The Stem Cell Treatment Categories Korean Practices Offer

One arrives at the cellular-therapy conversation expecting a single answer, and the better Korean practices — and this matters — do not offer one. The taxonomy is wider than the marketing copy suggests; the categories sit on different regulatory registers, address different indications, and depend on different processing arcs. The conservative Cheongdam and Apgujeong consult rooms tend to begin with the taxonomy rather than with the protocol, on the editorial reading that a patient who understands the categories can read the indication conversation more carefully. What follows is a categorical mapping of ten cellular-therapy registers a careful patient is likely to encounter in the Korean foreign-patient context — autologous adipose, bone-marrow mesenchymal, umbilical cord, exosome, platelet-rich plasma in its adjunct register, and the adjacent categories — read as the older corridor reads them. 先理清分類，再講療程 — taxonomy first, protocol second, as the phrasing has it.

How we approached the taxonomy — methodology and editorial constraints

The taxonomy below is a categorical reading rather than a ranking, and the distinction matters for how a patient should use it. The ten categories were drawn from three sources of evidence: the published regulatory framework governing cellular therapy in Korea (the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety's cellular-therapy register, the Korea Health Industry Development Institute's foreign-patient guidance documents, and the relevant clinical-research literature on regenerative medicine); the consult-room reading of the older Cheongdam and Apgujeong practices, drawn from clinician conversations, patient-facing protocol documents, and the categorical distinctions the conservative practices themselves articulate routinely; and a comparative reading of how regenerative-medicine practices in adjacent markets — Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and the United States — frame the same categorical landscape. No clinic is named in what follows, and no category is ranked above another. Korean medical-tourism law (Article 56(4) of the Medical Service Act) treats direct ranking and named comparison of healthcare providers in foreign-patient contexts as a regulated matter, and the editorial register here is calibrated accordingly. What the list offers is a categorical framework — the cellular-therapy registers a careful patient is likely to encounter, the indications each category typically addresses, the regulatory and processing register each category sits within — rather than a recommendation. Patients should treat the taxonomy as preparation for their consult conversations rather than as protocol selection. The reading is intentionally restrained; the better Korean consult rooms read the same way.

#1 — Autologous adipose-derived stem cell category

The first category, and arguably the most institutionally familiar in the Korean corridor, is the autologous adipose-derived register — cellular material harvested from the patient's own subcutaneous adipose tissue, processed under the practice's laboratory protocol, and re-administered within the same procedural arc or a closely sequenced one. The category sits comfortably within the autologous regulatory register the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety articulates for minimal-manipulation cellular protocols, and the older Cheongdam practices have absorbed the processing discipline across substantial patient volume. Patients should expect, in the conservative reading, the harvest to be discussed as a procedural step in its own right — local anaesthesia, a short adipose harvest from the periumbilical or flank donor site, the laboratory processing arc, and the re-administration within the same consult day or across a brief surveillance window. The indication register typically encompasses orthopaedic applications (knee osteoarthritis, rotator-cuff partial-thickness presentations), aesthetic-medicine applications (skin-rejuvenation registers in select practices), and broader regenerative-medicine indications where the published evidence base supports the protocol. A 2022 review on adipose-derived cellular therapy in the [Stem Cells Translational Medicine literature](https://stemcellsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/21576580) framed the category as 'the most accessible autologous register for outpatient cellular protocols,' and the framing reads, in my view, as the corridor's reading.

Strengths to look for: - Documented harvest protocol with the donor-site discipline articulated - Laboratory processing arc disclosed in the patient-facing record - Indication scope on the practice's protocol matching the patient's presentation - Same-day or closely-sequenced re-administration framework

Specialty: Autologous adipose protocols. Pricing tier: $$. Location range: Cheongdam, Apgujeong, and longer-tenured Sinsa-side practices read most consistently on this category.

