Should You Switch from 1st or 2nd Generation Health Insurance in Korea?

Quite a few people have received phone calls from insurance planners urging them that "you must switch within this month." It is a familiar scene that repeats whenever rumors circulate about the release of 5th-generation indemnity health insurance (silson). Yet, those who actually do not need to feel this anxiety are people who currently have no private health insurance at all, while those who must proceed with extreme caution are policyholders holding onto 1st and 2nd-generation policies purchased long ago. The overall trajectory is obvious—as generations advance, coverage shrinks and out-of-pocket expenses rise—but that trajectory does not arrive at the same pace or in the same manner for every insured person.

The Delay of 5th-Generation Insurance Stems From the National Health Insurance Structure, Not the Insurance Product Itself

Photo: Direct Media / stocksnap (CC0)

The repeated postponement of the 5th-generation private health insurance launch occurs because this product is not a matter insurance companies can decide on their own. In the video titled "5th Generation Indemnity Insurance Launch Imminent: Why 1st and 2nd Generation Holders Must Never Switch" on the CBS Economic Research Lab channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6wayf7-03Y), Director Kim Hyun-woo of the Happy Asset Management Research Institute explains that the rollout was originally scheduled for March or April but keeps being delayed. While the Financial Services Commission supervises insurance operations, this reform requires overhaul of the National Health Insurance framework itself, necessitating cooperation from the Ministry of Health and Welfare and tangling diverse stakeholder interests, which makes finalizing the launch date impossible. Although May has been cited as a government target, the director bluntly states that even this date remains uncertain.

Underlying the delay is the chronic loss ratio problem of indemnity health insurance. The director explains the concept of loss ratio as a mechanism where insurance payouts outpace the premiums collected, pointing out that if KRW 1 million is collected and KRW 1.28 million is paid out, the loss ratio reaches 128%. Indemnity health insurance reimburses actual hospital expenses; from a clinic's perspective, having an insured patient makes it easier to recommend non-reimbursable treatments, and the direct consequence accumulates on insurers' loss ratios. The core diagnosis of the video is that despite successive product generations, loss ratios remain untamed, creating a repeating cycle of shifting to yet another generation.

Why 3rd-Generation Holders Have Nothing to Ponder While Only 1st and 2nd-Generation Holders Must Decide on Switching

Photo: Châu Thông Phan / stocksnap (CC0)

The reason only 1st and 2nd-generation policyholders must seriously deliberate switching is that the contract re-signing structure differs fundamentally across generations. The director explains that re-signing clauses were introduced starting from the 3rd generation. Initially set to a 15-year cycle, this re-signing period has now shortened to 5 years, and when this cycle arrives, the contract automatically shifts to whatever latest terms are currently on sale. This means someone enrolled under 3rd-generation rules could automatically receive 5th-generation terms at their renewal date. In contrast, 1st and 2nd generations have no such re-signing clause; they simply undergo premium rate renewals while continuously maintaining the original coverage terms agreed upon at enrollment.

This difference precisely validates the advice. Because holders of 3rd-generation and later policies will automatically transition to the prevailing terms as time passes anyway, there is no reason for them to rush into switching today while taking a loss. On the other hand, because 1st and 2nd-generation coverage remains intact unless the policyholder voluntarily cancels it, maintaining the original policy is distinctly advantageous for those who visit hospitals frequently. However, holding onto it comes at a steep price. According to the director, 1st-generation policies feature a 5-year renewal cycle, meaning accumulated increases hit all at once like leaping five steps on a staircase in a single bound. When an age bracket where baseline rate increases accelerate coincides with this renewal timing, the premium shock arrives in a concentrated blow.

Viewing this structure through loss ratios reveals why premiums for 1st and 2nd generations have no choice but to climb continuously. The director points out that loss ratios are tabulated separately by generation—for instance, calculating a 180% loss ratio for 1st generation and 150% for 2nd generation. The pre-standardization 1st-generation policies were loosely designed from inception, reimbursing outpatient care in full after nominal deductibles and even covering overseas medical expenses. In such cohorts, sicker individuals are more likely to hold on longer, triggering a vicious cycle where loss ratios climb relentlessly.

Shortcoming: If the Assumption of a Permanent 25% Increase Cap Falters, the Story Changes

Photo: Unknown / rawpixel (CC0)

A regrettable aspect of this video is that the conclusion suggesting one "can hold out" leans heavily on a single institutional rule: the regulation capping annual insurance premium increases at 25%. The director explains that no matter how high loss ratios climb, insurers are blocked from raising rates by more than 25% at a time, creating a gap between actual underwriting losses and charged premiums. Thanks to this ceiling, 1st and 2nd-generation policyholders can supposedly hold out within a predictable boundary. The issue is that the director himself acknowledges this 25% figure is not statutory law, but an insurance supervisory regulation—a parameter the government can alter at will whenever determined to do so.

