The Healthcare Innovation Committee under the Prime Minister’s Office, chaired by Jeong Gi-hyeon, held its eighth meeting on the morning of July 30 at the Government Complex Seoul, where it received a report on the results of the first Citizens’ Panel deliberation on healthcare innovation — held on July 4-5 with 300 citizen panelists — along with an in-depth analysis by the panel’s steering committee. The meeting also covered the key contents and future implementation plans of the strategy to strengthen regional essential public healthcare, announced on July 22. The central agenda was how to reflect the results of this citizen-led deliberation in future healthcare innovation policy.
 [코리안투데이] Courtesy of the Ministry of Health and Welfare © 송정숙 기자 |
According to a report by Kim Hak-rin, chair of the citizens’ panel steering committee, the deliberation process crystallized a shared view that ‘minor and routine care should be closer to home, while severe and complex cases should go to hub hospitals and regional centers.’ About 60% of respondents said their city, county or district should guarantee at minimum minor treatment, nighttime and holiday pediatric care, round-the-clock emergency room services, and childbirth services. Many also said treatment within the ‘golden time’ for conditions such as heart attacks and strokes (48.1%) and post-discharge rehabilitation and convalescent care (40.6%) should be guaranteed at the city, county or district level. More than half of respondents said hospitalization and general surgery should be guaranteed within a given medical service area (52.2%), and that severe and complex surgeries, including cancer treatment, should be guaranteed at the provincial level (52.9%). Asked which services should take priority if not all could be provided within a given medical service area, round-the-clock emergency room care (61.9%) and treatment within the golden time (55.4%) stood out as the top priorities.
Asked what they valued most in regional healthcare, 64.5% of respondents cited ‘quality of care,’ ahead of ‘accessibility’ at 35.1%. The share of respondents who said they would use a regional hub hospital, such as a national university hospital or general hospital, instead of a major hospital in the Seoul metropolitan area — provided the hub hospital’s capabilities were sufficiently strengthened — rose from 81.1% just before the deliberative discussion to 89.6% afterward. The most frequently cited requirement for trusting a hub hospital was ‘the skill and experience of medical staff’ (68.9%). Also, 56.7% of respondents said it would be effective to automatically link test results and medical records and guarantee prompt appointments when a patient needs to use a higher-level hospital. In small-group discussions, participants said institutional measures were needed to ensure smooth access to advanced hospitals in the Seoul metropolitan area when treatment limits are reached at regional medical institutions.
On how essential regional healthcare should be provided, ‘stable provision through concentrated investment in public hospitals’ (51.9%) edged out ‘assigning a public role to capable private hospitals’ (47.4%), though the gap was within the margin of error. Still, small-group discussions raised an alternative: keeping public hospitals as the central axis while using private hospitals in a complementary role in medically underserved areas, on the condition of accounting transparency and proper oversight. Regarding healthcare provision in areas with declining populations, more respondents (61.8%) said facilities with low utilization should be consolidated and reorganized with neighboring areas than said their functions should be maintained even with additional government spending (37.5%). But when the question was limited to medically underserved areas specifically, opinion split almost evenly between consolidation and reorganization (50.8%) and maintaining functions (47.9%), reflecting differing perceptions depending on local circumstances.
In a survey on the importance of individual policies, ‘establishing a definitive treatment system within the emergency golden time’ (96.6%) and ‘training regional and essential healthcare workforce’ (96.4%) ranked highest. Asked which policies should be pursued as top priorities, respondents ranked building an emergency treatment system (25.4%), workforce training (23.9%), and developing 10 regional national university hospitals into hub hospitals (23.1%), in that order. Among workforce training and supply policies, respondents showed strong support for mandatory service requirements for regional doctor recruits (89.4%), housing support for medical staff who work five years or more (88.9%), and a reimbursement system that pays more the more essential and remote the region (87.4%). The reimbursement system saw the largest increase in support, rising from 77.1% before the deliberative discussion to 87.4% afterward. Expectations that the government’s workforce training measures, if implemented as planned, would increase the number of medical personnel working in regional areas rose from 85.4% to 88.6%. However, respondents who were skeptical about the plan’s feasibility most often cited (62.1%) a lack of incentives for medical staff to settle in regional areas.
Willingness to live in a regional area if regional healthcare were sufficiently guaranteed also rose, from 77.6% before the deliberation to 86.3% afterward, with an especially sharp increase — from 64.6% to 80.4% — among residents of areas within the Seoul metropolitan area that are not medically underserved, showing that confidence in regional healthcare guarantees is closely tied to willingness to settle outside the capital region. The committee also received a report that day on the strategy to strengthen regional essential public healthcare. The strategy, which was reviewed at the committee’s March meeting, aims to ensure ‘proper medical care for everyone, no matter where they live,’ and consists of tasks in four areas: building a self-sufficient regional supply system, strengthening national responsibility for essential healthcare, innovating the public health and medical care system, and reinforcing the foundation for implementation. Related opinions can be submitted at any time through the ‘National Communication Plaza for Healthcare Innovation.’ Committee Chair Jeong Gi-hyeon said, ‘The deliberation results from the Healthcare Innovation Citizens’ Panel and the in-depth analysis by the steering committee will serve as a meaningful foundation for more faithfully reflecting the public’s diverse opinions in policy.’ He added, ‘The Healthcare Innovation Committee will continue to listen to public opinion and carry forward discussions on healthcare innovation tasks, including strengthening regional essential public healthcare.’송정숙 기자 (한국통합치유협회장) | gangseo@thekoreantoday.com
 |
 |
<저작권자 ⓒ 코리안투데이(The Korean Today) 무단전재 및 재배포 금지>