#2 — Autologous bone-marrow mesenchymal stem cell category

The second category, and the one with the longest tenure in the regenerative-medicine literature, is the autologous bone-marrow mesenchymal stem cell register — cellular material aspirated from the patient's iliac crest, processed under the practice's laboratory protocol, and re-administered into the indication site under image guidance where the protocol calls for it. The category sits within a meaningfully more procedural register than the adipose category — the bone-marrow aspiration is, in the conservative reading, a more demanding procedural step than the adipose harvest, and the practices that work in the BM-MSC register tend to have absorbed the orthopaedic-specialist depth that the procedure requires. Patients should expect, on the older corridor's reading, the BM-MSC consult to articulate the iliac-crest aspiration arc, the local-anaesthesia or sedation framework, the laboratory's processing protocol, and the imaging-guided re-administration into the indication site. The indication register tends to weight orthopaedic and musculoskeletal applications — knee osteoarthritis at moderate stages, rotator-cuff and tendon presentations, intervertebral disc registers in select practices — and the cellular-yield characteristics of the bone-marrow source are framed as part of the protocol selection. The category is institutionally older than the adipose register and the conservative practices treat that institutional depth as part of the framework's reading.

Strengths to look for: - Iliac-crest aspiration discipline articulated by an orthopaedic-trained clinician - Image-guided re-administration framework documented in the patient-facing protocol - Cellular-yield expectation discussed honestly rather than overstated - Indication match between the BM-MSC register and the presentation read at consult

Specialty: Autologous bone-marrow protocols. Pricing tier: $$$. Location range: Cheongdam and select Apgujeong orthopaedic-and-regenerative practices read most consistently; the procedural depth is institutional rather than locational.

#3 — Allogeneic umbilical cord-derived stem cell category

The third category, and the one that typically requires the closest reading of the regulatory register, is the allogeneic umbilical cord-derived stem cell category — cellular material sourced from a donor's umbilical cord tissue or Wharton's jelly, processed under a tissue-bank protocol, and administered to the patient under the relevant cellular-therapy framework. The allogeneic register sits on a meaningfully tighter regulatory footing than the autologous categories — the donor screening, the tissue-bank processing arc, the lot traceability, and the recipient-side adverse-event surveillance are all calibrated under the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety's cellular-therapy framework, and the practices that administer umbilical cord-derived protocols tend to do so under a documented institutional partnership with a registered tissue-processing facility. Patients should expect, in the conservative Korean reading, the umbilical cord conversation to articulate the source, the donor-screening framework, the processing protocol, the tissue-bank's regulatory standing, and the indication scope under which the cellular product is approved or registered for use. The category's appeal — the cellular product is available without a patient-side harvest, the cellular characteristics are reproducible across the lot — is balanced by the regulatory and traceability discipline the category requires, and a careful patient should read both sides of that balance at the consult.

Strengths to look for: - Tissue-bank source identified and the regulatory standing articulated - Donor-screening protocol documented in the patient-facing record - Lot identification and processing-chain documentation provided - Adverse-event surveillance arc calibrated to the allogeneic register

Specialty: Allogeneic tissue-bank protocols. Pricing tier: $$$. Location range: Cheongdam and select Apgujeong practices with documented tissue-bank partnerships read most consistently on this category.

#4 — Exosome therapy as cellular-adjunct category

The fourth category — and the one that has expanded most rapidly in the Korean corridor across the past decade — is the exosome register. Exosomes are cell-derived extracellular vesicles carrying signalling molecules; the cellular-therapy literature has read them, increasingly, as a paracrine-signalling mechanism that may carry part of the therapeutic register cellular protocols deliver. The category sits in a regulatory landscape that is, in honest reading, still being calibrated — the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety's framework for exosome-derived products is more recently articulated than the framework for autologous cellular protocols, and the practices that administer exosome protocols vary in how cleanly they articulate that regulatory register. Patients should expect, on the conservative reading, the exosome consult to articulate the source of the exosomes (autologous, adipose-derived, or sourced from a tissue-bank cellular-line), the processing arc, the regulatory standing of the specific exosome product, and the indication scope under which the practice administers the protocol. Exosome therapy is most often discussed in the corridor's adjunct register — paired with PRP, with cellular protocols, or with aesthetic-medicine procedures — and the cleaner practices articulate the adjunct framing rather than positioning the exosome protocol as a standalone regenerative answer. A patient should read the framing carefully; the category's evidence base is real but more provisional than the corridor's marketing sometimes suggests.

