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.

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: In Korea, there has been a few medical studies on the relationship between religion and health. In future, active research is anticipated in this area. However, the validity and methods of performing religious inquiry should be tested beforehand. This study was designed to look into the attitudes of patients about religious inquiries by their physicians and to suggest better methods of religious approach to aid future researches on the effect of religion on health. METHODS: A survey was performed on the religious attitude among 177 patients among which 92 were randomly selected from an outpatient clinic of tertiary teaching hospitals and 85 from two local family practice offices on August, 2002. x2 test was used to verify the difference of results between the subgroups. RESULTS: As a whole, more than half of patients disagreed with religious inquiries by their physicians regardless of medical situation; however, there was a trend that a critical health reasons produced a higher percentage of patients accepting religious inquiry than in ordinary patients. There was no significant difference in answer between the two practice settings but a significant difference among the subgroups with strong religious belief and among those with a particular type of religion existed. CONCLUSION: The results of this study may be used as data on the method of approaching patients with religious inquiries for future studies on the relationship between religion and health, and also should encourage active researches on this subject.
Ambulatory Care Facilities ; Family Practice ; Hospitals, Teaching ; Humans ; Korea ; Religion