As the world faced a pandemic caused by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in 2019, telemedicine quickly spread and was widely adopted. This was the first instance where telephone consultations were temporarily allowed in Korea. We used data from the 2020 Korean Physician Survey and analyzed the physicians’ perceptions of telephone consultations, the reasons for providing these consultations, and the level of physician satisfaction after providing it.Current Concepts: A total of 6,342 respondents were selected for the final analysis of the research results. Regardless of the COVID-19 pandemic, the data showed that most physicians had a negative perception (77.1%) toward the introduction of the telemedicine system. A third (31.1%) of physicians surveyed had provided medical treatment via telephone consultation. According to the position the physicians held, professors, fellows, self-employed physicians, and public health physicians had the most experience in this method of consultation. The use of telephone consultation was highest in the field of internal medicine (44.5%) treatment. Data also showed that most physicians (83.5%) who provided such consultations experienced difficulties in making a medical judgment that could ensure their patients’ safety.Discussion and Conclusion: The results of this study verified that physicians’ opinions about the telemedicine system differed according to service, area of specialization, region, and type of medical institution. A closer review and establishment of policy alternatives are required to explore the possible expansion of teleconsultations and related medical treatments in the future.

Background: In Korea, the Korean Community-based Noncommunicable Disease Prevention and Control Program (KCNPC) was implemented in 2012 for the management of patients with chronic diseases. Nineteen primary care clinics, public health centers, and education and consulting centers (ECCs) participated in the implementation of this program. This study assessed the effectiveness of this chronic disease control model by comparing mortality rate and the incidence of complications between patients participating in the KCNPC program and a control group. Methods: Using data from the National Health Insurance Service and data from hypertension and diabetes patients registered with 19 ECCs between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2012, hypertension and diabetes patients who had been treated at a clinic were selected. The final analysis included 252,900 patients, with the intervention group and control group having 126,450 patients each. Survival for the two groups was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Complications were analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: The 5-year survival rate in the intervention group (0.88) was higher than that in the control group (0.86). Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that the intervention group had lower risk for mortality (0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82–0.86) compared to the control group. Hospitalization due to complications and the proportional risk of hospitalization were also lower in the intervention group. Conclusion The KCNPC model for prevention and control of chronic disease in Korea was found to be effective for hypertension and diabetes patients. Therefore, the KCNPC will be necessary to strengthen the capabilities of local communities, primary medical institutions, and individuals for prevention and control of chronic disease. Expanding the efficient prevention and control policies of the KCNPC to a nationwide scale may be effective as has been demonstrated through limited implementation in some regions.