J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc.  2014 Mar;53(2):61-71.

A Study on the Legal Issues and Challenges of Insurance Discrimination Against the Mentally Ill

• Shin K

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study is to criticize the legal reasoning of refusal to insure or provide coverage to the mentally ill. This study focuses on the antagonistic fundamentals between legal rationality and social solidarity in insurance relationship. Findings of this study suggest that social solidarity should have the capacity to control legal rationality and economic efficiency.
METHODS
This study surveyed affirmative actions of the state agencies against insurance discrimination through insurance codes of the Financial Supervisory Service, decisions of district courts, recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission, and legislation of the National Assembly.
RESULTS
Actions of the state agencies to reduce insurance discrimination against the mentally ill are passive, ritualistic, and superficial. The policy failure of the state agencies is due to securing the principle of contract freedom without controlling insurance companies.
CONCLUSION
In insurance relations, emphasizing the principle of contract freedom and the legal, economic rationality causes the socially marginalized to be excluded from social relations and face social danger in naked. Social solidarity and public interest is the legal reasoning that can overcome the economic rationality of insurance companies.

Keyword

Insurance; Mentally illness; Discrimination

MeSH Terms

Discrimination (Psychology)*
Disulfiram
Freedom
Human Rights
Humans
Insurance*
Mentally Ill Persons*
Disulfiram

Reference

1. Rosenbaum S. Insurance discrimination on the basis of health status: an overview of discrimination practices, federal law, and federal reform options. O'Neill Institute Papers;2009. cited 2014 Jan 20. Available from: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=ois_papers.

2. Lee JH. Genetic discrimination in personal insurance: the Knoppers-Burley debate. Korean J Legal Philos. 2003; 6:285–308.

3. Yang SG. Insurance law. 5th ed. Seoul: Samjiwon;2004. p. 23.

4. Jang DJ. Insurance Law. Seoul: Bubmunsa;2011. p. 4.

5. Statutes.legis.state.tx.us [homepage on the Internet]. Texas: Texas Constitution and Statutes;updated 2005 April 1. cited 2014 Jan 20. Available from: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/IN/htm/IN.544.htm.

6. Kosis.kr [homepage on the Internet]. Daejeon: Korean Statistical information Service;updated 2013. cited 2014 Jan 20. Available from: http://stat.kosis.kr/nsieu/view/tree.do?task=branchView&id=350_35001_6*MT_OTITLE&hOrg=350.

7. Cho MJ. The epidemiological survey of mental disorder in Korea. Seoul: Seoul National University;2011. p. 26–28.

8. Supreme Court Decision 2011Da9068, Decided April 13, 2013.

9. Disability Discrimination Act of Solidarity (senior researcher Lim ST). A study on the underwriting guideline for the prevention of insurance discrimination against disabilities (National Human Rights Commission Research Report). Seoul: National Human Rights Commission;2011. p. 80.

10. Oh YS, Lee KH. A study on the advancement of private health insurance underwriting (Korea Insurance Research Institute Research Report). Seoul: Korea Insurance Research Institute;2003. p. 120–123.

11. Supreme Court Decision 2011Da9068, Decided April 13, 2013.

12. Supreme Court Decision 2010Da78135, Decided August 23, 2013.

13. Kim DH, Lee BJ. An analysis on adverse selection in fee-for-service health insurance. Korean Insur J. 2013; 96:25–50.

14. Kim SJ, editor. A study on the analysis and classification of the actual status on disability discrimination. Seoul: National Human Rights Commission;2007. p. 47–49.

15. Law Firm Jipyong (senior researcher Lim ST). A survey on discrimination against people with disabilities in private insurance (National Human Rights Commission Research Report). Seoul: National Human Rights Commission;2002. p. 9–15.

16. Disability Discrimination Act of Solidarity (senior researcher Lim ST). op. cit. p. 80.

17. National Human Rights Commission Decided November 26, 2012.

18. National Human Rights Commission Decided August 22, 2005.

19. National Human Rights Commission 09Jincha1560 Decided October 20, 2010.

20. National Human Rights Commission 09Jincha1563 Decided October 20, 2010.

21. National Human Rights Commission 10Jinjeong0377600 Decided March 8, 2011.

22. National Human Rights Commission 13Jinjeong0388500 Decided August 21, 2013.

23. Kim SG. A study on the discrimination against people with disabilities in insurance law. Democr Leg Stud. 2006; 30:269.

24. Kim SJ. A study on the commercial code section 732. Korean Insur J. 2007; 78:165–195.

25. Choi BG. Insurance and discrimination against the mentally ill. Commer Law Rev. 2007; 6:339.

26. Jang DJ. Insurance for a mentally handicapped person and Korean commercial code 732. Asian Women Law. 2005; 8:219–239.

27. Supreme Court Decision 2006Da29358 Decided September 22, 2006.

28. Seoul Central District Court 2003Gadan150990 Decided February 12, 2004.

29. Cheonan Branch of Daejeon District Court 2005Gahab5440 Decided July 20, 2006.

30. Seoul Central District Court 2011Gahab38092 Decided August 30, 2013.

31. Cho MJ. op. cit. p. 11.

32. World Health Organization. The world health report 2001. Mental health: new understanding new hope. Geneva: World Health Organization;2001. p. 14.

33. Financial Services Commission press release August 30, 2012.