Legal risks and liability issues in medical practice serve as a primary catalyst for the current collapse of essential healthcare services in Korea. Currently, medical disputes in Korea are disproportionately focused on criminal prosecutions and high-damages civil litigation. This punitive approach fosters a culture of concealment, encourages defensive medicine, and accelerates the exodus of medical professionals from essential fields. Ultimately, this cycle deprives the system of opportunities for improvement and poses a significant threat to patient safety. In contrast, many advanced nations have adopted principles of “Just Culture” and “Safe Space,” prioritizing non-punitive reporting and systemic root-cause analysis over individual retribution. To address these issues, this paper proposes four key strategies: First, the establishment of an independent “Patient Safety Investigation Agency” to objectively investigate incidents and identify systemic flaws. Second, a transition from criminal punishment to licensing board-led management, focusing on re-education and counseling to maintain quality of care. Third, the enactment of “Apology Laws” to ensure that expressions of regret or apologies cannot be used as legal evidence of liability, thereby fostering trust and psychological recovery. Finally, the creation of a “Patient Safety Fund” to provide prompt and sufficient public compensation to victims regardless of proven negligence. In conclusion, it is imperative to shift the paradigm by defining medical accidents as “system failures” rather than individual faults. Strengthening the social safety net will encourage medical professionals to return to essential care and build a sustainable healthcare environment centered on patient safety.

The South Korean healthcare system has achieved rapid quantitative growth; however, it continues to face critical challenges in ensuring the fundamental right to health of its citizens. From the perspective of healthcare consumers and civil society, this article identifies structural problems such as imbalances in medical accessibility, instability in essential and emergency care, and the limited participation of consumers in healthcare policy-making. Although the constitution stipulates the state’s responsibility to protect public health, current healthcare policies often prioritize administrative efficiency and provider-centered interests over patient experiences and health outcomes. In particular, this article argues that these challenges are closely related to the inadequate functioning of an accountable healthcare management framework. Structural failures in essential care, workforce shortages, and regional disparities are insufficiently monitored and addressed at the system level, resulting in responsibilities being blurred or shifted to individual healthcare providers. Consequently, the risks and burdens arising from systemic weaknesses are ultimately borne by citizens. To address these issues, this article emphasizes two major shifts. First, meaningful consumer participation must be institutionalized within healthcare governance to strengthen accountability, transparency, and responsiveness. Second, family medicine and primary care should be reinforced as the cornerstone of a sustainable, community-based healthcare system that ensures continuity of care, prevention, and chronic disease management. Re-establishing the healthcare system based on the right to health is not merely a technical adjustment, but a structural transformation toward a responsible and accountable system in which the state clearly assumes responsibility for monitoring, learning, and corrective action.

Korea’s healthcare system is at a critical juncture as rapid population aging, rising chronic disease burdens, and fragmented care expose the limits of a hospital-centered, fee-for-service model. Although policy discussions have long emphasized strengthening primary care and introducing a “family doctor” system, past reforms have focused mainly on expanding services or redefining professional roles, without establishing clear accountability, care continuity, or aligned payment mechanisms. Consequently, primary care remains weak and responsibility for comprehensive patient management is diffuse. This article argues that meaningful reform requires redefining the primary physician as an accountable manager of longitudinal, coordinated care within an integrated delivery and payment framework. Drawing on experiences from the United States, the United Kingdom, and several European countries, it identifies common features of successful primary care–oriented systems, including patient registration, team-based care, risk-adjusted payment, and explicit outcome accountability. Based on these insights, the authors propose a Korean primary physician model tailored to solo and small-group practices while fostering regional collaboration. Core elements include voluntary patient registration, multidisciplinary primary care teams, risk-stratified care management, regional care networks, and a mixed payment model combining per-member-per-month payments, shared savings, and performance-based incentives. The article emphasizes phased pilot testing focused on operational feasibility. Ultimately, transitioning to a primary care–centered system is presented as a strategic necessity for sustainability and improved care continuity.

