9 research outputs found

    (The) analysis of the factors affecting re-delinquency after deficit disposal in low-income populations : focus on the households having tem

    No full text
    ๋ณด๊ฑด์ •์ฑ…๊ด€๋ฆฌํ•™๊ณผ/์„์‚ฌ[ํ•œ๊ธ€] ์ธ๊ตฌ๊ณ ๋ นํ™”๊ฐ€ ๋น ๋ฅด๊ฒŒ ์ง„ํ–‰๋˜๊ณ  ์žˆ๋Š” ์šฐ๋ฆฌ์‚ฌํšŒ๋Š” ์˜๋ฃŒ๋น„์ง€์ถœ๊ธ‰์ฆ์— ๋”ฐ๋ฅธ โ€˜๊ฑด๊ฐ•๋ณดํ—˜ ์žฌ์ •์•ˆ์ •ํ™”โ€™์™€ โ€˜์ €์†Œ๋“์ทจ์•ฝ๊ณ„์ธต์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์˜๋ฃŒ๋ณด์žฅ ๊ฐ•ํ™”โ€™๋ผ๋Š” ์ •์ฑ…๋”œ๋ ˆ๋งˆ์— ๋น ์ ธ์žˆ๋‹ค. ์ด๋ฅผ ํ•ด์†Œํ•˜๊ณ ์ž, ์ €์†Œ๋“์ทจ์•ฝ๊ณ„์ธต์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ๊ฑด๊ฐ•๋ณดํ—˜๋ฃŒ ์ง€์›์‚ฌ์—…์ด ์ถ”์ง„๋˜๊ณ  ์žˆ์ง€๋งŒ, ๋ณดํ—˜๋ฃŒ๋ฅผ ๊ฐ•์ œ์ง•์ˆ˜ํ•  ์—ฌ์ง€๊ฐ€ ์—†๊ณ , ์ฒด๋‚ฉ์— ๋”ฐ๋ฅธ ๊ธ‰์—ฌ์ œํ•œ์กฐ์ฐจ ์–ด๋ ค์šด ์ €์†Œ๋“์ทจ์•ฝ๊ณ„์ธต์— ๋Œ€ํ•˜์—ฌ๋Š” ๋ณด๋‹ค ์‹คํšจ์„ฑ์žˆ๋Š” ์ง€์›๋ฐฉ์•ˆ์ด ๋งˆ๋ จ๋˜์–ด์•ผ ํ•œ๋‹ค. ์ด ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” 2005๋…„ ํ•œ์‹œ์  ๋ณดํ—˜๋ฃŒ์ง€์›์„ธ๋Œ€์ธ ์ €์†Œ๋“์ทจ์•ฝ๊ณ„์ธต์ง€์—ญ์ฒด๋‚ฉ์„ธ๋Œ€๋ฅผ ์ค‘์‹ฌ์œผ๋กœ ๊ฑด๊ฐ•๋ณดํ—˜๋ฃŒ ๊ฒฐ์† ํ›„ ์žฌ์ฒด๋‚ฉ์— ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ๋ฏธ์น˜๋Š” ๊ด€๋ จ์š”์ธ์„ ๋ถ„์„ํ•˜๊ณ , ์ €์†Œ๋“์ทจ์•ฝ๊ณ„์ธต์˜ ์ฒด๋‚ฉ๋ฐฉ์ง€ ๋ฐ ์ง€์›๋ฐฉ์•ˆ์„ ์ œ์‹œํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•œ ๊ฒƒ์ด๋‹ค. ์ €์†Œ๋“์ทจ์•ฝ๊ณ„์ธต์ง€์—ญ์ฒด๋‚ฉ์„ธ๋Œ€์ค‘ ๊ฑด๊ฐ•๋ณดํ—˜๋ฃŒ ๊ฒฐ์†ํ›„ 1๋…„๋™์•ˆ ์ง€์—ญ์ž๊ฒฉ์„ ์œ ์ง€ํ•œ ์ „์ฒด์„ธ๋Œ€(539,405์„ธ๋Œ€)๋ฅผ ๋Œ€์ƒ์œผ๋กœ,๊ฒฐ์† ํ›„ 1๋…„๋™์•ˆ ์žฌ์ฒด๋‚ฉ์—ฌ๋ถ€ ๋ฐ ์žฌ์ฒด๋‚ฉ๊ธฐ๊ฐ„์— ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ๋ฏธ์น˜๋Š” ์š”์ธ๋“ค์„ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋ถ„์„ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ด๋ฅผ ์œ„ํ•ด ๊ด€๋ จ๋ฌธํ—Œ๊ณ ์ฐฐ์„ ํ†ตํ•ด ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๊ฐ€์„ค์„ ์„ธ์šฐ๊ณ , ์ด์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ํ†ต๊ณ„์  ๊ฒ€์ •์„ ๋กœ์ง€์Šคํ‹ฑ ํšŒ๊ท€๋ถ„์„๊ณผ ์ฝ•์Šค์˜ ์ƒ์กด๋ถ„์„์„ ํ†ตํ•ด ์‹ค์‹œํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๊ฑด๊ฐ•๋ณดํ—˜๋ฃŒ ๊ฒฐ์† ํ›„ ์žฌ์ฒด๋‚ฉ์— ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ๋ฏธ์น˜๋Š” ์š”์ธ์˜ ํŠน์„ฑ์€ ์‚ฌํšŒ๊ฒฝ์ œ์  ํŠน์„ฑ๊ณผ ์˜๋ฃŒ์ด์šฉ ํ•„์š”๋„ ์ธก๋ฉด์—์„œ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋ถ„์„ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๊ทธ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ, ์‚ฌํšŒ๊ฒฝ์ œ์  ํŠน์„ฑ์š”์ธ์—์„œ๋Š” ์„ธ๋Œ€์ฃผ๊ฐ€ ์—ฌ์„ฑ, ์„ธ๋Œ€์ฃผ ์—ฐ๋ น์ด ๋งŽ์„์ˆ˜๋ก, ์ค‘์†Œ๋„์‹œ์— ๊ฑฐ์ฃผํ•˜๊ณ , ์›” ๋ณดํ—˜๋ฃŒ๊ฐ€ ๋†’์„์ˆ˜๋ก, ์ž๋™์ฐจ ๋ณด์œ ์„ธ๋Œ€์ธ ๊ฒฝ์šฐ, ๋ณดํ—˜๋ฃŒ ๊ฒฝ๊ฐ์ ์šฉ ์„ธ๋Œ€์ธ ๊ฒฝ์šฐ, ๊ฒฐ์† ์ „ ์ฒด๋‚ฉ๊ธฐ๊ฐ„์ด ์งง์„์ˆ˜๋ก, ๋ณดํ—˜๋ฃŒ ๊ฒฐ์†๊ฒฝํ—˜์ด ์ ์„์ˆ˜๋ก, ๋ณดํ—˜๋ฃŒ์ž๋™์ด์ฒด๋‚ฉ๋ถ€์„ธ๋Œ€์ผ์ˆ˜๋ก ํ•œ์‹œ์  ๊ฑด๊ฐ•๋ณดํ—˜๋ฃŒ ๊ฒฐ์† ํ›„ ์žฌ์ฒด๋‚ฉ ๊ฐ€๋Šฅ์„ฑ์ด ํ†ต๊ณ„์ ์œผ๋กœ ์œ ์˜ํ•˜๊ฒŒ ๋‚ฎ์•˜๋‹ค. ์˜๋ฃŒ์ด์šฉ ํ•„์š”๋„ ํŠน์„ฑ์š”์ธ์œผ๋กœ๋Š” ์„ธ๋Œ€์› ์ˆ˜๊ฐ€ ๋งŽ์„์ˆ˜๋ก, ์žฅ์• ์ธ์ด ์žˆ๋Š” ์„ธ๋Œ€๊ฐ€, ๋งŒ์„ฑํฌ๊ท€๋‚œ์น˜์„ฑ ์งˆํ™˜์ž๊ฐ€ ์žˆ๋Š” ์„ธ๋Œ€๊ฐ€, 9์„ธ์ดํ•˜ ์•„๋™์ด๋‚˜ 65์„ธ์ด์ƒ ๋…ธ์ธ์ด ์žˆ๋Š” ์„ธ๋Œ€๊ฐ€, ๊ฒฐ์† ํ›„ 1๋…„๊ฐ„ ์ด ์ง„๋ฃŒ๋น„๊ฐ€ ๋งŽ์„์ˆ˜๋ก ํ†ต๊ณ„์ ์œผ๋กœ ์œ ์˜ํ•˜๊ฒŒ ๊ฒฐ์† ํ›„ ์žฌ์ฒด๋‚ฉ ๊ฐ€๋Šฅ์„ฑ์ด ๋‚ฎ์•˜๋‹ค. ๋์œผ๋กœ, โ€˜2005๋…„ ํ•œ์‹œ์  ๋ณดํ—˜๋ฃŒ ์ง€์›์‚ฌ์—…โ€™์˜ ์‹คํšจ์„ฑ์€ ๊ฒฐ์† ํ›„ 1๋…„์ด ๊ฒฝ๊ณผํ•œ ์‹œ์ ์—์„œ ์ž๊ฒฉ์œ ์ง€์„ธ๋Œ€์˜ 13.3%๋งŒ์ด ์„ฑ์‹ค๋‚ฉ๋ถ€์„ธ๋Œ€๋กœ ์œ ์ง€๋œ ๊ฒƒ์„ ๊ณ ๋ คํ•  ๋•Œ, ๋‚˜๋จธ์ง€ 86.7%์˜ ์ €์†Œ๋“์ทจ์•ฝ๊ณ„์ธต ์ง€์—ญ์ฒด๋‚ฉ์„ธ๋Œ€์— ๋Œ€ํ•˜์—ฌ๋Š” ๋ณด๋‹ค ์‹คํšจ์„ฑ์žˆ๋Š” ์ •์ฑ…์ด ํ•„์š”ํ•˜๋‹ค๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์„ ํ™•์ธํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ์—ˆ๋‹ค. [์˜๋ฌธ] Background: The fast-growing ageing population has become a dilemma for the policies that pursue of stabilizing health insurance financing and of fortifying medical care for the low-income populations. As the controversy of the effectiveness of โ€˜temporal health insurance-contribution-support for the low-income population in 2005โ€™ prevailed, the investigation of the factors associated with re-delinquency after deficit disposal are required for the sound management of the health insurance finance for future. