Understanding Korea’s New 8-Week Rule: How It Affects Auto Insurance Claims

The implementation of the “8-week rule,” designed to curb auto insurance payment leaks for long-term patients, has been pushed back to April 1, a month later than initially announced. While the start date is now set, ongoing discussions about key aspects like review criteria and system infrastructure raise concerns about potential confusion during the early stages of rollout.

Industry sources reported on the 10th that the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport has finalized plans to enact amendments to the Automobile Damage Compensation Guarantee Act on April 1. The implementation was originally slated for March but was delayed to allow more time for system preparation.

The “8-week rule” mandates that patients seeking treatment beyond eight weeks after a car accident must provide a medical certificate with a professional opinion. This establishes a clear eight-week benchmark to address the previous practice of extended treatment without substantial evidence.

The challenge lies in establishing new review criteria for cases extending beyond the eight-week period, which have yet to be determined. To address this, the government plans to convene a second working group meeting with representatives from the Auto Insurance Claims Review Center, medical community, insurance industry, and consumer advocacy groups to hash out relevant standards and operational procedures.

However, the discussions are expected to be contentious due to significant differences in stakeholder perspectives.

The Insurance Development Institute, for instance, has completed a statistical analysis to determine typical inpatient and outpatient durations based on accident types and conditions, as well as appropriate maximum treatment periods. They’re developing a reference system for reviews based on these findings and have urged the government to use these statistics as objective criteria in the review process, given that insurers won’t be directly involved in reviews after the eight-week mark.

In contrast, the Auto Insurance Claims Review Center has reportedly established its own operational system using internal statistics and standards, rejecting the Insurance Development Institute’s recommendations. They argue that since insurers are excluded from direct review involvement, the review criteria and processes should remain independent from the insurance industry. The conflicting views on which statistics should be used for reviews are seen as a major point of contention between insurers and review bodies.

The Korean medicine community, which has opposed the amendments, is expected to challenge the elimination of “future treatment costs” after the eight-week period. These costs, typically allocated for potential additional treatment following an initial settlement between parties, are viewed by Korean medicine practitioners as a form of settlement payment.

A spokesperson for the Korean Medicine Association warned, “If administrative procedures for reviews, appeals, and dispute resolution become prolonged, it could interrupt treatment cost guarantees, placing financial burdens on both patients and healthcare providers. Contrary to the policy’s intentions, we may see simultaneous treatment gaps and administrative chaos in practice.”