A bilingual systematic review of South Korean medical tourism: a need to rethink policy and priorities for public health?

Abstract

Background In 2016, the “Act on Support for Overseas Expansion of Healthcare System and Attraction of International Patients” was enacted by the South Korean government in an attempt to accelerate growth of its medical tourism industry. However, only a few years after its implementation, the benefits are not well understood, nor have the positive or negative impacts of expanding Korea’s medical tourism sector been properly evaluated. Objective We aimed to systematically review and summarize existing literature describing South Korea’s medical tourism policy and legislative history, while also assessing the impact of this domestic policy approach on the country’s public health systems. Methods A bilingual systematic literature review was conducted per PRISMA guidelines for all South Korean medical tourism legislative and policy literature using MeSH terms and other related keywords in two academic databases, PubMed and JSTOR. Published studies were included if they directly addressed South Korean medical tourism policy. To supplement results from the peer-review, the grey literature was also searched using Google search engine for relevant policy documents, information from government websites, and national statistics on medical tourism-related data. Results This review included 14 peer-reviewed journal articles and 9 websites. The majority of literature focused on the legislative history of South Korea’s pro-medical tourism policy, economic considerations associated with industry growth, and the specific experiences of medical tourists. There was a lack of studies, analytical or commentary-based, conducting in-depth analysis of the healthcare impact of these policies or comparing benefits and costs compared to other medical tourism destinations. Proponents of medical tourism continue to advocate the government for increased deregulation and investment in the sector. Conclusion This systematic review suggests that policy decisions may prioritize economic growth offered by medical tourism over negative effects on the healthcare workforce, access and equity, and its potential to undermine Universal Health Coverage. South Korea continues to examine ways to further amend the Act and grow this sector, but these actions should be taken with caution by critically examining how other countries have adapted their policymaking based on the real-world costs associated with medical tourism.

A Hybrid Model for Assessing the Performance of Medical Tourism: Integration of Bayesian BWM and Grey PROMETHEE-AL

“…MT is a forward-looking industry that combines high-quality medical services with tourism and has recently received increasing attention [15]. is study establishes the criteria for evaluating sustainable MT based on relevant academic literature on MT [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] and discussion with experts in the tourism and hospitality industries to assess the critical success factors of MT. After several rounds of discussions with the experts, we finally selected 17 criteria that are most relevant to Taiwan's MT.…”

“…Millions of travelers worldwide travel for medical purposes each year, and their primary motivations can be broadly categorized as seeking better quality care, lower cost of services, and faster access to medical services, all of which are influenced by macro policy issues [23]. D 3 includes C 31 , C 32 , C 33 , C 34 , and C 35 .…”

“…D 3 includes C 31 , C 32 , C 33 , C 34 , and C 35 . When travelers benefit from better private medical services and the most advanced medical devices, it may lead to a double standard in the health care system, thus making better medical services available to travelers with better affordability and creating health disparities [23]. C 31 suggests that the government should pay more attention to the trade-off between its policies and the health of its citizens in the development of MT policies.…”

“…C 32 refers to the goal of making NHI and malpractice insurance available to the entire population. C 33 refers to the priority given to hospitals to provide better services to visitors who can bring more benefits to the hospital and who pay through non-NHI funds, i.e., nonnational visitors pay their fees [23]. C 34 refers to the understanding of the impact of hospitality on medical tourists [25], where the hotel has the advantage of providing services that are tailored to the needs of tourists, and if tourists give higher ratings, there is a good chance that the industry will attract investors.…”

Lessons from COVID-19's impact on medical tourism in Cambodia

“…The host countries consider medical tourism as a source of economic profits [ 1 ]. Previous research in Korea, a patient-accepting country, concluded that the benefits of medical tourism outweigh the negative impacts of universal health coverage and the constriction of medical supply [ 2 ]. Moreover, medical tourism might be a powerful tool for reducing inequalities in healthcare worldwide [ 3 ].…”