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to 1) examine factors affecting re-delinquency after deficit disposal of the household that had โ€˜temporal health insurance contribution support in 2005โ€™ and 2) provide the strategies to prevent delinquency in payments in this segment of population. Main contents: To analyze the factors affecting re-delinquency and the period of time of being re-delinquent, 539,405 low-income households that maintained the status of the self-employed insured for one-year after deficitwere examined. Logistic regression and Cox survival analysis were conducted to analyze the data. Results: Two perspectives of factors, socio-economic characteristics and the necessity of the health care services were examined. In result, the re-delinquency rate was much lower in case that the householder waswoman and older, resided in small town, owned vehicle, and were applied contribution reduction. Further the householdhad shorter period of time of being re-delinquent and little chance of deficit disposal, and set the automatic bank transfer to pay the health insurance contribution. From the perspective of the necessity of health care services, the re-delinquency rate was much lower in case of the household with more family members, with the disabled, with the chronic intractable disease, with family members who were younger than 9 years old or older than 65 years old. Finally, the effectiveness of the โ€˜temporal health insurance contribution support in 2005โ€™ seems not to be very successful because only 13.3% of low-income households that maintained the status of the self-employed insured for one-year after deficit disposal turned out to be good payers. Thus, other strategies need to be made and applied to the remaining 86.7% low-income households.ope
    corecore