[메디게이트뉴스 하경대 기자] The National Assembly’s Health and Welfare Committee presented a legislative interpretation of the so-called ‘Medical Industry Collective Action Prevention Act (Essential Medical Vacuum Prevention Act)’ proposed by Representative Lee Su-jin of the Democratic Party of Korea to the effect that “it may only give the medical community a justification for collective action.”
The amendment to the Medical Service Act proposed by Rep. Lee Soo-jin on the 2nd of last month requires the Minister of Health and Welfare to set standards for maintaining essential medical services by collecting opinions from medical professional groups, medical institution groups, and patient groups. Accordingly, group action can be carried out while maintaining and operating essential medical services.
Violation of this will result in imprisonment of up to 3 years or a fine of up to 30 million won.
Regarding the bill, Lee Ji-min, a senior expert member of the National Assembly Health and Welfare Committee, said at the general meeting of the National Assembly Welfare Committee on the 12th, “It defines essential medical services and ensures that they are maintained even in the event of collective action by medical professional groups.” He added, “It is reasonable in that the current business start order restricts basic rights and does not actually guarantee the return of medical personnel to the field in the event of collective action by doctors.”
Expert Lee emphasized, “In addition, the legislative purpose of the amendment to promote a balance between collective action in the medical community and the lives and health of the people by borrowing the concept of essential maintenance work during labor union disputes is valid.”
However, he pointed out, “Unlike the Trade Union Act, which stipulates the purpose and procedures of legitimate industrial action, civil and criminal immunity provisions, etc., there are no special provisions for collective action of medical professionals themselves. If only essential maintenance medical activities are maintained, there is a concern that it may be interpreted as allowing collective action regardless of purpose.”
In addition, it was said, “It is necessary to consider that there is no procedure to check whether the work plan notified by medical professional organizations meets the maintenance standards.”
Meanwhile, the Welfare Committee also presented a conservative interpretation of the bill proposing mandatory prescription of ingredient names proposed by Democratic Party lawmaker Jang Jong-tae, saying, “We need to look into whether the punishment is excessive.”
Previously, Rep. Jang Jong-tae, through amendments to the Medical Service Act and the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, made it mandatory to prescribe the ingredient names of medicines with unstable supply and demand, and even created a punishment provision so that violations of this rule could result in imprisonment of up to one year or a fine of up to 10 million won.
Expert Lee Ji-min said, “There is a valid aspect to the fact that prescriptions with ingredient names can contribute to stabilizing the supply and demand of medicines. However, since prescriptions with ingredient names in the revised bill are not substitute dispensing, it must be taken into consideration that there is no prior consent or post-notification procedure for the prescribing doctor or dentist.”
He added, “We must also consider the fact that there are differences of opinion on the equivalence of the efficacy of drugs with the same ingredients,” and added, “There is a need to look into whether criminal punishment for violations of administrative order is excessive.”
