Korea’s infectious disease response system, built on the experiences of the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) outbreak and the Covid-19 pandemic, must now evolve through more proactive legislation to better prepare for future pandemics, a new analysis suggested.
Researchers emphasized that advanced legal preparations for expanding national research infrastructure, training infectious disease specialists, and establishing policy-oriented think tanks will be critical.
(Credit: Getty Images)
Professor Shin Hyun-young of the Department of Family Medicine at the Catholic University of Korea Seoul St. Mary's Hospital and Professor Ki Mo-ran of the Department of Public Health and AI at the National Cancer Center Graduate School of Cancer Science and Policy recently published a paper in the international journal Frontiers in Public Health titled “
Covid-19 Legislative Response and Challenges in Republic of Korea.
”
Shin, one of the paper’s authors, was a physician-turned-lawmaker who served on the National Assembly’s Health and Welfare Committee during the Covid-19 pandemic, while Ki is a preventive medicine expert who participated in the government’s disease control advisory and policymaking efforts during the outbreak.
The research team examined legislative changes in Korea from the post-MERS period in 2015 through the post-Covid-19 period in 2025, using data from the National Law Information Center and the National Assembly Bill Information System. The team also cross-validated legislative trends through the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA)’s “2015 MERS White Paper” and “Covid-19 White Paper.” Based on these findings, the researchers developed and applied the “Pandemic Response Pentad” model.
The team analyzed Korea’s infectious disease response across five areas: legislation, governance, epidemiological response, medical response, and social response. The Pandemic Response Pentad is a newly developed conceptual model based on Korea’s experiences with MERS and Covid-19. The researchers defined legislation -- responsible for legal enforcement and compensation mechanisms to protect public health -- as the foundational element enabling all other response systems to function.
The study examined how Korea’s governance structure for infectious disease response evolved through the two outbreaks.
Following MERS, the country significantly overhauled its response framework by expanding the epidemiological investigator system and introducing a classification system designating emerging infectious diseases as Class 1 infectious diseases. After Covid-19, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was upgraded into the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, while regional disease response centers and the National Institute of Infectious Diseases were established.
The epidemiological response system was also strengthened. Amendments to the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act after MERS introduced core quarantine strategies, which were further expanded during Covid-19. Stronger disease control measures were adopted, including disclosing the travel routes and contact information of confirmed patients, providing free testing, mandating quarantine, and using location data. At the same time, legal standards governing data deletion procedures and disclosure criteria were also introduced to strengthen personal information protection.
In the medical response sector, the researchers said South Korea carried out sweeping reforms to infectious disease treatment systems, compensation programs, vaccine safety measures, and medical supply management throughout the MERS and Covid-19 crises. After MERS, the country introduced its first compensation system for medical institutions treating infectious disease patients. During the Covid-19 pandemic, advanced compensation programs for hospitals and financial support systems for medical personnel were introduced. Compensation frameworks for vaccine-related injuries were also expanded.
The researchers particularly highlighted Korea’s decision to institutionalize compensation systems for self-employed workers and small business owners who suffered economic losses during prolonged social distancing measures.
“To mitigate socioeconomic damage caused by long-term public health interventions, Korea established a comprehensive statutory compensation system,” the team stated. “This was not simply administrative support, but a legal relief mechanism for groups whose livelihoods were directly affected by government measures.”
However, the researchers also noted that stringent quarantine measures generated social tensions by conflicting with fundamental rights, such as freedom of movement and economic freedom. Vulnerable populations -- including people with disabilities, older adults, and residents of institutional facilities -- were found to have suffered disproportionately during the pandemic response process.
“Korea’s disaster management system had previously focused mainly on natural disasters, but after MERS it was substantially reorganized around infectious disease response,” the researchers wrote. “At the same time, strong legal interventions created tensions with fundamental rights such as freedom of movement and economic freedom. These experiences demonstrate the need for flexible legislative frameworks that can better protect the human rights of vulnerable populations during infectious disease responses.”
They added that infectious disease crisis management requires broad preparedness measures, making both critical reflection on past responses and proactive future planning essential.
“Key institutional tasks include advancing national research infrastructure, implementing systematic education programs for infectious disease specialists, and strengthening global surveillance systems,” the researchers said. “However, none of these goals can be realized without strong and proactive legislative preparation.”
The researchers further emphasized that Korea’s experiences responding to MERS and Covid-19 provide meaningful lessons for the global pandemic response system.
“The legal frameworks and institutional responses formed during these outbreaks serve as important precedents for strengthening preparedness for future public health emergencies,” they said. “They also underscore the need for continued legislative innovation to address future public health threats.”
Kim Eun-young
댓글
0