27(2), 2007, 96-121
S ij k i POP j a i SEXR j i AGER j i BEDDAT j ij i j S ij S ij POP j SEXR j AGER j BEDDAT j k i a i i i
L ij = S ij - S ij ---------- S ij S ij = k i POP j a i SEXR j i AGER j i BEDDAT j Lij j i Sij j i Sij j i Y i 1 + 2 POP i + 3 DOC i + 4 GDP i i i
Y i POP i DOC i GDP i E y i x i x i i i x i Z
The Demand and Supply of Major Medical Equipments and Policy Recommendations Young-ho Oh Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs Jin-hyun Kim Seoul National University 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. KEY WORDS major medical equipment, demand and supply, regional distribution, OECD comparison