(44.192.66.171) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/18 01:24
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:黃英家
研究生(外文):Ying-Chia Huang
論文名稱:健保支付制度變遷下西醫診所回應行為之研究
論文名稱(外文):The Study of the Responses of the Clinics to the Change of National Health Insurance Reimbursement System
指導教授:林尚平林尚平引用關係
指導教授(外文):Shang-Ping Lin
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立雲林科技大學
系所名稱:管理研究所博士班
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:企業管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2005
畢業學年度:93
語文別:中文
論文頁數:125
中文關鍵詞:Cox比例危害模型組織因應行為Kaplan-Meier存活曲線私人診所全民健康保險制度變遷
外文關鍵詞:private clinicsNational Health Insuranceinstitutional changeorganizational responsesKaplan-Meier survival curveCox proportional hazard model
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:143
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
體制變遷下中小企業因應行為的研究,因為缺乏決策行為的檔案紀錄,因此在過去相關的實證性研究並不多見。從台灣西醫基層醫療產業的特性,加上十年來台灣實施全民健康保險和總額支付制度的背景,本研究以不同於過去橫斷面相關要素分析的研究方法,嘗試進行準實驗性質的因果關係實證研究。研究中利用流行病學存活分析的概念,使用Kaplan-Meier曲線分析與Cox比例危害模型等工具來追蹤健保特約西醫基層私人診所在面對2002年起大幅調動的支付標準衝擊時會有哪些的因應決策行動。
本研究將全台灣健保特約西醫基層私人診所2001年的相關資料蒐集後依照四分位分為四群,並將75百分位組在90百分位處切為兩組,一共五組,進行回溯性世代研究,架構上粗分為診所過去經營規模、產業環境、診所專有屬性與負責醫師特質四個面向,來觀察經營模式是否因為2002年支付標準改變而有所因應行動。
研究結果顯示不論多聘醫師或處方釋出的因應行為在件數規模上都有正向相關,前者的幅度也大於後者。至於產業環境方面,分區在多聘醫師的因應行為上並無顯著差異。在處方釋出的因應行為採用方面,中區與高屏區的診所明顯少於北台灣的同儕;南區診所有分兩階段採用的傾向,各於六個月後與一年後處方釋出以因應變局。另外,城鄉差距在多聘醫師的因應行為上無顯著差異;控制件數規模後,發現都市化一、二級地區中較高件數規模的單獨執業者比其他地區同儕有較高的多聘醫師因應行為。都市的診所在處方釋出行為上,比城鎮與鄉村的診所少約四分之一;控制件數規模後,發現件數規模中量組別中,鄉村與城鎮的診所的處方釋出比例都遠高於都市診所;同時,中高量組別中,鄉村診所處方釋出比例較高,而都市診所比例較低。
在診所特性部分,以診療費高低分成三個族群。在多聘醫師的因應行為上,中診療費組的診所稍高於其他兩組,有顯著差異;控制執業型態後,發現差異來自於單獨執業的診所有較高多聘醫師的因應行為所致。低診療費組則在處方釋出的因應行為上稍高於其他兩組,有顯著差異;控制執業型態後,發現差異來自於較多聯合執業者採取處方釋出所致。若論及診所經營型態,聯合執業者,在兩種決策的採用上都遠比單獨執業者高,有顯著差異。尤其多聘醫師的因應行為高達3.3倍,但在處方釋出方面則只高三成左右;控制件數規模後,發現件數規模低量組與中低量組中,聯合執業者比單獨執業者採用了較多的多聘醫師因應行為;處方釋出方面則無顯著的差異。
在診所負責醫師屬性的分析上,分成青、中、高三個世代。在多聘醫師的因應行為上,可以見到青年組高於中年組,並遠高於高年組。控制執業型態後,發現單獨執業診所中的青年組與中年組在多聘醫師因應行為方面,是高年組的3.6倍與1.6倍;聯合執業者反而無世代之間的差異。至於處方釋出方面,青年組與中年組則比高年組多56%與33%,而且不論是否聯合執業,都存在類似的顯著差異;控制件數規模後,發現高年組醫師單獨執業者有較保守的處方釋出行為。比較負責醫師的出身時,發現本國醫學院校畢業的負責醫師多聘醫師的因應行為遠低於其他背景者;控制執業型態後,發現單獨執業組別診所之多聘醫師行為明顯低於其他背景出身者,約一半左右。但在處方釋出的因應行為上,本國醫學院校畢業者反而約比其他背景者多七成採用;控制執業型態後,發現差異在於單獨執業診所部分,聯合執業者並不顯著。最後性別因素,在多聘醫師與處方釋出的因應行為上,皆無顯著差異。
本研究並進一步以組織生態理論與體制理論中組織同形、組織惰性與利基的觀念來討論,為何在同樣的體制場域下,部分理應有所反應的診所卻保守地以過去的經營策略來面對體制環境的變動。
There were just a few studies about organizational strategic responses to the impact of the institutional change in the past. Lack of documentation of strategic decision-making, the empirical studies about small enterprises’ strategic responses to environmental change are few. Comparing to the cross-section studies, we designed a quasi-experimental cohort framework to establish a cause-effect analysis of the institutional change and organizational strategic responses. This study focused on the primary care industry of Taiwan, and based on the context of the National Health Insurance (NHI) program and the Global Budget Reimbursement System. Dividing the private clinics into 5 groups by their average outpatient visits in 2001, this study traced the responses of private clinics to the change of 2002 NHI reimbursement schedules for 31 months. Borrowing the survival analytic tools from the epidemiological methods, such as Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models, the study compared the trends and the relative hazard rates between the groups based on environmental attributes and the characteristics of clinics and their owners.
