Objectives: People-centered care and social protection are critical for improving tuberculosis (TB) treatment outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate whether a vulnerability assessment tool, developed for an enhanced community-based care and management (ECCM) program in 2 Korean cities, could predict and improve final TB treatment outcomes based on patients’ vulnerability levels. Methods: Treatment outcomes in the ECCM group were compared with those in a control group, stratified by vulnerability level. During stage 1, one city served as the intervention region and the other as the control, with a crossover in stage 2. The vulnerability assessment included all notified patients with TB, and those identified as highly vulnerable in the intervention group received social support following a consultation with a case manager. Results: The vulnerability assessment tool demonstrated moderate predictive ability for unfavorable outcomes, with an area under the curve of 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.63 to 0.77). The patients with high vulnerability who received ECCM treatment demonstrated a 19.8-percentage point (%p) higher treatment success rate than the high vulnerability subcategory of the control group. ECCM also appeared to reduce loss to follow-up and TB-related mortality by 8.4%p and 7.3%p, respectively, although these findings should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions The results suggest that providing social support tailored to patient vulnerability at the time of diagnosis could improve TB treatment outcomes.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the prognosis of the not evaluated (NE) group by comparing it with the lost to follow-up (LTFU) group among patients with multidrug/rifampin-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/RR-TB). Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective longitudinal follow-up study using an integrated database constructed by data linkage of the three national databases. This database included 7226 cases of MDR/RR-TB notified between 2011 and 2017 in South Korea. Results: Among the 7226 MDR/RR-TB cases, 730 (10.1%) were classified as LTFU group, and 353 (4.9%) as NE group. When comparing NE group with LTFU group, there were no significant differences in the all-cause mortality rate (18.1% vs. 13.8%, p=0.065), median time to death [404 days (interquartile range, IQR 46–850) vs. 443 days (IQR 185–1157), p=0.140], and retreatment rate (26.9% vs.22.2%, p=0.090). After adjusting for potential confounders, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for all-cause mortality (aHR 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.53; p=0.531) in NE group was not significantly different than that in LTFU group. Among retreated cases, NE group had a higher treatment success rate (57.9% vs 43.8%, p=0.029) and a lower LTFU rate (11.6% vs 38.3%, p<0.001) compared to LTFU group. Conclusion NE group had an unfavorable outcome comparable to LTFU group, suggesting undetected cases of LTFU or deaths during the referral process. Establishing an efficient patient referral system would contribute to reducing the incidence of NE cases.

Objectives: People-centered care and social protection are critical for improving tuberculosis (TB) treatment outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate whether a vulnerability assessment tool, developed for an enhanced community-based care and management (ECCM) program in 2 Korean cities, could predict and improve final TB treatment outcomes based on patients’ vulnerability levels. Methods: Treatment outcomes in the ECCM group were compared with those in a control group, stratified by vulnerability level. During stage 1, one city served as the intervention region and the other as the control, with a crossover in stage 2. The vulnerability assessment included all notified patients with TB, and those identified as highly vulnerable in the intervention group received social support following a consultation with a case manager. Results: The vulnerability assessment tool demonstrated moderate predictive ability for unfavorable outcomes, with an area under the curve of 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.63 to 0.77). The patients with high vulnerability who received ECCM treatment demonstrated a 19.8-percentage point (%p) higher treatment success rate than the high vulnerability subcategory of the control group. ECCM also appeared to reduce loss to follow-up and TB-related mortality by 8.4%p and 7.3%p, respectively, although these findings should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions The results suggest that providing social support tailored to patient vulnerability at the time of diagnosis could improve TB treatment outcomes.

