Abstract
Objectives : The recognition rate for issues and improving resolution for the recuperation income expense claim policy was examined. Methods : 1,135 copies of survey have been sent to the group of people who have claimed the dental recuperation income expense to dental recuperation institutions in Daejeon, Chungcheong Do that are registered to the health insurance evaluation and estimation office as of the May 2010 and 207 surveys that were regarded to be sincere for answering were analyzed. Results : Majority of respondence were belonged to the dentist institutions with more than 5 years of claim experiences as well as 10~50% of claim rate. The recognition of medical fee evaluation guideline was normal level, and negative recognition was higher to the health center with daily charge policy compare to the dental hospital and university affiliated dental center with treatment charge policy, Highest opinion for inappropriateness of dentist with significance was found (p<0.05). The openness of evaluation cases are regarded to be discharged through the transparent evaluation and most of the opinions for insurance claim evaluation adjustment are within the both 'Do not understand the evaluation guideline and program error of disease category, code and program' with significance(p<0.05). The reaction after the evaluation adjustment was high in reflection on the claim process after examining the reason for the evaluation adjustment through the evaluation and estimation office and university affiliated dental institution and dental center was regarded to be most active and deputy reclaimment was seemed to be most actively discharge the objection registration task (p<0.05). The claim error improving resolution recognition was highly prioritized to the accurate charting for the disease title and treatment description, improving the setting of claim program, and most highly recognized by the university affiliated dental hospital/dental center and comparably low by health center(p<0.05). and although the most of the responds of treatment description and browsing the medical fee was positive, 50% of dentists disagreed the idea so that this was creating a significant discrepancy with other groups(p<0.05). Conclusions : From this research, the recognition of medical fee evaluation guideline for dental (university) hospital and dentists were negative and high adjustment experience was examined as lacking of evaluation guideline understanding and error of disease name, code and programs and deputy reclaimment, university affiliated dental hospital/dental center were most actively handle the objection registration tasks and dentists have objection on the treatment description and browsing the treatment fee so that if these indexes can be referred to implement into the recuperation income claim process, this can be regarded to be a opportunity to create mutual credibility between recuperation institution, treatment pensioner and the evaluation institutions.
