PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
This paper examines current status of high-tech medical devices in Korea, especially bringing focus to the computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, and traces government policies relevant to this situation. The rapid diffusion of high-tech medical devices mainly led by physician's clinics and small hospitals and lack of efficient policy coordination and synchronization have resulted deterioration of quality and decrease of social benefit. The quality problem could be resolved when the pursuit of micro-efficiencies by the providers are synchronized to the macro-efficiency of health system. If the government disclose quality information of high-tech devices and gives incentives to the provider's efforts to increase quality, the current competition between providers to capture patients could be evolved to the competition for better quality. In addition to this vertical synchronization, horizontal policy synchronizations such as with health insurance policy are also discussed.
Figures and Tables
 | Figure 1Number of high-tech imaging devices in Korea. CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PET, positron emission tomography (From Choi YJ, et al. Development of fee schedule for high-tech medical imaging devices. Seoul: Health Insurance Review Agency; 2012) [6].
|
 | Figure 2Number of computed tomography (CT) per million population in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries (2010, using nearest year when missing) (From Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD health care resources [Internet]. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) [7].
|
 | Figure 3Number of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) per million population in OECD countries (2010, using nearest year when missing) (From Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD health care resources [Internet]. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) [7].
|
 | Figure 4Number of computed tomography (CT) according to the facility type in Korea (From Choi YJ, et al. Development of fee schedule for high-tech medical imaging devices. Seoul: Health Insurance Review Agency; 2012) [6].
|
 | Figure 5Number of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) according to the facility type in Korea (From Choi YJ, et al. Development of fee schedule for high-tech medical imaging devices. Seoul: Health Insurance Review Agency; 2012) [6].
|
Table 1
Number of tests per computed tomography unit according to the facility type (2009)
Values are presented as number (%).
Tests covered by National Health Insurance were counted.
From Choi YJ, et al. Development of fee schedule for high-tech medical imaging devices. Seoul: Health Insurance Review Agency; 2012 [6].
Table 2
Number of tests per magnetic resonance imaging unit according to the facility type (2009)
Values are presented as number (%).
Tests covered by National Health Insurance were counted.
From Choi YJ, et al. Development of fee schedule for high-tech medical imaging devices. Seoul: Health Insurance Review Agency; 2012 [6].
Table 3
Number of high-price medical equipmenta) according to production year (2006)
Values are presented as number (%).
From Han KH, et al. Korean J Hosp Manag 2007;12:31-50, according to the Creative Commons license [8].
a)Angio, computed radiography . digital radiography, mammogram, gamma-camera, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, positron emission tomography, linear accelerator, and gamma-knife.
Table 4
Number of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) units according to production year (2011)
Values are presented as number (%).
Units of which production year are unknown were excluded.
From Han KH, et al. Korean J Hosp Manag 2007;12:31-50, according to the Creative Commons license [8].
References
1. Ministry of Health and Welfare. New health plan 2020. 2011. Seoul: Ministry of Health and Welfare.
2. Fuchs VR, Sox HC Jr. Physicians' views of the relative importance of thirty medical innovations. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001. 20:30–42.
3. Goetghebeur MM, Forrest S, Hay JW. Understanding the underlying drivers of inpatient cost growth: a literature review. Am J Manag Care. 2003. 9(Spec No 1):SP3–SP12.
4. Porter ME, Teisberg EO. Redefining health care: creating valuebased competition on results. 2006. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
5. Cucic S. European Union health policy and its implications for national convergence. Int J Qual Health Care. 2000. 12:217–225.
6. Choi YJ, Cho SJ. Development of fee schedule for high-tech medical imaging devices. 2012. Seoul: Health Insurance Review Agency.
7. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD health care resources [Internet]. cited 2012 Sep 17. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development;Available from: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH_REAC.
8. Han KH, Ko SK, Jeong SH. High-price medical technologies in South Korea. Korean J Hosp Manage. 2007. 12:31–50.
9. Oh YH, Kim JH. The demand and supply of major medical equipments and policy recommendations. Health Soc Welf Rev. 2007. 27:96–121.
10. National Conference of State Legislatures. Certificate of need: state health laws and programs [Internet]. 2011. cited 2012 Sep 20. Denver: National Conference of State Legislatures;Available from: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/con-certificate-of-need-state-laws.aspx.
11. Banta HD. US Office of Technology Assessment. Health care technology and its assessment in eight countries background paper. 1995. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
12. Cho JK. An improvement plan for health care delivery system. Health Welf Policy Forum. 2010. 169:6–15.
13. Tang PC, Ash JS, Bates DW, Overhage JM, Sands DZ. Personal health records: definitions, benefits, and strategies for overcoming barriers to adoption. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006. 13:121–126.
XML Download