Search

Background: Although effective care for type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is well known, considerable inadequate care has been still existed. Variations in achievement of the recommended quality indicators inT2DM care among small areas are not well known in Korea. This study examined the quality of care T2DM care and its geographical variations., Methods: We used the national health insurance database and national health screening database. Seven quality indicators were used to evaluate continuity of care (medication possession ratio), process of care (hemoglobin A1c test, lipid profile, microalbuminuria test, and eye examination), and intermediate outcome (blood pressure control, and low-density lipoprotein control). Crude and age-standardized proportions were calculated for each 252 districts in Korea., Results: All quality indicators failed to achieve the recommended level. Only about 3% and 15% of the patients underwent eye examination and microalbuminuria test, respectively. Other indicators ranged from 48% to 68%. Wide variation in the quality existed among districts and indicators. Eye examination and microalbuminuria test varied the most showing tenfold (0.9%-9.2%) and fourfold (6.3%-28.9%) variation by districts, respectively. There were 32.4 and 42.7 percentage point gap between the best and the worst districts in hemoglobin A1c test and blood pressure control, respectively., Conclusion: Considerable proportion of T2DM patients were not adequately managed and quality of care varied substantially district to district. To improve the quality of diabetes care, it is necessary to identify the poor performance areas and establish a well-coordinated care system tailored to the need of the district., Competing Interests: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. This article was based on a KNHIS Atlas Project 2016, final report submitted by the authors to Korean National Health Insurance Service., (© 2019 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.)

Background: As of 2011, among 250 administrative districts in Korea, 54 districts did not have obstetrics and gynecology clinics or hospitals providing prenatal care and delivery services. The Korean government designated 38 regions among 54 districts as "Obstetric Care Underserved Areas (OCUA)." However, little is known there are any differences in pregnancy, prenatal care, and outcomes of women dwelling in OCUA compared to women in other areas. The purposes of this study were to compare the pregnancy related indicators (PRIs) and adequacy of prenatal care between OCUA region and non-OCUA region., Methods: Using National Health Insurance database in Korea from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014, we constructed the whole dataset of women who terminated pregnancy including delivery and abortion. We assessed incidence rate of 17 PRIs and adequacy of prenatal care. All indicators were compared between OCUA group and non-OCUA group., Results: The women dwelling in OCUA regions were more likely to get abortion (4.6% in OCUA vs. 3.6% in non-OCUA) and receive inadequate prenatal care (7.2% vs. 4.4%). Regarding abortion rate, there were significant regional differences in abortion rate. The highest abortion rate was 10.3% and the lowest region was 1.2%. Among 38 OCUA regions, 29 regions' abortion rates were higher than the national average of abortion rate (3.56%) and there were 10 regions in which abortion rates were higher than 7.0%. In addition, some PRIs such as acute pyelonephritis and transfusion in obstetric hemorrhage were more worse in OCUA regions compared to non-OCUA regions., Conclusion: PRIs are different according to the regions where women are living. The Korean government should make an effort reducing these gaps of obstetric cares between OCUA and non-OCUA., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Although primary care has been recognized as an essential element of the healthcare system, the primary healthcare of Korea has not been highly valued. Listening to the voices of physicians who are engaged in primary care should be the first step for improving the level of primary care in Korea. In this study, we conducted a questionnaire survey of general internists to investigate their perspectives regarding primary care, and which included the evaluation of current primary care, perception of the five, key attributes of primary care, and their opinions regarding the management system of chronic diseases. A total of 466 general internists' responses were used in this analysis. The results showed that primary care is considered to have an important role, according to general internists, although their evaluation of the overall status of primary care in Korea indicated that it is poor. The respondents also indicated that the functions of coordination and comprehensiveness in primary care, which can be integral for treating patients with chronic diseases, are most vulnerable. Given the high level of agreement regarding the need for a new medical management system for chronic diseases, based on physicians' autonomy and provided by clinics, establishing a policy encouraging the participation of general internists should be emphasized.

This study aims to estimate the volume of unnecessarily utilized hospital outpatient services in Korea and quantify the total cost resulting from the inappropriate utilization. The analysis included a sample of 27,320,505 outpatient claims from the 2009 National Inpatient Sample database. Using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), patients were considered to have received 'unnecessary hospital outpatient utilization' if they had a CCI score of 0 and were concurrently admitted to hospital for treatment of a single chronic disease - hypertension (HTN), diabetes mellitus (DM), or hyperlipidemia (HL) - without complication. Overall, 85% of patients received unnecessary hospital services. Also hospitals were taking away 18.7% of HTN patients, 18.6% of DM and 31.6% of HL from clinics. Healthcare expenditures from unnecessary hospital outpatient utilization were estimated at: HTN (94,058 thousands USD, 38.6% of total expenditure); DM (17,795 thousands USD, 40.6%) and HL (62,876 thousands USD, 49.1%). If 100% of patients who received unnecessary hospital outpatient services were redirected to clinics, the estimated savings would be 104,226 thousands USD. This research proves that approximately 85% of hospital outpatient utilizations are unnecessary and that a significant amount of money is wasted on unnecessary healthcare services; thus burdening the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) and patients.