[Contribution] Non-face-to-face medical treatment is fully permitted, a ‘legal pitfall’ that medical staff must be aware of

Non-face-to-face medical treatment is no longer an optional service, but is becoming a factor directly related to the competitiveness of medical institutions. Patients with chronic diseases, returning patients, patients with difficulty moving around, and office workers already consider the possibility of treatment and prescriptions without visiting the hospital as an important selection criterion. In a situation where competing medical institutions within the same treatment area have a non-face-to-face visit management system, if they do not operate it, patient withdrawal is inevitable. In particular, in the management of chronic diseases such as high blood pressure and diabetes, explanation of test results, and confirmation of postoperative progress, non-face-to-face treatment serves as an effective means of simultaneously increasing treatment efficiency and patient retention rate.

Non-face-to-face medical treatment is ‘conditionally institutionalized’ rather than fully permitted… Risk of expansion into criminal and administrative issues

Through the revision of the Medical Service Act in December 2025, non-face-to-face medical treatment was incorporated into a permanent system, but at the same time, strong restrictions and conditions were set. The current system still maintains the basic structure of focusing on clinic-level treatment, focusing on returning patients, and prohibiting institutions dedicated to non-face-to-face treatment, while still maintaining the principle of face-to-face treatment. In particular, it is permitted mainly for patients who have received face-to-face treatment for the same symptoms at the same medical institution within a certain period of time, but in other cases, the region and scope of prescription may be limited. Hospital-level or higher medical institutions are also not able to freely provide non-face-to-face treatment to all patients, but are only permitted in cases where there are certain exceptions, such as patients with rare diseases or patients undergoing follow-up after surgery. In addition, non-face-to-face prescriptions are restricted for medicines with a risk of abuse, such as narcotics, and if patient information is insufficient, the number of days prescribed or the type of medicine may be further restricted. Ultimately, it is reasonable to understand this revision as legislation that both allows and strengthens control.

Non-face-to-face medical treatment takes place in an environment where examination and palpation are impossible and the patient has no choice but to rely on his or her statements. Nevertheless, the law does not lower the medical staff's duty of care. In other words, a structure is formed that assumes the same level of responsibility as face-to-face treatment while making decisions based on limited information. Therefore, in future disputes, not only the simple treatment results but also 'why non-face-to-face treatment was chosen in that situation' becomes a key issue. For example, if the patient does not switch to face-to-face treatment despite symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, acute pain, or neurological abnormalities, the decision itself may be assessed as negligence. Ultimately, in non-face-to-face medical treatment, it is important to review the need to switch to face-to-face treatment along with medical treatment and to clearly state the basis for that decision. The process of not only accepting the patient's statement as is, but also excluding red flags through additional interviews, becomes the core of legal defense.

The most frequent problem area in non-face-to-face treatment is prescriptions. If repeated prescriptions are made at the patient's request or drugs are prescribed without sufficient confirmation, this may be evaluated as a violation of medical law beyond simple negligence. In particular, in cases involving narcotics or medicines that may be misused, it may be judged as an immoral medical practice, which may lead to license suspension, and if an insurance claim is combined, this may be expanded to criminal liability. Moreover, if a medical record is created or a claim is made even though an actual examination has not occurred, the risk increases even further.

Many of the disputes that arise in practice arise from the good intentions of medical staff. This includes cases where a patient's request is accepted, ‘Please prescribe the same medicine as I have always taken it,’ or a simple non-face-to-face prescription is given for symptoms that appear to be mild. However, if the patient's condition is not sufficiently confirmed during this process, if a problem arises later, the key issue becomes 'whether the examination was sufficient' rather than the appropriateness of the prescription. In particular, in cases where a serious illness is mistaken for a mild illness, the lack of judgment in switching to face-to-face treatment may be assessed as direct negligence.

Responsibility lies with the medical staff... The key is whether it is ‘defensible medical treatment’ or not.

Non-face-to-face medical treatment is platform-based, but legal responsibility is not distributed. Even if an error in transmitting patient information or a system failure occurs, the final medical decision is made by the medical staff. For example, in cases where identity verification is unclear, when it is difficult to determine the condition only through explanations on behalf of a guardian, when it is difficult to determine through audio alone without video, or when the interview is cut off due to a connection error, it is advisable to establish standards to guide in-person visits or emergency room visits rather than continuing treatment.

Many medical staff tend to perceive the risk of non-face-to-face medical treatment as a simple medical accident problem, but in reality, administrative and criminal risks often materialize faster than civil risks. A patient's civil lawsuit takes time depending on the proof of causality, but administrative investigations, local confirmation, and review of nursing care benefits can be carried out much more quickly. If a claim is made without meeting the requirements for non-face-to-face treatment, it may be evaluated as an unfair claim and may lead to not only recovery, but also business suspension or fines. In particular, if the prescription itself is illegal, even drug costs may be subject to reimbursement, which places a significant burden on medical institutions.

In the end, the important thing is not ‘let’s not do it because it’s dangerous,’ but ‘let’s create and operate a structure that can control legal risks.’ It is clear that non-face-to-face treatment needs to be introduced for management reasons, but the premise is to establish safe operating standards. Therefore, the question medical staff must ask themselves in the era of non-face-to-face medical treatment is simple. It is not a question of ‘Can I provide this treatment?’ but ‘Can I legally explain and defend myself when I provide this treatment?’ Under this standard, the entire process of non-face-to-face treatment must be redesigned, from subjects, questionnaires, prescriptions, records, claims, and platform utilization. Non-face-to-face medical treatment is an unavoidable trend, but we must keep in mind that unprepared introduction can always lead to the most dangerous legal trap for medical staff.

|Contribution| Attorney Soyoung Yoon, Daeryun Law Firm

[View full article]
[Contribution] Fully allowing non-face-to-face treatment, 'legal pitfalls' that medical staff must be aware of (link)