Non-Face-to-Face Medical Care Saves Time... Debate Continues Between 'Patient Convenience' and 'Safety First'

97% of Patients and 73% of Doctors Satisfied with Non-Face-to-Face Consultations
Differences Remain Between Medical Community and Industry Over Details Such as Eligible Medications
Medical Service Act Amendments Expected to Pass by Year-End Afte

As the government accelerates the institutionalization of telemedicine, a survey found that 97% of patients and 73% of doctors who have used telemedicine are satisfied with the service. While the telemedicine platform industry insists that legislation should prioritize public convenience, voices from the medical community and civic groups urge caution in institutionalizing telemedicine, citing concerns such as patient safety.

The Telemedicine Industry Council held a press conference on the 10th at the Seoul Press Center under the theme "The Future of Non-Face-to-Face Medical Care: Announcement of the National Policy Demand Survey Results and Industry Policy Suggestions." From the left: Donghan Lee, Senior Researcher at Korea Research; Kyungha Park, CEO of Once Global; Jinwoong Jung, CEO of Dr. Now; Seul Lee, Co-Chairman of the WonSan Association; Jaewon Sun, CEO of My Own Doctor; Hoik Lee, CEO of Soldoc; and Jungyu Ahn, Senior at Hecto Innovation. Telemedicine Industry Council

The Telemedicine Industry Council, which includes telemedicine intermediary platform companies, held a press conference on the 10th and released the results of a "Satisfaction and Improvement Opinions Survey on Telemedicine Policy." The survey, conducted by Korea Research, targeted 1,051 patients and 151 doctors who had experienced telemedicine, as well as 279 pharmacists who had experienced remote prescription services, between September 23 and October 22.

According to the survey, 97.1% of patients who used telemedicine (multiple responses allowed) said they were "satisfied." High satisfaction was especially noted for the following: ▲ time-saving effect (95.7%), ▲ improved access to medical care (94.5%), ▲ resolving issues of delayed or abandoned in-person care (93.5%), ▲ easier access to hospital and pharmacy information (91.8%), ▲ improved access to medication (88.5%), and ▲ easier repeat prescriptions and chronic disease management (85.7%).

Among doctors and pharmacists, 73.5% of doctors and 56.2% of pharmacists who had experienced telemedicine expressed satisfaction. Both groups positively evaluated the following: ▲ improved patient access to medical care (82.1% of doctors, 68.5% of pharmacists), ▲ improved access to medication (70.9% and 66.3%, respectively), and ▲ no significant difficulties in communicating with patients (70.2% and 57.7%, respectively).

However, when asked about the most important policy the government and National Assembly should consider in the process of legislating telemedicine, there were clear differences in opinion among patients, doctors, and pharmacists. Patients prioritized ▲ allowing telemedicine for all departments (39.0%), ▲ permitting medication delivery (37.7%), and ▲ prescribing by generic name (35.1%). In contrast, doctors considered ▲ establishing standards for liability and compensation in medical accidents (44.4%), ▲ adjusting the telemedicine health insurance reimbursement system to reflect reality (43.0%), and ▲ expanding the scope of initial consultations allowed at the doctor's discretion (34.4%) as the most important. Pharmacists cited ▲ prescribing by generic name (64.9%), ▲ establishing institutional measures to prevent concentration in large pharmacies (47.0%), and ▲ building a public telemedicine platform (33.7%) as necessary policies.

Seul Lee, Co-Chairman of the Telemedicine Industry Council, emphasized, "Telemedicine is already a reality chosen by the public and implemented in the field. If the government promotes legislation to expand the public's choice and access to medical care, and shifts from regulation-centered to innovation- and development-centered policies, the telemedicine service industry will also do its utmost as a responsible private partner to help complete the future healthcare system."

Cautious Voices from the Medical Community and Civic Groups

Telemedicine has been permitted as a pilot program since 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic. To institutionalize it legally, a total of seven related amendments to the Medical Service Act have been proposed in the National Assembly and are scheduled for a consolidated review by the Health and Welfare Committee's subcommittee on November 18. Since the government and the ruling party announced their intention to institutionalize telemedicine at a high-level party-government meeting on November 9, it is highly likely that the amendments will pass without difficulty within the year.

However, unlike the telemedicine platform industry's call for effective policies centered on patient convenience, the medical community insists on a more conservative approach to ensure patient safety. They argue that telemedicine should remain a supplementary means to in-person care, and that detailed guidelines should be developed based on a thorough evaluation of side effects observed during the pilot program. There is also a need to discuss restrictions on which medications can be prescribed and for how long via telemedicine to prevent misuse, as well as clarify responsibility in the event of medical disputes.

Kim Sunggeun, spokesperson for the Korean Medical Association, pointed out, "Telemedicine is a limited medical practice, so the types of medications, duration, and eligible patients should be restricted to only what is truly necessary, with various safety measures in place for patient protection. There is also the risk that patients may miss the optimal timing for appropriate treatment due to telemedicine." The Korean Pharmaceutical Association issued a statement on November 6, criticizing, "Some for-profit platforms are inducing designated prescriptions by listing specific drug names before the consultation between doctor and patient, leading to a 'prescription vending machine' phenomenon where patients can easily obtain specific prescription drugs they desire."

The Solidarity Against Medical Privatization and for Universal Healthcare, a coalition of labor and civic organizations related to healthcare, pointed out that during the pilot program, the use of telemedicine by vulnerable regions and populations was very low. They argued, "If for-profit telemedicine platforms further commercialize healthcare, the trend of doctors gravitating toward lucrative commercial medicine will intensify, and gaps in regional and public healthcare will worsen. The state should take responsibility and operate public platforms for telemedicine."