Medical crisis driving Korean doctors to foreign countries

Graphic by Seulhae Yoon

Since early 2024, South Korea has been going through a medical crisis following the government’s announcement to reduce the difficulty for students gaining acceptance to medical schools. This announcement led to intern doctors resigning en masse and protesting against the government’s decision. The situation was exacerbated by growing complaints, not only from doctors but also from citizens.

Korean medical schools are known for their notoriously low acceptance rates, which continue to decline. The Seoul National University Medical School, one of South Korea’s most prestigious institutions, recorded a 2.9 percent acceptance rate in 2023, dropping to 2.3 percent in 2024 for students taking the Korean SAT. These statistics illustrate how competitive medical school admissions have historically been, reinforcing the profession’s exclusivity.

On Feb. 6, 2024, the Korean Minister of Health and Welfare introduced a new essential medical package. This package included a plan to expand quotas for medical schools by 67 percent, addressing concerns over an anticipated shortage of around 10,000 doctors by 2035. The government also emphasized the rapid aging of the population, which would intensify the demand for healthcare professionals. The government argued that failing to address these issues would result in a dire healthcare system unable to meet future needs.

Historically, the number of students accepted into Korea’s 40 medical schools had remained static, at 3,058 annually, since 2006. Multiple government attempts to increase this quota—including a proposal to raise the number of admitted students by 400 each year—were met with collective resistance from medical professionals. Consequently, the 2024 decision to expand quotas represented the first significant breakthrough, albeit one fraught with controversy. While some doctors shared the government’s concerns about the future doctor shortage, they were largely opposed to the sudden and significant increase in quotas.

The new policy also had unintended consequences. A survey revealed that 80.5 percent of Korean doctors and residents resigned from their positions, leading to critical shortages in several medical specialties. Citizens requiring urgent care found it increasingly difficult to access necessary treatments. The Ministry of Health and Welfare issued warnings to protesting doctors, threatening a minimum three-month suspension of medical licenses for those who refused to return to work. Despite these warnings, many doctors continued their protests, arguing that the policy would disproportionately affect rural and non-metropolitan areas, where the healthcare system was already under strain.

One major concern among medical professionals was the potential imbalance in the geographic distribution of new students. Critics argued that most applicants would prefer universities in metropolitan areas, exacerbating the disparity in healthcare resources between urban and rural regions. Doctors also expressed fears that the sudden influx of medical students would strain already limited educational resources, diluting the quality of medical training and ultimately weakening the system.

Anti-government protests erupted across South Korea, with participants criticizing not just the medical school policy but also broader governmental inefficiencies. Citizens voiced frustrations over the lack of consultation with medical professionals before implementing such a significant policy change. Public opinion polls indicated that a majority of Koreans sympathized with the doctors, agreeing that while an increase in medical professionals was necessary, the abrupt nature of the change was problematic.

As the crisis unfolded, international observers noted parallels with similar healthcare challenges in other countries. The South Korean government faced increasing pressure to mediate between the protesting doctors and the broader public interest. In response, officials announced plans to establish a task force to address concerns about training capacity, regional disparities, and the implementation timeline for the new policy. However, these efforts did little to quell the immediate tensions.

By mid-2024, the standoff between the government and medical professionals showed few signs of resolution. Reports of patients facing delayed or inadequate care became more frequent, further straining public trust in the healthcare system. The crisis underscored the complexities of balancing long-term healthcare planning with the immediate realities of public sentiment and professional resistance.

South Korea’s medical crisis highlights the challenges of enacting reforms in a deeply entrenched system. While the government’s efforts to address a looming doctor shortage are well-intentioned, the backlash from the medical community and broader societal implications demonstrate the need for more inclusive policymaking. Moving forward, effective dialogue and collaboration between stakeholders will be essential to ensure that the healthcare system can meet the demands of a rapidly aging population without compromising quality or equity.