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.

While South Korea’s National Health Insurance (NHI) was once disparaged as a rudimentary “discount program,” it has matured into the cornerstone of the nation’s medical safety net owing to sustained governmental initiatives. Nevertheless, the pursuit of expanded benefit coverage, exacerbated by demographic shifts toward low fertility and an aging society, has catalyzed a rapid escalation in aggregate national healthcare spending.Consequently, there is an urgent need for the NHI to implement benefit expansion policies that prioritize cost-efficiency and fiscal prudence. This perspective asserts that coverage enhancement should be strategically focused on high-cost catastrophic illnesses, specifically through the robust fortification of the annual out-of-pocket (OOP) maximum system. Furthermore, the reform of private health insurance is imperative, as its unbridled growth in non-reimbursable services has undermined the efficacy of public coverage efforts. This paper proposes concrete policy frameworks for both the enhancement of the OOP maximum system and the structural reform of private indemnity health insurance.

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: A healthcare system’s collapse due to a pandemic, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can expose healthcare workers (HCWs) to various mental health problems. This study aimed to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the depression and anxiety of HCWs. Methods: A nationwide questionnaire-based survey was conducted on HCWs who worked in healthcare facilities and public health centers in Korea in December 2020. Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) were used to measure depression and anxiety. To investigate factors associated with depression and anxiety, stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was performed. Results: A total of 1,425 participating HCWs were included. The mean depression score (PHQ-9) of HCWs before and after COVID-19 increased from 2.37 to 5.39, and the mean anxiety score (GAD-7) increased from 1.41 to 3.41. The proportion of HCWs with moderate to severe depression (PHQ-9 ≥ 10) increased from 3.8% before COVID-19 to 19.5% after COVID-19, whereas that of HCWs with moderate to severe anxiety (GAD-7 ≥ 10) increased from 2.0% to 10.1%. In our study, insomnia, chronic fatigue symptoms and physical symptoms after COVID-19, anxiety score (GAD-7) after COVID-19, living alone, and exhaustion were positively correlated with depression. Furthermore, post-traumatic stress symptoms, stress score (Global Assessment of Recent Stress), depression score (PHQ-9) after COVID-19, and exhaustion were positively correlated with anxiety. Conclusion In Korea, during the COVID-19 pandemic, HCWs commonly suffered from mental health problems, including depression and anxiety. Regularly checking the physical and mental health problems of HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic is crucial, and social support and strategy are needed to reduce the heavy workload and psychological distress of HCWs.

Objectives: Although it is difficult to define the quality of stroke care, acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients with moderate-to-severe neurological deficits may benefit from thrombectomy-capable hospitals (TCHs) that have a stroke unit, stroke specialists, and a substantial endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) case volume. Methods: From national audit data collected between 2013 and 2016, potential EVT candidates arriving within 24 hours with a baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≥6 were identified. Hospitals were classified as TCHs (≥15 EVT case/y, stroke unit, and stroke specialists), primary stroke hospitals (PSHs) without EVT (PSHs-without-EVT, 0 case/y), and PSHs-with-EVT. Thirty-day and 1-year case-fatality rates (CFRs) were analyzed using random intercept multilevel logistic regression. Results: Out of 35 004 AIS patients, 7954 (22.7%) EVT candidates were included in this study. The average 30-day CFR was 16.3% in PSHs-without-EVT, 14.8% in PSHs-with-EVT, and 11.0% in TCHs. The average 1-year CFR was 37.5% in PSHs-without-EVT, 31.3% in PSHs-with-EVT, and 26.2% in TCHs. In TCHs, a significant reduction was not found in the 30-day CFR (odds ratio [OR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.12), but was found in the 1-year CFR (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.96). Conclusions The 1-year CFR was significantly reduced when EVT candidates were treated at TCHs. TCHs are not defined based solely on the number of EVTs, but also based on the presence of a stroke unit and stroke specialists. This supports the need for TCH certification in Korea and suggests that annual EVT case volume could be used to qualify TCHs.

Background: Although the evidence of treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) changed rapidly, little is known about the patterns of potential pharmacological treatment during the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic in Korea and the risk factors for ineffective prescription. Methods: Using claims data from the Korean National Health Insurance System, this retrospective cohort study included admission episodes for COVID-19 from February to December 2020. Ineffective antiviral prescriptions for COVID-19 were defined as lopinavir/ ritonavir (LPN/r) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) prescribed after July 2020, according to the revised National Institute of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines. Factors associated with ineffective prescriptions, including patient and hospital factors, were identified by multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: Of the 15,723 COVID-19 admission episodes from February to June 2020, 4,183 (26.6%) included prescriptions of LPN/r, and 3,312 (21.1%) included prescriptions of HCQ.Of the 48,843 admission episodes from July to December 2020, after the guidelines were revised, 2,258 (4.6%) and 182 (0.4%) included prescriptions of ineffective LPN/r and HCQ, respectively. Patient factors independently associated with ineffective antiviral prescription were older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per 10-year increase, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14–1.20) and severe condition with an oxygen requirement (aOR, 2.49; 95% CI, 2.24–2.77). The prescription of ineffective antiviral drugs was highly prevalent in primary and nursing hospitals (aOR, 40.58; 95% CI, 31.97–51.50), public sector hospitals (aOR, 15.61; 95% CI, 12.76–19.09), and regions in which these drugs were highly prescribed before July 2020 (aOR, 10.65; 95% CI, 8.26–13.74). Conclusion Ineffective antiviral agents were prescribed to a substantial number of patients during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Korea. Treatment with these ineffective drugs tended to be prolonged in severely ill patients and in primary and public hospitals.