Although the director mentions the possibility that this cap might be lifted, he does not concretely address its timing or conditions. While he passes over it with the nuance that deregulation is unlikely because it serves consumer protection purposes, this remains an unsatisfactory treatment considering that the entire holding-out strategy hangs on this single ceiling. Regulatory changes are variables beyond the control of individual consumers, and if this cap is relaxed, the trajectory of premium hikes for 1st and 2nd generations will trace an entirely different curve than past calculations suggest. For anyone formulating a hold-out strategy, it is safer to keep in mind that this cap represents a vulnerable policy variable.

Another point worth examining is that the retirement timeline assessment cited in the video relies on a specific individual scenario. In the video, when the host replies that they plan to retire at age 65, the conversation turns to calculating post-retirement National Pension and National Health Insurance contributions, concluding that maintaining private coverage might become burdensome at that juncture. Because this example assumes a regular wage earner, it cannot be directly applied in the same manner to self-employed individuals or freelancers with irregular income streams. For those with variable incomes, tracking the monthly proportion that indemnity premiums occupy within actual disposable income serves as a far more realistic criterion than relying on a fixed retirement age.

Frequency of Hospital Visits Determines the Math Between Keeping and Switching

Deciding whether to keep 1st and 2nd-generation coverage narrows down to two criteria: hospital usage frequency and premium affordability. The director states that for people with underlying conditions requiring steady treatment, maintaining the policy is unequivocally advantageous even if monthly premiums are high. The amounts recovered through claims far surpass the premiums paid. Conversely, for individuals who rarely visit hospitals, premiums represent a pure ongoing outflow, making a switch to another generation sensible once the burden intensifies—this forms the baseline premise of the video.

The crucial takeaway here is that there is no need to make an immediate decision today. The director advises that as long as current premiums are not burdensome, keeping 1st and 2nd-generation policies as-is remains preferable. Since switching now only places you into a 3rd-generation or later product that will automatically transition to future iterations upon re-signing anyway, there is no real practical gain in rushing. Ultimately, this leads to the conclusion that one can afford to wait and evaluate conditions when premium hikes actually become unmanageable.

In making this assessment, one must also examine out-of-pocket maximums. According to the director, even when coinsurance rates are displayed as 70% or 80%, the actual amount an insured must bear is subject to an annual cap of KRW 2.5 million. That is, regardless of how large the total medical bill grows, the out-of-pocket expense will not exceed this limit. However, the director notes that for the 5th generation, authorities are reviewing an expansion of this out-of-pocket ceiling itself. If every generational transition moves not only reimbursement percentages but also these absolute caps, the real coverage retained after switching could shrink further than currently anticipated.

Overall Assessment: Agreement on Diagnosis, Conditional Agreement on Prescription

The areas of agreement rest on two diagnoses. First, the delay in releasing 5th-generation insurance stems not from flaws in product design, but from structural matters requiring the comprehensive overhaul of the entire national healthcare system. Second, because re-signing clauses were introduced only from the 3rd generation, subsequent cohorts automatically transition to newer terms over time, whereas 1st and 2nd-generation policyholders retain their original terms unless they voluntarily cancel. This difference in re-signing structures provides the exact justification for why only 1st and 2nd-generation holders must deliberately contemplate switching.

Reservations lie in the premise supporting the prescription to "hold out." This strategy holds true only under the assumption that supervisory regulations capping annual premium increases at 25% remain intact, yet this 25% is an administrative regulation that authorities can adjust whenever decided. If this single ceiling wobbles, the premium growth rate of 1st and 2nd generations will chart an entirely different path from historical calculations, meaning the hold-out strategy must be accepted only conditionally. Furthermore, using retirement age as a benchmark for retention is biased toward salaried employees, making it unsuitable for direct transfer to self-employed persons or freelancers with erratic earnings.

The expanded coverage touted for the 5th generation—such as dementia, infertility, and obesity treatments—must also be evaluated soberly. Treatments integrated into covered public benefits already feature low out-of-pocket expenses around KRW 10,000 to KRW 20,000, while high-cost expenses like postpartum care centers remain non-reimbursable and excluded from coverage. While one can agree with the director's core principle that insurance should guard against catastrophic lump-sum expenses rather than small recurring outlays, institutional shifts such as introducing managed care to audit non-reimbursable medical propriety warrant separate observation regarding their long-term impact on curbing overtreatment.

3 Actionable Steps to Take Today

1. Check your insurance certificate to verify which generation of indemnity insurance you hold.
2. Calculate your hospital visit frequency over the past year and the share of premiums within your disposable income.
3. If enrolled in 1st or 2nd generation, re-verify your KRW 2.5 million out-of-pocket limit and rider terms on your policy document.

Indemnity health insurance is engineered to reduce coverage with each new generation, and no individual can reverse this structural tide. However, how intensely you feel that pace depends on the generation of your current policy and how often you seek medical care. Before deciding to switch, what must be examined first is not a superficial product comparison, but the contractual re-signing structure of your existing policy.