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.

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.

The impact of Streptococcus pneumoniae coinfection on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prognosis remains uncertain. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who underwent a pneumococcal urinary antigen (PUA) test to assess its clinical utility. Results showed that PUA-positive patients required more oxygen support, high-flow nasal cannula, and dexamethasone compared to PUA-negative patients.Furthermore, the significantly higher incidence of a National Early Warning Score ≥5 in the PUA-positive group (P<0.001) suggests that a positive PUA test is associated with a severe disease course. However, no significant difference in mortality was observed between the two groups, and antibiotics were used in almost all patients (96.2%). While the PUA test may help guide antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients, its interpretation should be approached with caution.

The impact of Streptococcus pneumoniae coinfection on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prognosis remains uncertain. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who underwent a pneumococcal urinary antigen (PUA) test to assess its clinical utility. Results showed that PUA-positive patients required more oxygen support, high-flow nasal cannula, and dexamethasone compared to PUA-negative patients.Furthermore, the significantly higher incidence of a National Early Warning Score ≥5 in the PUA-positive group (P<0.001) suggests that a positive PUA test is associated with a severe disease course. However, no significant difference in mortality was observed between the two groups, and antibiotics were used in almost all patients (96.2%). While the PUA test may help guide antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients, its interpretation should be approached with caution.

The impact of Streptococcus pneumoniae coinfection on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prognosis remains uncertain. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who underwent a pneumococcal urinary antigen (PUA) test to assess its clinical utility. Results showed that PUA-positive patients required more oxygen support, high-flow nasal cannula, and dexamethasone compared to PUA-negative patients.Furthermore, the significantly higher incidence of a National Early Warning Score ≥5 in the PUA-positive group (P<0.001) suggests that a positive PUA test is associated with a severe disease course. However, no significant difference in mortality was observed between the two groups, and antibiotics were used in almost all patients (96.2%). While the PUA test may help guide antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients, its interpretation should be approached with caution.

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.

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.