Stronger Oversight of Long-Term Treatment for Minor Injury Patients

Auto insurance has shifted toward more stringent management of treatment for minor injuries. In particular, patients with minor injuries classified as injury grades 12 to 14 must now undergo external review if they seek treatment beyond eight weeks, putting the brakes on the customary structure of continuing long-term treatment as a matter of routine.

This change is less about simply reducing some forms of care and more about controlling accumulated insurance payouts. For minor injury patients, it effectively blocks the broadly recognized payment of future treatment costs during settlement negotiations, with the aim of realigning actual medical necessity and the scope of compensation.

Effective Expansion of Review Coverage for Korean Medicine

The same trend appears even more clearly in the review of Korean medicine auto insurance claims. Standards that previously applied only to certain diagnoses have now been expanded to all sprains, strains, and superficial injuries, bringing more than 90% of claims for herbal decoctions and pharmacopuncture under the new review system.

This adjustment can be seen as an effort to correct the mismatch between the legal scope of minor injury patients and the actual scope of review in practice. By reducing the imbalance in which the intensity of review varied depending on the diagnosis even for injuries of similar severity, it reflects an intention to more closely manage areas with a high risk of overtreatment through institutional measures.

Industry Pushback and Policy Signals

Institutional pressure on the Korean medicine sector is continuing beyond tighter regulation. The Association of Korean Medicine Hospitals voiced opposition to Korean medicine hospitals being excluded from the list of businesses eligible for family business succession tax deductions, arguing that continuity in regional healthcare and the preservation of traditional medical assets should also be taken into account.

Ultimately, these articles show that the policy environment surrounding Korean medicine is tilting less toward expanded support and more toward demonstrating public value and controlling costs. As standards such as insurance fund management, institutional fairness, and the public interest of succession operate simultaneously, Korean medicine institutions are entering a phase in which they must explain more concretely both the necessity of treatment and their industrial role.