"Just Increasing the Number of Regional Doctors Will Not Solve the Problem"... Warning from the Medical Community

Criticism of Limits of Regional Physician System at KMA Medical Policy Research Institute Forum
"Injecting Manpower Without Reforming the Healthcare Delivery System Is a Social Waste"
"Punitive Regulations Such as License Revocation Will Accelerate

The medical community has criticized the government’s planned “regional doctor system,” arguing that it is focused solely on compulsory personnel placement rather than resolving the structural defects of regional healthcare, and warning that it is highly likely to end in a “massive failure.”

Participants are debating at the "Is the Regional Physician System Okay as It Is?" forum hosted by the Medical Policy Research Institute of the Korean Medical Association on the 25th at the Korean Medical Association Hall in Yongsan-gu, Seoul. Photo by Jo Inkyung.

The Korean Medical Association’s Medical Policy Research Institute held a healthcare policy forum on the 25th under the theme “Is the Regional Doctor System Alright as Is?” and shared on-the-ground concerns about the government’s phased expansion of medical school quotas and its plan to operate regional doctor admission tracks in non-Seoul areas.

Kim Changsu, Policy Director of the Korean Medical Association and professor in the Department of Preventive Medicine at Yonsei University College of Medicine, who delivered the keynote presentation, said, “Under the current Regional Doctor Act in Korea, doctors are required to serve a mandatory 10-year term, and if they fail to do so, their medical licenses are revoked and the financial support they received is clawed back,” adding, “This is the most rigid and harshly punitive system, imposing the strictest regulation at the institutional level.”

Kim went on to warn, “A bill that has lost flexibility and trust may appear to be successful in numerical terms, but in the end it will generate social costs in the form of doctors leaving and lawsuits.”

Referring to Taiwan’s failed “publicly funded doctor” case, he argued, “Taiwan limited the system to supplying personnel only to medically underserved and island regions, and adopted a principle of minimal intervention in order to secure public interest. The more coercive the system becomes, the more doctors will inevitably shun regional postings.” He continued, “The problem lies in trying to patch up systemic defects solely by injecting manpower,” stressing, “Over the remaining six years before the first regional doctors are produced, the top policy priority must be to reform the healthcare delivery system and make reimbursement fees more realistic.”

Kim Youil, professor at Chonnam National University and Director of Regional Healthcare Policy at the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences, cited the past example of public health doctors, explaining, “The appropriateness of placement has a decisive impact on satisfaction and clinical performance.” He suggested that the current placement system, which is centered on mid-level medical service regions, is already raising equity issues depending on the area and could cause future problems such as mismatches with medical specialties, and therefore should be expanded to broader medical service regions to secure flexibility.

Professor Kim also urged the government to prepare institutional measures such as raising the coinsurance rate for patients with mild conditions who use medical services in the Seoul metropolitan area, saying, “If we do not resolve the problem of patients flocking to the capital region, it will be pointless even if regional doctors, trained at great taxpayer expense, are deployed.”

The ensuing discussion was likewise filled with sharp criticism of the regional doctor system as a whole. Choi Anna, Director of Gangneung Medical Center, said, “It is contradictory to claim that mortality in regional healthcare is high and then say you will create regional doctors,” arguing, “Rather than regulating individual doctors, we need practical incentives such as criminal immunity for regional medical institutions and tax reductions.”

Director Choi asserted, “The regional doctor system will become a ‘massive failure’ that consumes enormous budgetary resources yet produces no results,” and warned, “The fiscal burden injected into this system will ultimately be borne by our citizens, especially the younger generations of the future.”

Jung Sungsoo, professor at Chungnam National University and vice president of the Korean Society of Medical Education, pointed out, “During the period of conflict between the government and the medical community, many medical students who had been admitted to regional medical schools chose to repeat the entrance exam either to transfer to a medical school in the Seoul metropolitan area or to escape the stigma of being from an expanded quota cohort. In the same way, students selected next year under the regional doctor system are highly likely to choose to retake the exam out of concern for the social stigma of being labeled ‘less competent,’” adding, “If the training environment is poor, an unfortunate cycle will repeat in which undertrained doctors leave regional areas as soon as their 10-year service obligation ends.”

Jang Woojin, a student (Class of 2024) at Kyung Hee University College of Medicine, said, “There are already concerns about discrimination between students admitted through the general track and those from the regional doctor track,” and reported, “Policies that force and pressure medical students to work in specific regions are, in fact, causing even those who had hoped to work in non-metropolitan areas to develop resentment.”

Ahn Deokseon, Director of the Medical Policy Research Institute, said, “As the regional doctor admission track is expanded in tandem with the announcement of increased medical school quotas, the government should be meticulously examining key issues such as on-site acceptability, potential infringement of basic rights, training conditions, and the capabilities of regional medical institutions, but government policy is fixated solely on numbers and is distorting the system,” emphasizing, “Rather than centralized control, a decentralized governance model in which local governments, regional medical institutions, and experts participate must take root if the regional doctor system is to survive.”

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.