The results revealed that more clinics with higher volume of outpatient visits adopted ‘one more doctor’ or ‘an affiliated pharmacy’ strategy. Though there was no difference in adopting ‘one more doctor’ strategy among different jurisdictions, clinics in Central and Kaoping jurisdictions adopted ‘an affiliated pharmacy’ strategies half less than those in other jurisdictions. There was either no difference among clinics in rural or urban areas in adopting ‘one more doctor’ strategy, but less clinics in metropolitans and cities adopted ‘an affiliated pharmacy’ strategy than those in rural areas. Dividing the clinics into three groups by the monthly claims of Treatment Fees (TF), it revealed that the middle TF group adopted ‘one more doctor’ strategy, and the low TF group adopted ‘an affiliated pharmacy’ strategy more than other groups. Group-practice clinics were 3.3 times more than those sole-practice ones to adopt ‘one more doctor’ strategy, but 30% more in using ‘an affiliated pharmacy’ strategy. According to the ages of the clinic owners, it found that younger and middle cohorts were 3.6 and 1.6 times more than elder one in adopting ‘one more doctor’ strategy, but only 56% and 33% more in using ‘an affiliated pharmacy’ strategy. Clinic owners graduated from Taiwan’s medical schools adopted ‘an affiliated pharmacy’ strategy more, but used ‘one more doctor’ strategy less than the others. There was no gender difference in strategic adoption. There was more detail analysis of organizational isomorphism, inertia, and environmental niche in the discussion.
中文摘要 -------------------------------------------------------------- i
英文摘要 -------------------------------------------------------------- iii
誌謝 -------------------------------------------------------------- v
目錄 -------------------------------------------------------------- vi
表目錄 -------------------------------------------------------------- viii
圖目錄 -------------------------------------------------------------- xi
一、 前言---------------------------------------------------------- 1
1.1 體制變遷與廠商回應行為研究------------------------------------ 1
1.2 台灣西醫基層醫療產業------------------------------------------ 4
1.3 全民健保制度與總額支付制度------------------------------------ 4
1.4 2002年支付標準變動-------------------------------------------- 5
1.5 研究目的------------------------------------------------------ 6
二、 研究背景說明與文獻探討---------------------------------------- 8
2.1 支付標準變動對診所經營決策選擇的影響-------------------------- 8
2.1.1 支付標準變動對診所收入的影響---------------------------------- 8
2.1.2 診所經營模式與所得-------------------------------------------- 9
2.1.3 各種看診量規模診所可能的因應策略------------------------------ 13
2.2 體制變遷與企業策略回應文獻回顧-------------------------------- 16
三、 研究假設與研究方法-------------------------------------------- 22
3.1 研究架構與待檢定之假設---------------------------------------- 22
3.1.1 診所營業狀況-------------------------------------------------- 26
3.1.2 產業環境因素-------------------------------------------------- 27
3.1.3 診所的企業特質------------------------------------------------ 28
3.1.4 負責人的特質-------------------------------------------------- 29
3.2 資料蒐集與分析------------------------------------------------ 31
3.2.1 研究相關資料內容與處理---------------------------------------- 31
3.2.2 資料處理的排除原則-------------------------------------------- 33
3.2.3 研究設計與變項說明-------------------------------------------- 34
3.3 存活分析理論、Kaplan-Meier存活曲線與Cox比例危害模型----------- 37
3.3.1 存活分析之概念------------------------------------------------ 38
3.3.2 存活分析之資料型態-------------------------------------------- 38
3.3.3 Kaplan-Meier存活曲線------------------------------------------ 39
3.3.4 Cox比例危害模型----------------------------------------------- 41
四、 結果與假設檢定分析-------------------------------------------- 45
4.1 基本分析與描述性統計------------------------------------------- 45
4.2 假設檢定分析--------------------------------------------------- 47
4.2.1 件數規模對診所因應行為的影響----------------------------------- 47
4.2.2 分區要素對診所因應行為的影響----------------------------------- 51
4.2.3 都市化程度對診所因應行為的影響--------------------------------- 63
4.2.4 診所科別特性對診所因應行為的影響------------------------------- 66
4.2.5 診所執業型態對診所因應行為的影響------------------------------- 73