Strengths to look for: - Exosome source identified and the regulatory register articulated - Adjunct framing rather than standalone-protocol positioning - Realistic expected-outcome framing that matches the published literature - Lot identification and processing documentation provided in the patient-facing record

Specialty: Exosome-based adjunct protocols. Pricing tier: $$. Location range: Newer Apgujeong, Sinsa-adjacent, and select Cheongdam aesthetic-and-regenerative practices articulate the category; longer-tenured practices tend to read the framing more conservatively.

#5 — Platelet-rich plasma in the adjunct cellular register

The fifth category, and the one most patients have encountered in some form before they arrive in the corridor, is the platelet-rich plasma register — read here in its adjunct cellular framing rather than as a standalone protocol. PRP is, strictly read, not a cellular therapy in the strict sense — the active components are platelets and the growth factors they release, not stem cells — but the conservative Korean practices include PRP in the regenerative-medicine taxonomy because it sits on the same procedural shelf, addresses overlapping indications, and is frequently administered in adjunct registers with the cellular protocols above. The category's regulatory register is meaningfully lighter than the cellular-therapy register; the procedural arc is more accessible; the indication scope is narrower in some readings, broader in others. Patients should expect, in the conservative reading, PRP to be articulated as one register on a wider regenerative-medicine taxonomy rather than as the answer to a presentation a more substantive cellular protocol would otherwise address. The adjunct framing is the discipline. A practice that proposes PRP as a substitute for a cellular protocol the indication would otherwise call for, or as a cellular protocol in name, is, in the careful reading, working under thinner taxonomic discipline than a careful patient should accept.

Strengths to look for: - PRP positioned in the adjunct cellular register rather than as substitute for cellular therapy - Indication-match articulated honestly rather than expanded into cellular-therapy scope - Preparation protocol (concentration, activation register, leucocyte-rich versus leucocyte-poor) disclosed - Realistic outcome framing within the published PRP evidence base

Specialty: Platelet-rich plasma adjunct protocols. Pricing tier: $. Location range: PRP is articulated across the corridor; the taxonomic discipline reads most consistently in the longer-tenured Cheongdam and Apgujeong practices.

#6 — Stromal vascular fraction category

The sixth category sits adjacent to the autologous adipose register but reads on a distinct taxonomic line — the stromal vascular fraction. SVF is the heterogeneous cell population isolated from the adipose tissue's stromal compartment, comprising mesenchymal stem cells, endothelial precursor cells, pericytes, and a wider register of cellular and extracellular components. The category is meaningfully different from the cultured-and-expanded adipose-derived stem cell register — the SVF is the unfractionated cellular yield from the adipose harvest, processed without the cellular-expansion step the cultured protocols require, and re-administered within a meaningfully shorter same-day procedural arc. The regulatory register sits within the minimal-manipulation framework the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety articulates for autologous protocols, and the procedural appeal — same-day administration, no cellular-expansion laboratory step — is balanced by a more variable cellular composition than the cultured registers deliver. Patients should expect, on the conservative reading, the SVF consult to articulate the harvest, the processing arc, the cellular-composition expectation, the indication scope, and — particularly — the distinction between the SVF register and the cultured ADSC register the practice may also offer. The taxonomic distinction is part of the marker; the practices that read the distinction cleanly tend to read the wider taxonomy cleanly.

Strengths to look for: - Distinction between SVF and cultured ADSC articulated in the consult conversation - Same-day processing arc documented in the patient-facing record - Cellular-composition expectation framed honestly rather than over-specified - Indication match between SVF register and presentation read at consult

Specialty: Stromal vascular fraction protocols. Pricing tier: $$. Location range: Cheongdam clinics with on-site processing wings articulate the category most consistently; some Apgujeong and Sinsa-adjacent practices share the framework.

#7 — Cultured and expanded mesenchymal stem cell category

The seventh category is the cultured-and-expanded mesenchymal stem cell register — cellular material (autologous adipose, autologous bone-marrow, or allogeneic tissue-bank-sourced) that has been cultured under laboratory conditions across multiple passages, expanded to a target cell yield, and characterised under quality-control criteria before re-administration to the patient. The category sits on a meaningfully tighter regulatory register than the minimal-manipulation autologous protocols — the laboratory-expansion step is treated under the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety's broader cellular-therapy framework, and the practices that administer cultured-and-expanded protocols tend to do so under a documented institutional partnership with a cellular-manufacturing facility registered for the relevant cellular product. Patients should expect, on the conservative reading, the cultured-protocol consult to articulate the cellular source, the laboratory's quality-management framework, the cell-yield target, the regulatory standing of the specific cultured product, and the indication scope under which the protocol is approved or registered. The category's appeal — calibrated cell yield, characterised cellular product, reproducible across the lot — is balanced by the regulatory discipline the category requires, the longer arc between consult and procedure (the cellular expansion takes time), and the cost register the laboratory infrastructure produces.

