Manual Therapy Reform: The 40,000 Won Treatment Fee Ignites a Fierce Standoff Between Medical Community and Insurers

As reported by Maekyung, significant changes to the manual therapy system are anticipated starting July 1, 2026, bringing the long-standing conflict between the medical community and insurance companies back to the forefront. This reform, symbolized by the approximately 40,000 KRW treatment fee, transcends mere price adjustment, revealing a complex structural issue intertwined with the appropriateness of medical services, the soundness of insurance finances, and patient accessibility. It stands as a stark illustration of the fundamental dilemmas facing the South Korean healthcare system.

The Impending Shift: Background and Repercussions of Manual Therapy Reform

As reported by Maekyung, new regulations concerning manual therapy are set to take effect from July 1, 2026. This goes beyond a simple adjustment of the approximately 40,000 KRW treatment fee. Manual therapy has become a highly utilized non-covered medical service and a significant revenue stream for many medical institutions. Particularly, it has gained prominence as a non-surgical alternative for chronic pain patients, with demand steadily increasing. Against this backdrop, from the insurers' perspective, these changes are interpreted as a move to secure financial stability by reducing excessive treatments and unnecessary insurance payouts. Conversely, the medical community expresses concern that this reform could infringe upon clinical autonomy and hinder patient access to treatment.

A Fierce Standoff: Divergent Views of the Medical Community and Insurers

Medical Community's Concerns: Deterioration of Profitability and Treatment Contraction

The medical community argues that this reform undermines the intrinsic value of manual therapy, leading to a decline in profitability for medical institutions and ultimately compromising the quality of services provided to patients. They assert that manual therapy requires professional judgment and skilled techniques from physicians and should not be approached with a simplistic cost-cutting logic. They particularly emphasize that uniform restrictions on treatment frequency or duration are mere theoretical discussions that fail to consider individual patient conditions, ultimately exacerbating patient suffering.

Insurers' Rationale: Preventing Over-treatment and Ensuring Financial Soundness

Conversely, insurance companies point to severe leakage of insurance funds due to some medical institutions excessively recommending and prolonging manual therapy unnecessarily. Their argument is that this leads to premium increases for honest policyholders, threatening the sustainability of the insurance system. Insurers maintain that this reform aims to prevent such moral hazard and alleviate pressure for premium increases, thereby benefiting all policyholders in the long run. They explain that the goal is to filter out over-treatment and ensure appropriate treatment is provided only to patients who need it, through the establishment of data-driven, rational standards.

Impact on Patients and the Market: The Dilemma of Access and Cost

The reform will directly affect patients. It could manifest in various forms, such as limits on treatment frequency, increased out-of-pocket expenses, or insurance coverage only under specific conditions. This could hinder patients' access to manual therapy and increase the burden of non-covered medical expenses. Particularly for economically vulnerable groups, the possibility of being unable to receive necessary treatment cannot be ruled out. In the long term, it may lead to structural changes in the manual therapy market, potentially causing financial difficulties for some medical institutions, which could, in turn, trigger a complex chain reaction leading to a contraction in medical service supply.

Seeking Structural Solutions: Towards a Sustainable Healthcare System

This controversy surrounding manual therapy reform highlights a structural challenge facing the Korean healthcare system: the arduous process of finding a balance between the public good of medical services and market efficiency. Fundamental resolution is difficult through mere regulatory tightening or fee adjustments. It is crucial to establish reasonable standards and a transparent system through in-depth discussions involving the medical community, insurers, the government, and patients. This approach should prioritize the long-term soundness of the healthcare system and patient welfare over short-term cost savings. Explore the detailed analysis of macro indicators, gold, silver, cryptocurrencies, and more through Market Insight on FireMarkets, and leverage the on-chain fundamental analysis to forecast market trends and optimize your investment decisions.