The South Korean resident training system is currently at a critical turning point, facing structural crises characterized by excessive labor-intensive environments and deteriorating quality of education. Since the medical standoff in 2024, the limitations of relying on junior doctors’ labor for hospital operations have become increasingly apparent. This review examines the current status and problems of the resident training system, including long working hours exceeding Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) standards, lack of systematic competency-based education, and worsening regional and essential medical imbalances. By analyzing international cases from the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, and Australia, this article proposes four core strategies for reform: (1) establishing a sustainable working and educational environment through the expansion of hospitalist systems and legalizing physician assistant roles; (2) innovating the curriculum and evaluation systems based on entrustable professional activities and milestones; (3) implementing a network-based training model to bridge the gap between metropolitan and regional healthcare; and (4) securing stable financial support and strengthening governance through the establishment of an independent evaluation body (e.g., K-ACGME). Ultimately, reforming the training system is essential not only for the rights and professional growth of residents but also for ensuring patient safety and the long-term sustainability of the national healthcare system.

Recurrent difficulty securing emergency department (ED) acceptance and delayed interfacility transfer, often resulting in multiple sequential transfer attempts (“round-robin” hospital seeking), in the Republic of Korea reflect a patient safety failure across the emergency care continuum, spanning Emergency Medical Services from emergency calls and prehospital care to ED stabilization, definitive treatment, and secondary transfer. We argue that the governance split between the National Fire Agency–led prehospital response and the Ministry of Health and Welfare–led emergency medical system fragments accountability and data, undermining sustainable quality management. We describe a “double bind” in which clinicians face medico-legal risk regardless of acceptance decisions, distorting transfer behavior. We propose an outcome-linked Quality Improvement system—integrated metrics, interoperable data linkage, operational medical control, and routine feedback—to strengthen Continuity of Patient Care. This requires functional integration of the dual command structure; transferring ambulance service functions to the Ministry of Health and Welfare, or an equivalently strong joint-governance model, should be evaluated. Regionally, responsibility-based systems should be implemented through councils that set transfer principles and resource allocation, supported by stable financing and performance review, with the regional emergency medical situation room providing medical control and real-time coordination. For mass-casualty incidents, preparedness should align standardized triage, integrated command and communication, training, and after-action review. Legal reform is a necessary starting point, but trust and sustained patient safety depend more on cultivating a learning-oriented safety culture grounded in patient experience and public deliberation throughout policy design and implementation.

South Korea’s current healthcare system stands at a critical crossroads that will determine whether it can progress in a better direction over the next decade. Behind the relatively stable level of population health that has been maintained until now, it has become clear that the deterioration of patient experiences, the risk of collapse in critical emergency medical services, the burnout of healthcare providers, and the crisis in the sustainability of healthcare finances have all accumulated simultaneously. This crisis can no longer be overcome by partial fixes or short-term measures alone. The answer to what needs to change first must begin with a reaffirmation of what the healthcare system should aim for. Ultimately, what needs to be changed now is not an individual policy, but the criteria and priorities through which we view healthcare. The focus must shift from what to provide more of, to questioning what holds greater social value. If such a shift does not begin now, in ten years we won’t face a better healthcare system, but care enmeshed in a deeper crisis. Now is precisely the time to fundamentally define the direction of the healthcare system.

Background: Solid-organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) receiving immunosuppressive therapy are expected to have worse clinical outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, published studies have shown mixed results, depending on adjustment for important confounders such as age, variants, and vaccination status. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected the data on 7,327 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from two tertiary hospitals with government-designated COVID-19 regional centers. We compared clinical outcomes between SOTRs and non-SOTRs by a propensity score-matched analysis (1:2) based on age, gender, and the date of COVID-19 diagnosis. We also performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis to adjust other important confounders such as vaccination status and the Charlson comorbidity index. Results: After matching, SOTRs (n=83) had a significantly higher risk of high-flow nasal cannula use, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and a composite of COVID-19 severity outcomes than non-SOTRs (n=160) (all P <0.05). The National Early Warning Score was significantly higher in SOTRs than in non-SOTRs from day 1 to 7 of hospitalization ( P for interaction=0.008 by generalized estimating equation). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, SOTRs (odds ratio [OR], 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12–4.11) and male gender (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.26– 5.45) were associated with worse outcomes, and receiving two to three doses of COVID-19 vaccine (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24–0.79) was associated with better outcomes. Conclusion Hospitalized SOTRs with COVID-19 had a worse prognosis than non-SOTRs. COVID-19 vaccination should be implemented appropriately to prevent severe COVID-19 progression in this population.

