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.

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.

This study investigated lung cancer risk in people infected with tuberculosis (TB) compared to the general population and evaluated factors associated with lung cancer in TB-infected individuals. Mandatory reported TB infection case data in Gyeonggi Province, South Korea (2010 to 2016) were obtained and linked with medical usage and health screening data from the National Health Information Database. Lung cancer incidence in patients with TB was compared to that in the general population using standardized incidence ratio (SIR), adjusted for age and sex. Lung cancer risk factors in patients with TB were studied using the Cox proportional hazards model. By April 2022, 1.26% (n = 444) of 35,140 patients developed lung cancer after TB diagnosis. Compared to the incidence in the general population, increased lung cancer risk in people with TB was observed (SIR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.85-2.23). Multivariate analysis showed increased lung cancer in TB-infected individuals, associated with being male (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.24, 95% CI: 1.65-3.04), 1-year increase of age (HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.08-1.10), ever smoking (HR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.02-1.97), and amount of daily smoking with one pack or more (HR: 2.17, 95% CI: 1.63-2.89). Increased lung cancer risk was noted in patients with TB compared to the general population, and sex, age, and smoking were factors associated with lung cancer in patients with TB.

This study investigated lung cancer risk in people infected with tuberculosis (TB) compared to the general population and evaluated factors associated with lung cancer in TB-infected individuals. Mandatory reported TB infection case data in Gyeonggi Province, South Korea (2010 to 2016) were obtained and linked with medical usage and health screening data from the National Health Information Database. Lung cancer incidence in patients with TB was compared to that in the general population using standardized incidence ratio (SIR), adjusted for age and sex. Lung cancer risk factors in patients with TB were studied using the Cox proportional hazards model. By April 2022, 1.26% (n = 444) of 35,140 patients developed lung cancer after TB diagnosis. Compared to the incidence in the general population, increased lung cancer risk in people with TB was observed (SIR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.85-2.23). Multivariate analysis showed increased lung cancer in TB-infected individuals, associated with being male (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.24, 95% CI: 1.65-3.04), 1-year increase of age (HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.08-1.10), ever smoking (HR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.02-1.97), and amount of daily smoking with one pack or more (HR: 2.17, 95% CI: 1.63-2.89). Increased lung cancer risk was noted in patients with TB compared to the general population, and sex, age, and smoking were factors associated with lung cancer in patients with TB.

This study investigated lung cancer risk in people infected with tuberculosis (TB) compared to the general population and evaluated factors associated with lung cancer in TB-infected individuals. Mandatory reported TB infection case data in Gyeonggi Province, South Korea (2010 to 2016) were obtained and linked with medical usage and health screening data from the National Health Information Database. Lung cancer incidence in patients with TB was compared to that in the general population using standardized incidence ratio (SIR), adjusted for age and sex. Lung cancer risk factors in patients with TB were studied using the Cox proportional hazards model. By April 2022, 1.26% (n = 444) of 35,140 patients developed lung cancer after TB diagnosis. Compared to the incidence in the general population, increased lung cancer risk in people with TB was observed (SIR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.85-2.23). Multivariate analysis showed increased lung cancer in TB-infected individuals, associated with being male (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.24, 95% CI: 1.65-3.04), 1-year increase of age (HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.08-1.10), ever smoking (HR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.02-1.97), and amount of daily smoking with one pack or more (HR: 2.17, 95% CI: 1.63-2.89). Increased lung cancer risk was noted in patients with TB compared to the general population, and sex, age, and smoking were factors associated with lung cancer in patients with TB.

Background/Aims: To investigate a reported outbreak of presumed hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection in a Korean food manufacturing facility and to explore the association between anti-HEV immunoglobulin M (IgM) positivity and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection or vaccination. Methods: Twenty-four cases of anti-HEV IgM positivity were reported among 646 workers at the facility in 2022. An epidemiological investigation was conducted, comprising HEV-RNA testing of blood and environmental samples, analysis of group meal records, and an association between anti-HEV IgM positivity and confirmed COVID-19 infection or vaccination. Results: All 24 patients were asymptomatic, with cases spread sporadically across the facility. HEV RNA was not detected in the serum or environmental samples. Four out of 340 meals (1.2%) showed a significantly higher proportion of anti-HEV positivity in each meal intake group than in the non-intake group on certain days. Although the cumulative rate of COVID-19 infection showed no difference, the anti-HEV IgM positive group showed significantly higher proportions of >2 doses of COVID-19 vaccination (83.3% vs 48.7%, p=0.021), vaccination within 90 days (45.8% vs 19.7%, p=0.008), and having the Moderna vaccine administered as the last vaccine (75.0% vs 14.5%, p<0.001) than those of the anti-HEV negative group. In four multivariable models, three or more COVID-19 vaccinations and the Moderna vaccine as the last vaccine were consistently associated with anti-HEV IgM positivity, while the specific day group meal intake was also a significant factor. Conclusions This epidemiological investigation showed that anti-HEV IgM positivity may occur as a false-positive result related to COVID-vaccination over three times and use of the Moderna vaccine, although a portion of true HEV infection may not be excluded.

Purpose: The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) 3.0 has recently been suggested for determining liver allocation. We aimed to apply MELD 3.0 to a Korean population and to discover differences between patients with and without hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Materials and Methods: This study is a retrospective study of 2203 patients diagnosed with liver cirrhosis at Severance Hospital between 2016–2022. Harrell’s concordance index was used to validate the ability of MELD scores to predict 90-day survival. Results: During a mean follow-up of 12.9 months, 90-day survival was 61.9% in all patients, 50.4% in the HCC patients, and 74.8% in the non-HCC patients. Within the HCC patients, the concordance index for patients on the waitlist was 0.653 using MELD, which increased to 0.753 using MELD 3.0. Among waitlisted patients, the 90-day survival of HCC patients was worse than that of non-HCC patients with MELD scores of 31–37 only (69.7% vs. 30.0%, p=0.001). Applying MELD 3.0, the 90-day survival of HCC patients was worse than that of non-HCC patients across a wider range of MELD 3.0 scores, compared to MELD, with MELD 3.0 scores of 21–30 and 31–37 (82.0% vs. 72.5% and 72.3% vs. 24.3%, p=0.02 and p<0.001, respectively). Conclusion MELD 3.0 predicted 90-day survival of the HCC patients more accurately than original MELD score; however, the disparity between HCC and non-HCC patients increased, particularly in patients with MELD scores of 21–30. Therefore, a novel exception score is needed or the current exception score system should be modified.