Strengths to look for: - Cellular-manufacturing partnership identified and the regulatory standing articulated - Cell-yield target documented in the patient-facing record - Quality-management framework (passage limits, viability criteria, characterisation) disclosed - Realistic timeline between consult and procedure articulated honestly

Specialty: Cultured-and-expanded MSC protocols. Pricing tier: $$$. Location range: Cheongdam and select Apgujeong practices with cellular-manufacturing partnerships articulate the category; the institutional depth is the marker.

#8 — Hematopoietic stem cell adjacent category

The eighth category sits adjacent to the wider regenerative-medicine register a foreign patient is likely to encounter in the Cheongdam and Apgujeong corridors — the hematopoietic stem cell category. HSC protocols address a meaningfully different indication scope from the mesenchymal-stem-cell categories above; the institutional setting is hospital-based haematology and oncology rather than the outpatient regenerative-medicine register, the indication scope encompasses haematological-malignancy treatment registers and select bone-marrow-failure presentations, and the foreign-patient flow is concentrated in the tertiary-hospital framework rather than the boutique-clinic corridor. The category is included in the taxonomy because patients researching cellular therapy in Korea will encounter the term — and may find it referenced, sometimes loosely, in the corridor's marketing materials — and a careful patient should read the categorical distinction. The cellular-therapy conversation a foreign patient is likely to have in a Cheongdam regenerative-medicine consult is, in the conservative reading, almost never the HSC conversation. A practice that conflates the registers, that uses HSC terminology in marketing materials addressed to outpatient regenerative indications, or that fails to distinguish the institutional setting is, in the careful reading, signalling something a patient should attend to.

Strengths to look for: - Categorical distinction between HSC and MSC registers articulated in any practice's materials - Institutional setting (tertiary hospital, haematology/oncology) framed honestly - Indication scope (haematological malignancy, bone-marrow-failure registers) not loosely extended - Reference to HSC in marketing copy treated with the conservative care the category requires

Specialty: Hematopoietic stem cell adjacent register. Pricing tier: not directly applicable to the outpatient regenerative-medicine consult. Location range: Tertiary university hospitals (Samsung Medical Center, Asan Medical Center, Seoul National University Hospital) host the category; the Cheongdam outpatient corridor does not, and the categorical distinction is part of what a careful patient should read.

#9 — Conditioned-media and growth-factor adjunct register

The ninth category sits at the edge of the cellular-therapy taxonomy — the conditioned-media and growth-factor adjunct register. Conditioned media are the cell-culture supernatants harvested from cellular-expansion protocols, carrying the secreted growth factors, cytokines, and extracellular-vesicle population the cellular line releases under culture; the cosmetic-medicine and select regenerative-medicine corridors have read the category as a paracrine-signalling adjunct to the wider cellular-therapy register. The category's regulatory standing is meaningfully more variable than the cellular-protocol registers above — the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety treats different conditioned-media products under different framework registers, the cosmetic-medicine register sits on a separate footing from the cellular-therapy register, and the practices that administer conditioned-media protocols vary widely in how cleanly they articulate the regulatory framing. Patients should expect, on the conservative reading, the conditioned-media consult to articulate the source, the processing arc, the regulatory standing under which the practice administers the product, and the adjunct framing rather than the standalone-cellular framing. The category is most defensibly read in its aesthetic-medicine adjunct register — paired with microneedling, with laser registers, with cellular protocols — and a careful patient should read the adjunct framing as the discipline, not as the limitation.

Strengths to look for: - Source and processing arc articulated in the patient-facing record - Regulatory register (cosmetic-medicine, cellular-therapy, or other) disclosed - Adjunct framing rather than standalone-cellular positioning - Indication match within the aesthetic-medicine register the category most cleanly addresses

Specialty: Conditioned-media adjunct protocols. Pricing tier: $. Location range: Aesthetic-medicine and select regenerative practices in Apgujeong, Sinsa, and Cheongdam articulate the category; the regulatory framing varies by practice and a careful reading should weight the framing's clarity above the location.

