Hurry to legislate telemedicine

Since the issue is directly related to public health rights, politicians must stop wrangling and come to a bipartisanship conducive to better public healthcare.

The trial telemedicine project has caused immediate confusion. When patients apply for consultation with doctors through apps on smartphones, half of them are denied or cancelled. For medical practitioners, it is not easy to confirm whether the applicant is a first-time patient or not.

After the Covid-19 emergency ended, the Ministry of Health and Welfare permitted telemedicine service for three months for those with prior in-person records, with exceptions made for minors and other individuals. If a medical institution accepts online consultations without checking whether the applicant has a prior record, it could invite disciplinary action. Medical service providers have to be cautious regardless of the three-month grace period.

There has been difficulty with exceptional cases, too. Minors are allowed to have non-contact consultations after business hours or weekends and holidays even if they are first-time patients. But prescriptions cannot be issued. But the favor is useless because there are few pediatrics that would treat patients remotely after business hours.

Telemedicine, which remained strictly prohibited due to strong opposition from the medical community, was allowed temporarily after the Covid-19 spread reached a serious level. Because of infection risks, patients were allowed to consult with doctors via phone or videoconference. During the three-year pandemic period, 14.19 million used telemedicine. On June 1, the Covid-19 level has been reduced to the “warning” level from the “serious” level. With the pandemic nearly over, non-contact medical treatment also lost legal grounds under the Infectious Disease Prevention Act.

The government added an exceptional clause to enable telemedicine service for three more months. It has accommodated the voices of differing stakeholders. But the ongoing confusion suggests that the move had been makeshift without thorough preparation. What is imperative is a system enabling medical institutions to check whether the applicant is a return or first-time patient. The system should have been readied before the trial period started on June 1. Patients cannot continue with the service because of the hassle of confirming past records.

The National Assembly must hurry discussions on legalizing non-contact medical service. Lawmakers from rival parties have each submitted a bill to allow doctors to diagnose and treat patients through telemedicine. But the discussions are stuck due to differences over the scope of allowing telemedicine.

A wise compromise of raising public access to medical service without increasing risks of accidents is needed. Policymakers and legislators must examine the problems during the trial period to expand telemedicine in a sensible way. Since the issue is directly related to public health rights, politicians must stop wrangling and come to a bipartisanship conducive to better public healthcare.