4.2.6 負責醫師年齡對診所因應行為的影響------------------------------- 77
4.2.7 負責醫師出身背景對診所因應行為的影響--------------------------- 84
4.2.8 負責醫師性別對診所因應行為的影響------------------------------- 86
五、 討論與結論----------------------------------------------------- 90
5.1 研究結果討論--------------------------------------------------- 90
5.1.1 ‘從限制中選擇’和組織惰性與因應行為之關係--------------------- 90
5.1.2 分區和城鄉要素與因應行為之關係--------------------------------- 93
5.1.3 診所專有屬性要素與因應行為之關係------------------------------- 95
5.1.4 診所負責醫師之屬性要素與因應行為之關係------------------------- 96
5.2 研究限制------------------------------------------------------- 99
5.3 未來研究建議---------------------------------------------------101
參考文獻 ---------------------------------------------------------------104
附錄 ---------------------------------------------------------------108
1.曾國雄、吳水源,1986,“台灣地區市鎮鄉都市化程度特性之研究”,師大地理研究報告,12卷,頁287-323。
2.Amburgey, T.L., and Rao, H., 1996, “Organizational Ecology: Past, Present, and Future Directions”, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 39, pp.1265-1286.
3.Baron, D., 1995, “Integrated strategy: Market and nonmarket components”, California Management Review, vol. 37, pp.47-65.
4.Baron, D., 2000, Business and its Environment, 3rd edition., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
5.Bowman, E.H., 1985, “Generalizing about strategic change” In Organizational Strategy and Change, J.M. Pennings and Associates (eds.), pp.319-335, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. 
6.Carroll, G., Delacroix, J., and Goodstein J., 1988, “The Political Environment of Organizations: An Ecological View”, Research in Organizations Behavior, vol. 10, pp.239-392.
7.Collins, R., 1979, The Credential Society, Academic Press, New York.
8.Cox, D.R., and Oakes, D., 1984, Analysis of Survival Data, Chapman and Hall, New York.
9.D’Aunno, T., Sutton, R.I., and Price, R.H., 1991, “Isomorphism and External Support in Conflicting Institutional Environments: A Study of Drug Abuse Treatment Units.” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 34, pp.636-661.
10.DiMaggio, P.J., and Powell, W.W., 1983, “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields”, American Sociological Review, vol. 48, pp.147-160.
11.Dobbin, F., and Dowd, T.J., 1997, “How Policy Shapes Competition: Early Railroad Foundings in Massachusetts”, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 42, pp.501-529.
12.Eisenhardt, K.M., and Schoonhoven, C.B., 1996, “Resource-based View of Strategic Alliance Formation: Strategic and Social Effects in Entrepreneurial Firms”, Organization Science, vol. 7, pp.136-150.
13.Elandt-Johnson, R.C., and Johnson, N.L., 1980, Survival Models and Data Analysis, Wiley, New York.
14.Fligstein, N., 1990, The Transformation of Corporate Control, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
15.Ghoshal, S., 1987, “Global Strategy: An Organizing Framework”, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 5, pp. 425-440.
16.Goodrick, E., and Salancik, G.R., 1996, “Organizational Discretion in Responding to Institutional Practices: Hospitals and Cesarean Births. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 41, pp.1-28.
17.Hagedoorn, J., van Kranenburg, H., and Osborn, R.N., 2003, “Joint Patenting amongst Companies—Exploring the Effects of Inter-firm R&D Partnering and Experience”, Managerial and Decision Economics, vol. 24, pp.71-84.
18.Hannan, M.T., and Freeman, J., 1977, “The population ecology of organizations.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 82, pp.929-964.
19.Hannan, M.T., and Freeman, J., 1984, “Structural Intertia And Organizational Change”, American Sociological Review, vol. 49, pp149-164.
20.Hannan, M.T., and Freeman, J., 1989, Organizational Ecology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA: 
21.Hawley, A., 1968, “Human Ecology.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Sills, D.L. (ed.), pp.328-337, Macmillan, New York:
22.Hinings, B., and Greenwood, R., 1988, “The Normative Prescription of Organizations”, In Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, Zucker, L.G. (ed.), pp.53-70, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA. 
