RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    우리나라의 고가의료장비 적정수급에 관한 연구 = The Demand and Supply of Major Medical Equipments and Policy Recommendations

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A103530308

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    A rapid technical progress in medical instruments is widely recognized as one of the leading factors that have caused a sharp increase in health care expenditures in most countries. This is the case in Korea, too. This paper analyses the regional distribution of major medical equipments in Korea and compares its provisions with those in OECD countries. The method used in this study is basically supply and demand model. The local data on major medical equipments is from a national survey conducted by the Health Insurance Review Agency while international data is based on OECD Health Data 2005.
    The survey results show that the number of CT (Computed Tomography) has increased by 6 times from 262 in 1990 to 1537 in 2005, and MRI by 33 times from to 553 during the same period. The number of CT per million population in Korea was more than double the OECD average. The number of MRI per one million population in Korea amounted to 9 units in 2003, while the OECD average was 6.8 units. Radiation therapy equipment, mammography, ESWL, gamma camera, and PET in Korea are also rapidly increasing and oversupplied, compared to other OECD countries. Despite the overall increase in major medical equipments, however, their geographically unbalanced distribution has become a policy issue on debate in Korea. For example, the number of CT per 100,000 population is 1.97 units in Jeju province while it is as many as 5.43 units in Cheonbuk province.
    The estimation of demand for major medical equipments indicates they should be reduced below the current level over the 2008-2020 period. This strategy is, however, expected to be limited in practice mainly due to market-dominant private hospitals, a lack of health care delivery system, and the decentralized decision making in medical facilities. An alternative policy instrument to cope with oversupply and maldistribution in major medical equipments is to link with health insurance benefits. The fee-for-service reimbursement for hi-tech medical equipments could be properly controlled in the national health insurance. Controlling price as well as volume is considered as the best policy option to tackle the issue of major medical equipment in Korea.
    번역하기

    A rapid technical progress in medical instruments is widely recognized as one of the leading factors that have caused a sharp increase in health care expenditures in most countries. This is the case in Korea, too. This paper analyses the regional dist...

    A rapid technical progress in medical instruments is widely recognized as one of the leading factors that have caused a sharp increase in health care expenditures in most countries. This is the case in Korea, too. This paper analyses the regional distribution of major medical equipments in Korea and compares its provisions with those in OECD countries. The method used in this study is basically supply and demand model. The local data on major medical equipments is from a national survey conducted by the Health Insurance Review Agency while international data is based on OECD Health Data 2005.
    The survey results show that the number of CT (Computed Tomography) has increased by 6 times from 262 in 1990 to 1537 in 2005, and MRI by 33 times from to 553 during the same period. The number of CT per million population in Korea was more than double the OECD average. The number of MRI per one million population in Korea amounted to 9 units in 2003, while the OECD average was 6.8 units. Radiation therapy equipment, mammography, ESWL, gamma camera, and PET in Korea are also rapidly increasing and oversupplied, compared to other OECD countries. Despite the overall increase in major medical equipments, however, their geographically unbalanced distribution has become a policy issue on debate in Korea. For example, the number of CT per 100,000 population is 1.97 units in Jeju province while it is as many as 5.43 units in Cheonbuk province.
    The estimation of demand for major medical equipments indicates they should be reduced below the current level over the 2008-2020 period. This strategy is, however, expected to be limited in practice mainly due to market-dominant private hospitals, a lack of health care delivery system, and the decentralized decision making in medical facilities. An alternative policy instrument to cope with oversupply and maldistribution in major medical equipments is to link with health insurance benefits. The fee-for-service reimbursement for hi-tech medical equipments could be properly controlled in the national health insurance. Controlling price as well as volume is considered as the best policy option to tackle the issue of major medical equipment in Korea.

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2027 평가 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
    2021-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
    2018-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2015-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2011-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
    2010-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2009-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2008-04-25 학술지등록 한글명 : 보건사회연구
    외국어명 : Health and Social Welfare Review
    KCI등재후보
    2007-01-01 등재 SCOPUS 등재 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    학술지 인용정보
    기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
    2016 1.79 1.79 1.91
    KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
    2.06 2.16 2.497 0.32
    더보기

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