A recent survey has uncovered a significant issue in the skincare industry, revealing that nine out of ten local clinics offering “skin care treatments” are managed by general practitioners rather than board-certified dermatologists. General practitioners hold medical licenses after completing medical school and passing the national medical exam, but they do not undergo specialized training through residency programs. On the other hand, board-certified dermatologists complete internships, residencies, and pass specialized exams after obtaining their medical licenses.
On the 30th, the Association of Korean Dermatologists released these findings and called for a “license system for independent practice.” This proposal aims to restrict independent practice rights to doctors who have completed 2–3 years of clinical training after medical school. However, critics argue that this initiative is intended to create “entry barriers” for non-dermatologist doctors in the cosmetic medical market.
According to the dermatological association, as many as 15,000 local clinics nationwide advertise skin treatments, but only 1,516 of them were operated by board-certified dermatologists (out of a total of 2,950 clinics) as of the fourth quarter of last year. This means that 90% of skin treatment clinics are run by general practitioners. Clinics operated by dermatologists typically display signs like “○○○ Dermatology Clinic,” while those run by general practitioners use “○○ Clinic, Specializing in Dermatology.”
The association stated, “Many patients mistakenly believe they are receiving care from dermatologists,” adding that misdiagnoses—such as mistaking skin cancer for moles—and procedural side effects have increased as general practitioners enter the skin treatment market. It emphasized, “Few countries globally allow immediate independent practice after medical school. Doctors should complete at least two years of residency or gain experience in other clinics before opening their own practices,” explaining the need for the licensing system.
However, some analysts suggest that the proposal stems from declining profitability of existing dermatology clinics amid rising competition in the cosmetic medical market. Others argue for diversifying qualifications for cosmetic procedures. For instance, non-physicians like estheticians, nurses, or laser therapists who complete specific training should be allowed to perform simple procedures like mole removal. This could alleviate the “physician shortage” caused by medical graduates flocking to cosmetic practices.
In the UK, nurses can administer Botox, fillers, and laser treatments, while some U.S. states permit nurses and laser therapists to provide cosmetic medical services.
Key Issues and Concerns
- Misdiagnosis and Safety Risks: The rise of general practitioners in the skincare sector has led to an increase in misdiagnoses and procedural side effects.
- Patient Misunderstanding: Many patients are unaware that they are being treated by general practitioners rather than dermatologists.
- Lack of Standardized Training: Unlike in many other countries, Korean doctors are allowed to practice independently immediately after medical school without additional training.
- Economic Motivations: Some experts believe the proposal is driven by financial concerns within the dermatology field.
- Need for Regulation: The association argues for stricter regulations to ensure patient safety and professional standards.
Possible Solutions and Alternatives
- Licensing System for Independent Practice: Implementing a system that requires 2–3 years of clinical training before allowing doctors to open their own clinics.
- Diversifying Qualifications: Allowing trained non-physicians to perform certain cosmetic procedures under supervision.
- International Examples: Looking at models from the UK and the U.S., where nurses and other professionals are permitted to carry out specific cosmetic treatments.
- Public Awareness Campaigns: Educating patients about the differences between general practitioners and dermatologists to prevent misunderstandings.
Future Implications
The debate over who should be allowed to perform skincare treatments highlights broader issues in the healthcare sector. As the demand for cosmetic procedures continues to grow, it becomes increasingly important to balance patient safety with access to affordable and effective treatments. The proposed licensing system may help address some of these concerns, but it also raises questions about the future of medical education and practice in Korea.
The discussion around this issue is likely to continue as stakeholders seek a solution that protects patients while also supporting the growth of the cosmetic medical market. Whether through stricter regulations, expanded training opportunities, or new roles for non-physicians, the goal should remain the same: to ensure that patients receive safe, high-quality care.
