Pain Buster to reduce pain during childbirth: Patients must pay 100% of the cost = Korea

Recently, the South Korean government teased a revision to its guidelines that would prohibit the use of painless injections and local anesthetics called "pain busters" together during Caesarean sections, but in response to opposition from pregnant women, the government said, "Patients must bear 100% of the costs."
According to a report by the Korean broadcasting station JTBC on the 21st, the Ministry of Health and Welfare held an expert advisory meeting on the 20th of this month and decided to increase the patient's share of the cost of Pain Buster from the current 80% to 100%.
Prior to this, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare had teased a partial revision to the "Details on the application criteria and methods for medical benefits" from the 3rd to the 10th of last month, and announced that the revisions would come into effect in July.
The guidelines include a provision that prohibits the use of painless injections and local anesthetic injections known as "pain busters" during childbirth, such as Caesarean sections, in combination, which has sparked strong opposition, especially from pregnant women.
The bill also includes a proposal to raise the patient's share of the cost of pain busters from the current 80% to 90%. The Ministry of Health and Welfare submitted an explanatory document on the 11th of this month, stating, "The initial administrative teaser proposal (as a painless injection)
"We decided to use only one type of painbuster, but it is possible to use two types in combination, but we will consider having the patient pay for it," he said. After further discussion with experts, the decision was made to use both painless injections and painbuster.
The current use of the drug in combination with other drugs will remain the same, but the patient burden will increase from the current 80% to 100%. However, there has been ongoing criticism from pregnant women's communities and others about the increased burden on patients.
At the child-rearing cafe, there were comments such as, "Why has it been delayed until now, when the baby is due in July?", "I'm angry that we have to pay 100% of the cost ourselves," and "They say the low birth rate is serious, but they're not doing anything to improve it."
The reaction was something like, "Not only is it not useful, it's actually a nuisance."