Background: Solid-organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) receiving immunosuppressive therapy are expected to have worse clinical outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, published studies have shown mixed results, depending on adjustment for important confounders such as age, variants, and vaccination status. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected the data on 7,327 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from two tertiary hospitals with government-designated COVID-19 regional centers. We compared clinical outcomes between SOTRs and non-SOTRs by a propensity score-matched analysis (1:2) based on age, gender, and the date of COVID-19 diagnosis. We also performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis to adjust other important confounders such as vaccination status and the Charlson comorbidity index. Results: After matching, SOTRs (n=83) had a significantly higher risk of high-flow nasal cannula use, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and a composite of COVID-19 severity outcomes than non-SOTRs (n=160) (all P <0.05). The National Early Warning Score was significantly higher in SOTRs than in non-SOTRs from day 1 to 7 of hospitalization ( P for interaction=0.008 by generalized estimating equation). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, SOTRs (odds ratio [OR], 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12–4.11) and male gender (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.26– 5.45) were associated with worse outcomes, and receiving two to three doses of COVID-19 vaccine (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24–0.79) was associated with better outcomes. Conclusion Hospitalized SOTRs with COVID-19 had a worse prognosis than non-SOTRs. COVID-19 vaccination should be implemented appropriately to prevent severe COVID-19 progression in this population.

Background: Solid-organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) receiving immunosuppressive therapy are expected to have worse clinical outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, published studies have shown mixed results, depending on adjustment for important confounders such as age, variants, and vaccination status. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected the data on 7,327 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from two tertiary hospitals with government-designated COVID-19 regional centers. We compared clinical outcomes between SOTRs and non-SOTRs by a propensity score-matched analysis (1:2) based on age, gender, and the date of COVID-19 diagnosis. We also performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis to adjust other important confounders such as vaccination status and the Charlson comorbidity index. Results: After matching, SOTRs (n=83) had a significantly higher risk of high-flow nasal cannula use, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and a composite of COVID-19 severity outcomes than non-SOTRs (n=160) (all P <0.05). The National Early Warning Score was significantly higher in SOTRs than in non-SOTRs from day 1 to 7 of hospitalization ( P for interaction=0.008 by generalized estimating equation). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, SOTRs (odds ratio [OR], 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12–4.11) and male gender (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.26– 5.45) were associated with worse outcomes, and receiving two to three doses of COVID-19 vaccine (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24–0.79) was associated with better outcomes. Conclusion Hospitalized SOTRs with COVID-19 had a worse prognosis than non-SOTRs. COVID-19 vaccination should be implemented appropriately to prevent severe COVID-19 progression in this population.

Abstinence from prolonged psychostimulant use prompts stimulant withdrawal syndrome. Molecular adaptations within the dorsal striatum have been considered the main hallmark of stimulant abstinence. Here we explored striatal miRNA-target interaction and its impact on circulating miRNA marker as well as behavioral dysfunctions in methamphetamine (MA) abstinence. We conducted miRNA sequencing and profiling in the nonhuman primate model of MA abstinence, followed by miRNA qPCR, LC-MS/MS proteomics, immunoassays, and behavior tests in mice. In nonhuman primates, MA abstinence triggered a lasting upregulation of miR-137 in the dorsal striatum but a simultaneous downregulation of circulating miR-137. In mice, aberrant increase in striatal miR-137-dependent inhibition of SYNCRIP essentially mediated the MA abstinence-induced reduction of circulating miR-137. Pathway modeling through experimental deduction illustrated that the MA abstinence-mediated downregulation of circulating miR-137 was caused by reduction of SYNCRIP-dependent miRNA sorting into the exosomes in the dorsal striatum. Furthermore, diminished SYNCRIP in the dorsal striatum was necessary for MA abstinence-induced behavioral bias towards egocentric spatial learning. Taken together, our data revealed circulating miR-137 as a potential blood-based marker that could reflect MA abstinence-dependent changes in striatal miR-137/SYNCRIP axis, and striatal SYNCRIP as a potential therapeutic target for striatum-associated cognitive dysfunction by MA withdrawal syndrome.