Since 2009, the National Health Insurance in Korea (NHI) has been implementing a series of policies to expand the scope of dental benefits. This study reviewed the changes in co-payments and dental use patterns before (2008 to 2012) and after (2013 to 2017) the NHI’s dental health insurance reform. The study used Korea Health Panel data of 7681 households (16,493 household members) from a 10-year period (2008–2017). Dental expenditures and equivalent income using square root of household size were analyzed. Dental services were categorized into 13 types and a concentration index and 95% confidence interval using the delta method was calculated to identify income-related inequalities by a dental service. Dental expenditures and the number of dental services used increased significantly, while the proportion of out-of-pocket spending by the elderly decreased. The expenditure ratio for implant services to total dental expenditures increased substantially in all age groups, but the ratio of expenditures for dentures and fixed bridges decreased relatively. The concentration index of implant services was basically in favor of the rich, but there was no longer a significant bias favoring the better-off after the reforms. The dental health insurance reform in Korea appears to contribute not only to lowering the ratio of out-of-pocket to total dental expenses per episode in the elderly but also to improving the inequality of dental expenses.

This study analyzed patient preferences using travel time from residence to dental institution when selecting dental care services. We used data from the Korean Health Panel from 2008 to 2017 and analyzed each dental service episode. Since the distribution of travel time was skewed to the left, median travel time was analyzed. The association of travel time with services was analyzed via the population-averaged generalized estimating equation (GEE) with the Poisson family. The median of the average travel time per episode was longer for non-National Health Insurance (NHI)-covered services and shorter for NHI-covered services. The first quintile of low-income subjects traveled the longest for all services and utilized dental care the most. In the GEE analysis, travel time was approximately three times longer for implant treatment and gold inlay/resin fillings and >2 times longer for orthodontic care than for NHI-covered services. Patients residing in rural counties traveled for longer than residents of large cities. Income was statistically significant; however, the coefficient was close to zero. Travel time was related to the type of service and reflected patient preference. This was more prominent for expensive non-NHI-covered services than for NHI-covered services. The findings suggest patients’ subjective preferences for dental clinic selection are expressed as rational deliberation considering each individual’s situation.

Background: This study aimed to investigate the effects of orthodontic treatment on cumulative out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures for up to 8 years and the factors contributing to changes in individual OOP dental expenses.Methods: The data of adults aged ≥19 years, 218 with experience of orthodontic treatment (OT group) and 654 without experience of orthodontic treatment (non-OT group) were extracted from the Korea Health Panel Survey between 2009 and 2017 using the propensity score matching method. The total personal OOP expenditure for dental care incurred after orthodontic treatment in the OT group and that incurred in the matched non-OT group were calculated. Since dependent variables, cumulative dental expenditures, were continuous with excess zeros, Tweedie compound Poisson linear models were used to explore the influence of orthodontic treatment experience and demographic and socioeconomic factors, including private insurance, on per capita OOP dental expenditures.Results: The OT group had socioeconomic characteristics distinct from those of general dental patients. The Box–Cox transformed per capita OOP expenditures for dental care in the OT group were lower than those in the non-OT group (P< 0.05). When all covariates were held constant, the non-OT group spent 1.4-times more on OOP dental expenditures, but this was not statistically significant (P> 0.1). The data from those with higher incomes revealed the opposite trend (P< 0.05), while the other covariates were not statistically significant.Conclusions: Orthodontic treatment had no positive or negative effect on future oral care use. This finding is similar to the inconsistent results of previous clinical studies on oral health and orthodontic treatment.