of the Korean Medical Law, it is stated that a medical person cannot open or operate a medical institution by borrowing the name of another medical person. However, the publicity of medical care is threatened by the recent illegal network dental clinics. The purpose of this study is to investigate the actual condition of illegal network dentistry and to analyze the cases and to find out the reason why the prohibition of double opening & operating of medical institution. As a result, the illegal network dental clinics treated less health care insurance treatment such as dental caries and periodontal treatment than general dental hospitals. In contrast, the rate of implementation of illegal network dentistry was high in endodontics treatment and extraction, which could lead to uninsured treatments such as crowns and implants. As a result of Supreme Court precedent analysis, it is concluded that illegal act is not only the opening of a medical institution by borrowing the name of other medical personnel, but also the duplicated operation which has the authority to make decision about management matters of medical institutions. The results of the patient's case survey also showed that excessive dental treatment due to such as dental staff incentive system. In conclusion, the illegal network dental clinics not only threatens the oral health of the public, but also causes leakage of health insurance premiums. In other words, the ban on opening and operating the multiple medical institution should be strictly applied as a strong protection device for protecting the patient in dental case.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.143-174
• /
• 2019

Our Constitution obliges the state to protect the health of the people, and the Medical Law, which embodied Constitution, sets out in detail the matters related to open the medical institution, and one of them is to prohibit the operation of multiple medical institutions. By the way, virtually multiple medical institutions could be opened and operated because the Supreme Court had interpreted that several medical institutions could be opened if medical activities were not performed directly at the additional medical institution which was opened under the another doctor's license. However, some health care providers opened the several medical institutions with another doctor's license for the purpose of the maximization of profit, and did illegal medical cares like the unfair luring of patients, over-treatment, and commission treatment. Also, realistic problems such as the infringed health rights have arisen. Accordingly, lawmakers had come to amend the Medical Law to readjust the system of opening for medical institution so that medical personnel could not open or operate more than one medical institution for any reason. For this reason, the Constitutional Court recently declared a constitutional decision through a long period of in-depth deliberation because the constitutional petition and the adjudication on the constitutionality of statutes had been filed on whether Article 33 paragraph 8 of the revised medical law is unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court acknowledged the "justice of purpose" in view of the importance of public medical institutions, of the prevention from seduction of for-profit patients and from over-treatment, and of the fact that health care should not be the object of commercial transactions. Given the risk that medical personnel might be subject to outside capital, the concern that the holder of the medical institution's opening certificate and the actual operator may be separated, the principle that the human body and life should not be just a means, and the current system's inability to identify over-treatment, it also acknowledged the 'minimum infringement'. Furthermore, The Constitutional Court judged it is constitutional in compliance with the principle of restricting fundamental rights, such as 'balance of legal interests'. In this regard, legislative complements are needed in order to effectively prevent the for-profit management and the over-treatment the Constitutional Court is concerned about. In this regard, consumer groups actively support the need for legislation, and health care providers groups also agree on the need for legislation. Therefore, the legislators should respect the recent Constitutional Court's decision and in the near future complete the complementary legislation to reflect the people's interests.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.345-366
• /
• 2014

Because the health care or medical sector has such characteristics as publicity, professionality, and exclusivity, it cannot be left to the free market system. As a consequence, the state has restricted the establishment of medical institutions in order to protect the life and health of people. Also, the medical law has regulated to permit the establishment of medical institutions by only medical personnel and a few corporate bodies and to ban the establishment of medical institutions under disguised ownership as well as double opening of medical institutions by medical personnel. Nevertheless, there are still many cases that non-medical personnel have dominantly established medical institutions under disguised ownership of other medical personnel or nonprofit corporation. Because they are willing to recover their investment costs as soon as possible, these illegally established medical institutions are likely to make patients undergo unnecessary tests or to perform the excessive treatments and, as a result, are likely to cause infringement on the health and lives of the people. In addition, even if the misconduct is uncovered, the rate at which the costs already paid is very low and, as a result, the damages are straightly connected to the people's loss. On the other hand, there are also increasing number of cases that medical personnel or nonprofit corporations are establishing medical institutions against the medical law regulations. The examples of this illegality are also the double opening of medical institutions and the establishment of medical institutions under disguised ownership by medical personnel or nonprofit corporations. And the damages in these cases may not differ from those in the above cases. In this study, regarding medical law regulations restricting opening a medical institution, I will review the intent of those regulations, the type of violations and criminal punishments, and the possibility of recovery from unlawful profit by the National Health Insurance Act. And then, I would like to find a way for rational improvement of each.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.281-313
• /
• 2016

Our Constitution obliges the state to protect the health of the people, and the Medical Law, which embodied Constitution, sets out in detail the matters related to open the medical institution and one of them is to prohibit the operation of multiple medical institutions In the past, there was a provision stipulating the same purpose. But because the Supreme Court interpreted that several medical institutions could be opened if the medical treatment was not made at the additional medical instition which was opened in the another doctor,s license, multiple medical institutions could be opened and operated. However, some health care providers opened the several medical institutions to another doctor's license just by the excuse of the business management and then did illegal medical cares like the unfair luring of patients, overtreatment, and commition treatment for more profits. So, the health rights of the people came to be infringed on. Accordingly, lawmakers amended the Medical Law for medical personnel not to open and to operate more than one medical institution. As the amended medical law prohibited a medical personnel to open multiple medical institution, some medical personnels insisted that the amended medical law is unconstitutional under which they could not be able to open and operate medical institutions on based on free investment and bring out the benefits of network hospitals. But the regulation to prohibit multiple institutions does not apply only to a medical personnel. Many other experts like lawyer and pharmacist can open only one office under such a restriction. If the regulation goes out of force, the procedure that multiple medical institutions should be opened and operated in the capacity as a medical corporation or a non-profit corporation does not have to be followed. And we should keep in mind that the permission for medical personels to open multiple medical institutions could lead virtually to commercial hospital. If in the nation with a very low rate of public medical service, If only a few medical personnels with capital own many medical institutions and operate commercially them, this could cause a falling-off in quality of medical service, ultimately infringe on the health rights and the life right of the people.