국제기구의 권고에 따라 많은 국가들이 상병수당제도를 운영하고 있으나 우리나라는 여전히 도입하지 않고 있다. 코로나19의 여파로 최근 상병수당제도 도입의 필요성이 더욱 커지고 있는 상황에서, 보다 진일보한 근거기반 논의를 위해 우리나라보다 앞서 상병수당제도를 도입･시행하고 있는 국가들을 대상으로 상병수당제도의 유형과 내용을 보다 정확히 파악할 필요가 있다. 본 연구는 보다 광범위한 국제비교를 통해 우리나라에 적합한 제도유형을 탐색하고자 ISSA 및 OECD 회원국 전체의 의료보장 및 상병수당 제도에 대한 비교 분석을 시도했다. 연구 결과, 의료보장제도의 사회보장유형에 관계없이 상병수당제도는 대부분 사회보험방식을 채택하고 있었으며, 건강보험 운영주체가 건강보험료의 일부 혹은 별도의 상병수당보험료로 상병수당을 운영하는 국가가 가장 많았다. 보험료로 상병수당을 운영한다고 하더라도 ILO 기준에 따라 상병수당지출의 50% 이상을 정부와 고용주가 부담하고 있었다. 또한 대상자는 대부분의 국가가 직장과 지역을 포함한 모든 근로자를 대상으로 운영하되, 직장근로자의 경우 법정유급휴가를 우선 적용하고 있었다. 상병수당제도의 보장기간은 국가별로 다양했으나 장애연금 수급 전 최대 180일 또는 360일 보장이 가장 많았으며, 보장수준은 소득의 50%~70% 수준의 ILO 권고기준을 준용하고 있었다. 본 연구는 상병수당제도 도입논의 과정에서 대상자 규모 및 보장수준 설계의 기초자료로 활용될 수 있기를 기대한다.
In accordance with the recommendations of international organizations, most ISSA member countries have put in placesickness benefit programs, with Korea being an exception. The need for sickness benefits has grown since the eruption of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study compared health insurance systems and sickness benefit programs in all ISSA and OECD member countries, with a view to proposing a sickness benefit model suitable for Korea. Regardless of the type of their health insurance, most countries have in place sickness benefits that are provided through a contributory social insurance scheme—either a health insurance scheme or a separate sickness insurance program. Even in the case of a contributory sickness benefit scheme, the government and the employer are expected to pay, in accordance with ILO standards, more than 50% of benefit expenditures. In addition, most of the sickness benefit schemes cover all workers including the self-employed, while in paid sick leave programs in most countries, the priority is given to employees. Although the period of the sickness benefit varied across countries, the maximum period was 180 days or 360 days before receiving the pension, and the level of coverage was based on the ILO recommendation (50% to 70% of income).
In accordance with the recommendations of international organizations, most ISSA member countries have put in placesickness benefit programs, with Korea being an exception. The need for sickness benefits has grown since the eruption of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study compared health insurance systems and sickness benefit programs in all ISSA and OECD member countries, with a view to proposing a sickness benefit model suitable for Korea. Regardless of the type of their health insurance, most countries have in place sickness benefits that are provided through a contributory social insurance scheme—either a health insurance scheme or a separate sickness insurance program. Even in the case of a contributory sickness benefit scheme, the government and the employer are expected to pay, in accordance with ILO standards, more than 50% of benefit expenditures. In addition, most of the sickness benefit schemes cover all workers including the self-employed, while in paid sick leave programs in most countries, the priority is given to employees. Although the period of the sickness benefit varied across countries, the maximum period was 180 days or 360 days before receiving the pension, and the level of coverage was based on the ILO recommendation (50% to 70% of income).