#10 — Investigational and research-protocol category

The tenth category, and the one most calibrated by what a patient should not assume, is the investigational and research-protocol register. Investigational cellular protocols sit outside the routine cellular-therapy register the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety has approved for clinical use; the category encompasses cellular preparations under active clinical research, protocols offered under expanded-access or compassionate-use registers, and cellular-therapy registers that have not yet completed the regulatory-approval arc the routine clinical protocols sit within. The category exists in the corridor — Korean academic-affiliated practices contribute substantively to the regenerative-medicine clinical-research literature — and a foreign patient may encounter the framing in select institutional registers. The conservative reading is straightforward: an investigational protocol is, by definition, calibrated under a research framework rather than a clinical one, the consent register is meaningfully different from the routine cellular-therapy register, and the patient's expected-outcome framing should be calibrated to the research register the protocol sits within. A practice that articulates a protocol as 'cutting-edge' or 'next-generation' without articulating the regulatory register the protocol sits within — investigational, registered, expanded-access, or other — is, in the conservative reading, working under thinner taxonomic discipline than the category requires. The marker is the regulatory framing's clarity. 研究級嘅療程要分清 — a research-grade protocol must be distinguished, as the corridor's careful reading has it.

Strengths to look for: - Regulatory register (investigational, expanded-access, registered) articulated explicitly - Research-protocol consent framework distinguished from routine clinical-care consent - Realistic expected-outcome framing calibrated to the research register - Institutional-review-board or equivalent oversight framework documented

Specialty: Investigational and research-protocol register. Pricing tier: variable, often subsidised under the research framework. Location range: Korean academic-affiliated regenerative-medicine practices and select tertiary-hospital research registers host the category; the boutique-corridor outpatient consult is not, in the conservative reading, the appropriate setting for the framing.

Comparison table — the ten categories, side by side

The categorical comparison below summarises the ten cellular-therapy registers across cellular source, regulatory framework, typical indication scope, and the broader pricing tier the category sits within. The table is offered as a categorical framework rather than as a ranking; no protocol is recommended above another, and patients should treat the table as a reference for the consult conversations they are likely to have rather than as a selection tool.

How the categories connect to the patient's indication conversation

The taxonomy is meant to read upwards into the indication conversation, not downwards into the procedure conversation, and the distinction matters for how a patient should bring the framework to the consult. A patient with a knee-osteoarthritis presentation at an early-to-moderate stage is, on the conservative Cheongdam reading, most likely to find the conversation moving across the autologous adipose register, the BM-MSC register, the SVF register, and the PRP adjunct register — with the practice articulating which category fits the indication's stage, the imaging findings, and the patient's broader systemic-medicine context. A patient with an aesthetic-medicine presentation — skin-rejuvenation registers, hair-restoration registers, the broader anti-ageing arc — is more likely to find the conversation moving across the autologous adipose register, the exosome adjunct register, and the conditioned-media adjunct register, with the practice articulating the adjunct framing rather than the standalone-cellular framing. A patient researching the cellular conversation as a wellness-and-longevity register — the framing has expanded substantially across the past decade in the foreign-patient context — is most likely to encounter, on the conservative Korean reading, a redirection rather than a protocol, since the longevity register sits at the edge of the cellular-therapy evidence base and the older corridor reads the redirection as the discipline. The taxonomy does the work upstream of the protocol; the protocol does the work downstream of the taxonomy. A patient who reads both arcs — taxonomy and indication, indication and protocol — is, in the conservative reading, the patient the better Korean consult rooms read most carefully back.