23.Hoffman, A.J., 2001, “Linking Organizational and Field-level Analyses - The Diffusion of Corporate Environmental Practice”, Organization & Environment, vol. 14, pp. 133-156.
24.Hosmer, D.W., and Lemeshow, S., 1999, Applied Survival Analysis: Regression Modeling of Time to Event Data, Wiley, New York.
25.Ingram, P., and Clay, K., 2000, “The Choice-within-constraints New Institutionalism and Implications for Sociology”, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 26, pp.525-546.
26.Kalbfleisch, J.D., and Prentice R.L., 1980, The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data, Wiley, New York.
27.Khandwalla, P.N., 1977, The Design of Organizations, Harcourt Brace, New York.
28.Klein, J.P., and Moeschberger M.L., 1997, Survival Analysis: Techniques for Censored and Truncated Data, Springer-Verlag, New York.
29.Kondra, A.Z., and Hinings, C.R., 1998, “Organizational diversity and change in institutional theory”, Organization Studies, vol. 19, pp.743-767.
30.Larson, M.S., 1977, “The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis”, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
31.Lee, E.T., 1992, Statistical Methods for Survival Data Analysis, Wiley, New York.
32.Lubatkin, M., Schulze, W.S., Mainkar, A., and Cotterill, R.W., 2001, “Ecological Investgations of Firm Effects in Horizontal Mergers”, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 22, pp.335-357.
33.March, J.G., and Olsen, J.P., 1976, Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, Universitefsforlaget, Bergen.
34.Meyer, J.W., and Rowan, B., 1977, “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 83, pp.340-363.
35.Meyer, J.W., and Scott, W.R., and Strang, D., 1987, “Centralization, Fragmentation, and School District Complexity”, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol.32, pp.186-201.
36.Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C., Meyer, A.D., and Coleman Jr. H.J., 1978, “Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 3, pp.546-562.
37.Miller, D., and Friesen, P.H., 1982, “Innovation in Conservative and Entrepreneurial Firms: Two Models of Strategic Momentum”, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 3, pp.1- 25.
38.Mintzberg, H., 1973, “Strategy-making in Three Modes”, California Management Review, vol. 16, pp.44-53.
39.Nabli, M.K., and Nugent, J.B., 1989, “The New Institutional Economics and Its Applicability to Development”, World Development, vol. 17, pp.1333-1347.
40.Nee, V., and Ingram, P., 1998, “Embeddedness and Beyond: Institutions, Exchange, and Social Structure”, In The New Institutionalism in Sociology, Brinton, M.C., and Nee, V. (eds.), Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
41.North, D.C., 1993, “Institutions and Credible Commitment”, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, vol., 149, pp.11-23.
42.Oliver, C., 1991, “Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 16, pp.145-179.
43.Osborn, R., and Baughn, C., 1990, “Forms of Interorganizational Governance for Multinational Alliances”, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 33, pp.503-519.
44.Ostrom, E., 1990, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
45.Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., and Walker, J., 1994, Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
46.Oxley, J.E., 1999, “Institutional Environment and the Mechanism of Governance: The Impact of Intellectual Property Protection on the Structure of Inter-firm Alliances”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, vol. 38, pp.283-309.
47.Pfeffer, J., and Salancik, G.R., 1978, The External Control of Organizations, Harper and Row, New York.
48.Rao, H., 1998, “Caveat Emptor: The Constructions of Nonprofit Consumer Watchdog Organizations”, American Journal Sociology, vol. 103, pp.912-961.
49.Riemenschneider, C.K., and Mykytyn, P.P., 2000, “What Small Businesss Executives Have Learned about Managing Information Technology”, Information & Management , vol. 37, pp.257-269.
50.Ruef, M., 1997. “Assessing Organizational Fitness on A Dynamic Landscape: An Empirical Test of The Relative Inertia Thesis”, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 18, pp.837-853.
51.Scott, W.R., 1992, Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems(3rd ed.), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
52.Shane, S., 1994, “The Effect of National Culture on the Choice between Licensing and Direct Foreign Investment”, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 15, pp.627-642.
53.Simons, T., and Ingram, P., 1997, “Oraganization and Ideology: Kibbutzim and Hired Labor, 1951-1965”, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 42, pp. 784-813.
54.Steensma, H., Marino, L., Weaver, K., and Dickson, P., 2000, “The Influence of National Culture on the Formation of Technology Alliances by Entrepreneurial Firms”, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 43, pp.951-973.
55.Sweeney, G., 1982, “The Market for Physicians'' Services: Theoretical Implications and Empirical Test of the Target Income Hypothesis”, Southern Economic Journal, vol. 48, pp.594-613.
56.Williamson, O.E., 1975, Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, Free Press, New York.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top