Can’t Get No Satisfaction: Examining the Link between Patient Satisfaction and CEO Compensation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As annual public sector health care expenditures continue to increase in developed countries, governments struggle with how to measure the value-for-money they are receiving. Hospital performance is often viewed solely in research through the lens of economic indicators, with limited credence given to other contextual influencers. However, given the articulated focus of hospital mission, vision and value statements on prioritizing the patient, this research explores whether not-for-profit hospital CEOs are actually being compensation for high patient satisfaction factors; in effect, are hospital CEOs rewarded for meeting patient needs? Through an examination of 62 small, medium and teaching hospitals in Ontario, Canada from 2003 to 2006, we discover that patients’ satisfaction with their hospital experience is a predictor of the level of compensation of the hospital CEO. We further note that financial performance of the hospital does not appear to moderate this relationship. Given the increasing public policy relevance of health care utilization, this study raises interesting questions and directions for future research and offers practical management application for both health care and other public-sector institutions.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".