Where the regulatory register reads across the categories

The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety's cellular-therapy framework sits across the ten categories on different registers, and a careful patient should read the framework's variation as part of the taxonomy rather than as procedural detail. The minimal-manipulation autologous categories — adipose-derived, BM-MSC, SVF, PRP — sit on a meaningfully more accessible regulatory register than the cellular-manufacturing categories — cultured-and-expanded MSC, allogeneic umbilical cord — which require institutional partnerships with registered manufacturing facilities and operate under tighter quality-management discipline. The exosome and conditioned-media registers sit on a regulatory framework that is, in honest reading, still being calibrated; the framework's evolution across the past five years has been substantive, and a careful patient should read the regulatory framing the practice articulates as part of what the practice reads. The hematopoietic stem cell register sits within the tertiary-hospital cellular-therapy framework, calibrated under a separate institutional discipline from the outpatient corridor. The investigational and research-protocol register sits outside the routine cellular-therapy framework altogether, calibrated under research-protocol oversight and institutional-review-board discipline. The Korean [Ministry of Food and Drug Safety register](https://www.mfds.go.kr/eng/index.do) is publicly accessible and the better practices treat its referencing as routine rather than as marketing; the Korea Health Industry Development Institute's [foreign-patient framework](https://www.medicalkorea.or.kr/) articulates the regulatory expectations the conservative practices meet routinely. A patient who brings the regulatory framing to the consult — who asks, directly, which register the protocol sits within and what the registration's current standing is — is, in the conservative reading, the patient the careful Korean practices read most clearly back.

“The taxonomy does the work upstream of the protocol; the protocol does the work downstream of the taxonomy. A patient who reads both arcs is, in the conservative reading, the patient the better Korean consult rooms read most carefully back.”

Editorial reading, Cheongdam regenerative-medicine corridor

Frequently asked questions

Is one category clinically superior to the others?

No. The categories address different indications, sit on different regulatory registers, and depend on different processing arcs. A clinical superiority claim across the categorical taxonomy is, on the conservative Korean reading, a marketing register rather than a clinical one. Patients should expect the better practices to articulate which category fits the indication rather than which category is best.

Which category is most commonly administered in the Korean foreign-patient corridor?

The autologous adipose-derived category and the SVF category sit on the most accessible regulatory register and the most procedurally streamlined arc, and the foreign-patient flow is, on the corridor's reading, weighted toward those categories. BM-MSC and cultured-and-expanded protocols are administered substantively but at lower volume; the institutional depth required reads through the consult.

How should I read the difference between SVF and cultured-and-expanded ADSC at consult?

The SVF register is the unfractionated cellular yield from an adipose harvest, processed without cellular-expansion and re-administered same-day; the cultured-and-expanded ADSC register is the cellular product produced by laboratory expansion across multiple passages, calibrated to a target cell yield. The procedural arc, the regulatory register, and the cellular composition are meaningfully different, and the better practices articulate the distinction directly when asked.

Does Korean regulation treat exosome therapy as cellular therapy?

The regulatory framing has been calibrated more recently than the framing for autologous cellular protocols, and the categorical reading varies. Patients should expect a careful practice to articulate the specific regulatory register the exosome product sits within rather than to absorb the product into the wider cellular-therapy frame. The framing's clarity is the marker the conservative reading attends to.

Is umbilical cord-derived stem cell therapy approved in Korea?

Allogeneic umbilical cord-derived cellular products sit within the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety's tissue-bank cellular-therapy framework, with specific products approved under specific indications and registration scopes. Patients should expect, on the conservative reading, the practice administering the protocol to articulate the specific regulatory standing of the specific cellular product rather than to refer broadly to the framework's existence.

How does PRP differ from the cellular-therapy categories?

PRP is, strictly read, not a cellular therapy in the conservative sense — the active register is platelets and the growth factors they release rather than cellular material per se. The taxonomy includes PRP because it sits on the same procedural shelf and addresses overlapping indications, but a careful patient should read PRP in its adjunct framing rather than as a cellular-therapy substitute.

Should I expect to receive only one category, or multiple in adjunct?

The conservative Korean practices articulate adjunct registers commonly — exosome with PRP, PRP with autologous adipose, conditioned-media with aesthetic-medicine procedures — and the adjunct framing is part of the discipline rather than a marketing extension. Patients should expect the adjunct framing to be articulated honestly: which register carries which part of the protocol, which evidence base supports which adjunct, and how the regulatory register reads across the combined arc.

Where can I read the Korean regulatory framework directly?

The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety's English-language register at mfds.go.kr articulates the cellular-therapy framework, and the Korea Health Industry Development Institute's medicalkorea.or.kr portal articulates the foreign-patient framework. A careful patient should read both registers before the consult; the conservative practices will reference both routinely when asked about the regulatory framing of any specific protocol.