South Korea’s pilot sickness benefit program, launched in 2022 across six regions and currently operating in 14 regions as of 2025, represents a critical juncture in the country’s social protection development. While ostensibly designed with inclusive eligibility criteria, the program reveals fundamental paradoxes that illuminate deeper structural inequalities within Korea's dualized labor market. This opinion piece examines how current design choices risk undermining universal health coverage goals by systematically excluding the most precarious workers. The program’s design features—including low replacement rates (60% of the minimum wage) and extended waiting periods—created perverse incentives where the most vulnerable workers accepted the least favorable conditions. This pattern exemplifies what Korpi and Palme termed the “paradox of redistribution,” where targeted approaches ultimately prove less effective than universal ones, with the second phase’s restriction to the bottom 50% income bracket threatening to exacerbate this paradox. Successful implementation will depend on integrating equity, people-centered design, and gender-transformative perspectives into every phase—design, operation, evaluation, and reform. In doing so, South Korea has the opportunity to offer a model of sickness protection that does not simply patch gaps, but actively reshapes the structures that produce health and economic inequalities in the first place.

Objectives: People-centered care and social protection are critical for improving tuberculosis (TB) treatment outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate whether a vulnerability assessment tool, developed for an enhanced community-based care and management (ECCM) program in 2 Korean cities, could predict and improve final TB treatment outcomes based on patients’ vulnerability levels. Methods: Treatment outcomes in the ECCM group were compared with those in a control group, stratified by vulnerability level. During stage 1, one city served as the intervention region and the other as the control, with a crossover in stage 2. The vulnerability assessment included all notified patients with TB, and those identified as highly vulnerable in the intervention group received social support following a consultation with a case manager. Results: The vulnerability assessment tool demonstrated moderate predictive ability for unfavorable outcomes, with an area under the curve of 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.63 to 0.77). The patients with high vulnerability who received ECCM treatment demonstrated a 19.8-percentage point (%p) higher treatment success rate than the high vulnerability subcategory of the control group. ECCM also appeared to reduce loss to follow-up and TB-related mortality by 8.4%p and 7.3%p, respectively, although these findings should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions The results suggest that providing social support tailored to patient vulnerability at the time of diagnosis could improve TB treatment outcomes.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the prognosis of the not evaluated (NE) group by comparing it with the lost to follow-up (LTFU) group among patients with multidrug/rifampin-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/RR-TB). Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective longitudinal follow-up study using an integrated database constructed by data linkage of the three national databases. This database included 7226 cases of MDR/RR-TB notified between 2011 and 2017 in South Korea. Results: Among the 7226 MDR/RR-TB cases, 730 (10.1%) were classified as LTFU group, and 353 (4.9%) as NE group. When comparing NE group with LTFU group, there were no significant differences in the all-cause mortality rate (18.1% vs. 13.8%, p=0.065), median time to death [404 days (interquartile range, IQR 46–850) vs. 443 days (IQR 185–1157), p=0.140], and retreatment rate (26.9% vs.22.2%, p=0.090). After adjusting for potential confounders, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for all-cause mortality (aHR 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.53; p=0.531) in NE group was not significantly different than that in LTFU group. Among retreated cases, NE group had a higher treatment success rate (57.9% vs 43.8%, p=0.029) and a lower LTFU rate (11.6% vs 38.3%, p<0.001) compared to LTFU group. Conclusion NE group had an unfavorable outcome comparable to LTFU group, suggesting undetected cases of LTFU or deaths during the referral process. Establishing an efficient patient referral system would contribute to reducing the incidence of NE cases.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the prognosis of the not evaluated (NE) group by comparing it with the lost to follow-up (LTFU) group among patients with multidrug/rifampin-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/RR-TB). Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective longitudinal follow-up study using an integrated database constructed by data linkage of the three national databases. This database included 7226 cases of MDR/RR-TB notified between 2011 and 2017 in South Korea. Results: Among the 7226 MDR/RR-TB cases, 730 (10.1%) were classified as LTFU group, and 353 (4.9%) as NE group. When comparing NE group with LTFU group, there were no significant differences in the all-cause mortality rate (18.1% vs. 13.8%, p=0.065), median time to death [404 days (interquartile range, IQR 46–850) vs. 443 days (IQR 185–1157), p=0.140], and retreatment rate (26.9% vs.22.2%, p=0.090). After adjusting for potential confounders, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for all-cause mortality (aHR 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.53; p=0.531) in NE group was not significantly different than that in LTFU group. Among retreated cases, NE group had a higher treatment success rate (57.9% vs 43.8%, p=0.029) and a lower LTFU rate (11.6% vs 38.3%, p<0.001) compared to LTFU group. Conclusion NE group had an unfavorable outcome comparable to LTFU group, suggesting undetected cases of LTFU or deaths during the referral process. Establishing an efficient patient referral system would contribute to reducing the incidence of NE cases.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the prognosis of the not evaluated (NE) group by comparing it with the lost to follow-up (LTFU) group among patients with multidrug/rifampin-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/RR-TB). Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective longitudinal follow-up study using an integrated database constructed by data linkage of the three national databases. This database included 7226 cases of MDR/RR-TB notified between 2011 and 2017 in South Korea. Results: Among the 7226 MDR/RR-TB cases, 730 (10.1%) were classified as LTFU group, and 353 (4.9%) as NE group. When comparing NE group with LTFU group, there were no significant differences in the all-cause mortality rate (18.1% vs. 13.8%, p=0.065), median time to death [404 days (interquartile range, IQR 46–850) vs. 443 days (IQR 185–1157), p=0.140], and retreatment rate (26.9% vs.22.2%, p=0.090). After adjusting for potential confounders, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for all-cause mortality (aHR 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.53; p=0.531) in NE group was not significantly different than that in LTFU group. Among retreated cases, NE group had a higher treatment success rate (57.9% vs 43.8%, p=0.029) and a lower LTFU rate (11.6% vs 38.3%, p<0.001) compared to LTFU group. Conclusion NE group had an unfavorable outcome comparable to LTFU group, suggesting undetected cases of LTFU or deaths during the referral process. Establishing an efficient patient referral system would contribute to reducing the incidence of NE cases.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the prognosis of the not evaluated (NE) group by comparing it with the lost to follow-up (LTFU) group among patients with multidrug/rifampin-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/RR-TB). Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective longitudinal follow-up study using an integrated database constructed by data linkage of the three national databases. This database included 7226 cases of MDR/RR-TB notified between 2011 and 2017 in South Korea. Results: Among the 7226 MDR/RR-TB cases, 730 (10.1%) were classified as LTFU group, and 353 (4.9%) as NE group. When comparing NE group with LTFU group, there were no significant differences in the all-cause mortality rate (18.1% vs. 13.8%, p=0.065), median time to death [404 days (interquartile range, IQR 46–850) vs. 443 days (IQR 185–1157), p=0.140], and retreatment rate (26.9% vs.22.2%, p=0.090). After adjusting for potential confounders, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for all-cause mortality (aHR 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.53; p=0.531) in NE group was not significantly different than that in LTFU group. Among retreated cases, NE group had a higher treatment success rate (57.9% vs 43.8%, p=0.029) and a lower LTFU rate (11.6% vs 38.3%, p<0.001) compared to LTFU group. Conclusion NE group had an unfavorable outcome comparable to LTFU group, suggesting undetected cases of LTFU or deaths during the referral process. Establishing an efficient patient referral system would contribute to reducing the incidence of NE cases.

Background: Evaluate the impact of chest X-ray (CXR) screening on mortality and treatment adherence by comparing pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) cases detected through screening and those routinely diagnosed at healthcare facilities. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 10% randomly sampled National Health Insurance Service claims data assessed PTB cases diagnosed during 2004–2020. Patients were categorized as ‘screening-detected (ACF, active case finding)’ or ‘routinely detected (PCF, passive case finding)’ based on CXR screening history. Cox proportional hazards model determined the association between screening and all-cause or tuberculosis (TB)-specific mortality. Treatment adherence was also measured. Results: Among 84,828 PTB patients, 18.76% were ACF (15,916), and 81.24% were PCF (68,912). ACF exhibited lower risks in all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.70;95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67–0.73) and TB-specific mortality (aHR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.32–0.46) compared to PCF. In the ACF group, 91.39% initiated anti-TB treatment, with 45.99% adherence. For PCF, 92.87% initiated treatment, and only 45.44% were adherent. Conclusion Individuals undergoing CXR screening have a lower risk of both all-cause and TB-specific mortality compared to PCF, but treatment adherence is similar between the two groups, emphasizing the need to improve the linkage between screening, diagnosis, and treatment for the screened population.