Job Factors for the Working Time Required per Claim Medical Care Costs in National Health Insurance in Korea

2009 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 9
Author(s):  
Jong-In Kim ◽  
Min-Seok Ko ◽  
Yu-Jeong Yang
PEDIATRICS ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 614-621
Author(s):  
Barbara Starfield ◽  
Diana Dutton

The reports of Valdez et al1 and Leibowitz et al2 mark the culmination of a landmark effort. Initiated over a decade ago, the Rand Health Insurance Experiment—the most ambitious and expensive randomized controlled trial ever conducted in health services research—was designed to produce estimates of the costs of various forms of national health insurance. Projected estimates of the costs of Medicaid and Medicare had been far too low and health policy experts hoped to obtain information that would prove closer to the mark in the (then) seemingly likely passage of some form of national health insurance. Although national health insurance has not materialized, the impact of medical care costs on utilization of services and health status is still of great interest. The amount of "cost-sharing" (medical costs paid by patients) has increased dramatically in public insurance programs, and many health policymakers favor increases in private insurance programs. The central question now, however, is how much of the cost burden can be borne by patients without inducing reductions in utilization that are harmful to health. The two papers1,2 in the May issue of Pediatrics reported on the impact of cost-sharing on children's utilization and health. The basic findings were similar to those for adults. In general, the higher the costs paid by families, the fewer the children receiving medical care and the fewer the services per user. The only exception was hospitalization of children aged 5 to 13, which was largely unaffected by cost-sharing; higher costs did appear to reduce hospitalization of younger children, as well as ambulatory care for children of all ages.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 80 (5) ◽  
pp. 752-757

PURPOSE Historically, health insurance has not treated children fairly. Insured services have been oriented to the medical needs of adults, with children's unique needs given poor coverage or, in the instance or preventive care, rare coverage. These biases inherent in private and public health insurance also manifest themselves in the coverage of catastrophic care for children. The objectives of the following recommendations are to rectify some of the structural problems of health insurance that are faced by children, to ensure access to all needed health care services for all children, and to protect families from overwhelming out-of-pocket medical care costs. PRINCIPLES To address the needs of children through 21 years of age with illnesses that lead to catastrophic costs, all insurance plans must (1) be available to all children (and pregnant women) without regard to race, religion, national origin, economic status, health or functional status, or existing health insurance coverage; (2) include participation of both private and public sectors; (3) support the development of comprehensive, community-based systems of personal health care for the chronically ill child; (4) cover a broad array of child-specific health services; (5) contain costs through managed care and other means; and (6) require some financing from the child's family in proportion to their ability to pay. DEFINITION OF CATASTROPHIC NEED The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) defines catastrophic need by relative economic distress. Generally, a child whose family's out-of-pocket medical care costs reach a maximum of 10% of their annual adjusted gross income as reported to the Internal Revenue Services is one who, regardless of health status, income level, or existing insurance coverage, is in need of financial support for further medical expenses.


1989 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rickey L. Hendricks

In the politically turbulent post–World War II period, proposed federal legislation to expand the welfare state pitted conservative Republicans against liberal Democrats in Congress. The conflict over national health insurance introduced between 1943 and 1947 in the Wagner-Murray- Dingell bill ended in a conservative victory with the bill stalled in committee. The primary constituents of the two sides were American Medical Association (AMA) spokesmen and corporate interests on the political right and labor leaders and public health advocates on the left. By 1946 the conservatives controlled Congress; thereafter liberal congressional reformers defaulted on the national health issue, as they had throughout the twentieth century, to corporate progressives and the tenets of “welfare capitalism.” Government continued as a regulator of “minimum standards” for business and industry. Provision of voluntary health insurance and direct medical services was left to the private sector. The Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program emerged out of the political stalemate over health care in the middle 1940s as a highly efficient and popular prepaid group health plan, innovative in its large scale and total integration of service and facilities. Its survival and growth was due to its acceptability to both liberals and conservatives as a model private-sector alternative to national health insurance or any other form of state medicine.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document