J Korean Med Assoc.
2011 Mar;54(3):240-242.
Re-evaluation by the Korean Government is urgent 10 years after the introduction of a policy that separates the prescription and dispensing of pharmaceuticals
- Affiliations
-
- 1Chairperson, Committee on the re-evaluation of the separation of prescribing and dispensing, Korean Medical Association, Seoul, Korea. yck0668@hanmail.net
Abstract
- The separation of pharmaceutical prescription and dispensing has been mandatory in Korea since July 1, 2000. This policy aimed to reduce drug abuse, prevent the distribution of drugs without a prescription, decrease medical costs and insurance premiums, and provide high-quality health-care services. However, the policy was launched without careful consideration of actual benefits to patients or the resulting national financial burden, and its initial aims remain unfulfilled. Koreans have complained that the policy is inconvenient; a 2008 survey revealed that 87% of people would prefer to have their medications dispensed at medical institutes, rather than at pharmacies. People wish to select a convenient dispensing site; the current policy particularly inconveniences disabled and elderly individuals. From 2000 to 2009, dispensing fees totaled 18,432.4 billion Korean won (16.4 billion US dollar), comprising 27% of all pharmaceutical costs. These fees have contributed to the accelerated rise in national health-care expenses (the most rapid in the world) and to the 2.2-fold increase in insurance-premium payments in 2009, in contrast to those in 2000. Pharmaceuticals continue to be dispensed without a physician's prescription and antibiotic abuse has not been controlled. The increasingly prevalent occurrence of multi-drug resistant bacteria constitutes a serious social problem. The Korean government should recognize the difficulties posed by the financial burden of this policy and its failure to achieve a separation between pharmaceutical prescription and dispensing. To improve this policy, we urge the government to undertake a fair and scientific re-evaluation, despite objections by interest groups to such actions.