독일의 장애인 직업재활체계에 관한 연구 : 산재보험 피재자를 중심으로 = A Study on Vocational Rehabilitation System in Germany

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구에서는 비교적 직업재활 제도가 일찍부터 발달하였고 재활급여 제공기관간 조정이 비교적 잘 이루어지고 있는 유형의 국가인 독일의 직업재활 제도를 살펴 봄으로써 직업재활 제도가 발달되지 못하였고 장애의 원인에 따라 수급자격이 결정되는 제도를 가진 우리나라의 직업재활 발전 방향에 대하여 시사점을 제공하고자 한다.
독일 직업재활 개관과 관련해서 먼저 사회법전 제9권의 직업재활 관련 조항을 중심으로 살펴보고 독일의 직업재활제도를 보다 구체적으로 분석하기 위해 대상자와 선정기준, 급여수준과 급여의 내용, 재정 부담, 행정조직 및 실제 서비스 제공기관, 직업재활 서비스 제공결정절차 등을 고찰하였다.
그리고 독일사례분석을 통해 우리나라에 대한 시사점을 서술하였으며, 직업재활사업과 비용효과의 관계성에 대한 문제 및 사후 보상에 앞선 예방 및 조기 직업재활의 투입성의 중요성을 논의하고자 한다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

German vocational rehabilitation system is interesting in two aspects. First, Germany is a leading country in the area of vocational rehabilitation and has many kinds of supporting services and benefits for the disabled. Second, Germany has a long tradition of coordination between different agencies working in the area of vocational rehabilitation. By the planning of expanding the vocational rehabilitation services in Korea the German case gives following implications:
First, at a marco level it must be thoroughly examined if an integrated system of vocational rehabilitation can be introduced in Korea. Now there are just two institutions whice serve the vocational rehabilitation for the disbled; Korean Employment Promotion Agency for the Disabled(KEPAD) for the disabled generally and the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation(KLWC) for the Disabled by industrial accidents or occupational diseases. German case gives an overview why the vocational rehabilitation agencies for the disabled could not be integrated. it was not just because of political aspects considering many interest groups, but the great number of concerned agencies and accessibility. Although the coordinating system between two or more agencies is very difficult to establish in Korea, it is strongly recommended to build a coordination system of vocational rehabilitation services which includes public employment services. On the other hand it is necessary to enlarge the providing agencies of vocational rehabilitation, for example, following the german case the agencies of public health insurance and old-age insurance could provide vocational rehabilitation services, too.
Second, at a micro level there are some implications:
First, it must be regarded as for granted that the benefits and services for vocational rehabilitation are not a gift of services agencies, but a right of diabled. If the costs do not exceed the outcomes extremely, benefits and services of vocational rehabilitation must be granted to every disabled.
Second, prevention must be preferred to compensation and if one becomes disabled early intervention is important.
Third, by an early intervention a rehabilitation adviser can play a critical role. A disabled person can be comforted in conversation with a rehabilitation adviser and can have a hope and plan to live with handicaps.
Lastly, an agency with much experience, for instance the KEPAD or public employment services must be connected to all rehabilitation cases for the examination of need and appropriateness for the vocational rehabilitation.