The relationship between a physician incentive plan and departmental performance in a Taiwan hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to investigate the influence of a physician incentive plan based upon treatment of patients in a large private non-for-profit hospital in Taiwan. We examine the relationship between physicians’ bonuses and departmental performance to assess the impact of the physician incentive plan in the case hospital. The multiple regression models are used to examine the relationship between physicians’ bonuses and departmental profitability. In addition, we use Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) model to measure the operational efficiency of each department in the case hospital. Then, a multi-factor tobit model is used to examine the relationship between physicians’ bonuses and departmental efficiency. The results indicate that physicians’ bonuses in the case hospital are negatively correlated with departmental profitability and efficiency. That is, the performance measurement of current incentive plan may not be appropriate and it does not induce physicians to increase departmental profitability and improve efficiency. Our results suggest that the incentive plan is flawed and might fail to hold physicians accountable for improving departmental performance in the case hospital.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".