全民健康保險委員會決策參與影響因素之探析：社會網絡分析的觀點

Factors Associated with the Decision-making Participation of National Health Insurance Committee Members: Analysis Using Social Network Analysis

10.29865/PAP.202106_(72).0002

王光旭(Guang-Xu Wang)；葉謹寧(Jin-Ning Ye)；劉宜君(I-Chun Liu)；陳敦源(Don-Yun Chen)；林昭吟(Chao-Ying Lin)

全民健康保險委員會（健保會） ； 社會網絡分析 ； 委員會治理 ； 收支連動 ； 決策參與 ； National Health Insurance Committee (NHIC) ； social network analysis (SNA) ； committee governance ； decision-making participation

行政暨政策學報

72期（2021 / 06 / 01）

67 - 114

繁體中文

臺灣的二代健康保險係透過合議制的健康保險委員會（以下簡稱健保會），負責關於健保費率、給付範圍與年度醫療給付費用總額協定等重大健康保險財務事項的審議。因此，健保會的運作成效與健保財務良窳息息相關。從實務上來說，雖然這種合議制組織在臺灣行政運作上十分常見，但運作成效卻沒有衡量的標準，國內也鮮少有關委員會治理方面的論著可供參考。本研究認為，委員對會議的出席與積極討論，是衡量健保會是否能達到設置目標的基本要件。由於委員會是一個封閉性的群體，彼此間在決策參與中會產生密切的互動，甚至形成非正式組織，影響到決策參與的結果。據此，本研究以委員決策參與為討論標的，探究委員之間的互動關係是否會影響到委員的決策參與行為。據此，本研究以105年度健保會的委員為分析對象，透過社會網絡問卷與105年度的會議實錄蒐集相關資料進行分析。本研究的成果有三：1、如實呈現健保會委員在參與決策過程中的互動關係；2、學者專家與被保險人的影響力較高，位居核心，與會行為較為積極，反之醫事團體代表較為位居邊陲，參與也較不積極；3、委員對於討論事項和專案報告的發言積極度，主要受到委員間資源依賴和法規諮詢關係的影響。本研究並依據以上的研究成果，針對強化委員參與的頻率與品質提出具體的建議。

Taiwan's second-generation NHI is operated by the National Health Insurance Committee (hereinafter NHIC) through a directorial system. The Committee is responsible for the review of major health insurance financial matters, such as the health insurance rate, the scope of payment, and the annual medical payment negotiation under the global budget payment system. Therefore, the effectiveness of the NHIC and the management of health insurance finance are greatly related. In practice, although this directorial organization is very common in Taiwan's administrative operations, its operational effectiveness is not measured. There are currently few studies on committee governance in Taiwan. According to this study, the attendance rate and the enthusiasm of members at the meeting are the basic requirements for measuring whether the NHIC can achieve its goals. Since the committee is a closed group, the members will closely interact with each other in decision-making, and even form an informal organization, which will affect the outcome of decision-making participation. This study takes the decision-making participation of members as the main discussion topic, to explore whether the interaction between the members will affect their decision-making participation behavior. The study investigated the participation behavior of members of the 2016 NHIC and analyzed the data obtained through a social network questionnaire and the 2016 conference record. The results are as follows: 1. Truly present the interaction of members of the NHIC in the decision-making process; 2. The influence of scholars and insured persons ranks the highest, and their participation behavior is more positive. In contrast, the representatives of medical institutions are more at the border, and the level of participation is low; 3. The enthusiasm of the members regarding the discussion items and the project report is mainly influenced by the resource dependence and law consultation among the members. On the basis of the aforementioned results, this study also proposes specific recommendations to strengthen the frequency and quality of committee participation.

1. 王光旭(2013)。社會網絡分析在公共政策權力途徑上應用之初探：以全民健保的重要政策事件為例。行政暨政策學報，57，37-90。
   連結：
2. 王光旭(2015)。社會網絡分析在公共行政領域研究的應用。調查研究－方法與應用，34，67-134。
   連結：
3. 王光旭,熊瑞梅(2014)。運用網絡分析探討政策掮客在政策過程中的角色：以解嚴前後臺中市都市發展為分析案例。調查研究－方法與應用，31，31-88。
   連結：
4. 劉宜君(2016)。全民健康保險委員會運作效能之評估研究：健保會委員之觀點。社會政策與社會工作學刊，20(1)，85-128。
   連結：
5. 羅凱凌(2017)。公共參與真的能提升效能感嗎？以全民健康保險會之利害關係團體為例。公共行政學報，53，25-77。
   連結：
6. 羅凱凌(2017)。誰說了算？臺灣全民健康保險會利害關係人政策參與之個案研究。臺灣民主季刊，14(13)，103-145。
   連結：
7. Ansell, C.,Gash, A.(2008).Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,18(4),543-571.
8. Bader, B. S., and P. R. Knecht. 2013. Most Commonly Asked Questions about Board Committees. from www.greatboards.org/faqboard-committees-summer13.pdf. Retrieved June 5, 2016.
9. Berry, F. S.,Brower, R. S.,Choi, S. O.,Goa, W. X.,Jang, H.S.,Kwon, M.,Word, J.(2004).Three Traditions of Network Research: What the Public Management Research Agenda Can Learn from Other Research Communities.Public Administration Review,64(5),539-552.
10. Best, H.(ed.),Higley, J.(ed.)(2018).The Palgrave Handbook of Political Elites.London:Palgrave Macmillan.
11. Boogers, M.(2014).Pulling the Strings: An Analysis of Informal Local Power Structures in Three Dutch Cities.Local Government Studies,40(3),339-355.
12. Bruijn, H. D.,Heuvelhof, E. T.(2008).Management in Networks: On Multi-actor Decision Making.London:Routledge.
13. Compston, H.(2009).Policy Networks and Policy Change: Putting Policy Network Theory to the Test.New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
14. Considine, M.,Lewis, J. M.,Alexander, D.(2009).Networks, Innovation and Public Policy: Politicians, Bureaucrats and the Pathways to Change Inside Government.New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
15. Cornforth, C.(2003).The Governance of Public and Non-Profit Organizations: What Do Boards Do?.London:Routledge.
16. Dahl, R. A.(1961).Who Governs?.New Heaven:Yale University Press.
17. Domhoff, G. W. 2005. Power Structure Research and the Hope for Democracy. from http://observatory-elites.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Power-Structure-Research-.pdf. Retrieved November 7, 2020.
18. Dyer, S.(2004).Rationalising Public Participation in the Health Service: The Case of Research Ethics Committees.Health & Place,10,339-348.
19. Freeman, L. C.(1979).Centrality in Social Networks: Conceptual Clarification.Social Networks,1(3),215-239.
20. Freeman, L. C.(2004).The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science.CA:Empirical Press.
21. Granovetter, M.(1985).Economic Action and Social Structure: the Problem of Embeddedness.American Journal of Sociology,91(3),481-510.
22. Hahn, V.(2017).Committee Design with Endogenous Participation.Games and Economic Behavior,102,388-408.
23. Hall, R. L.(1987).Participation and Purpose in Committee Decision Making.American Political Science Review,81(1),105-127.
24. Hanneman, R. A.,Riddle, M.(2005).Introduction to Social Network Methods.Riverside, CA:University of California.
25. Hunter, F.(1953).Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers.Chapel Hill:University of North Carolina Press.
26. Kahler, M.(2009).Networked Politics: Agency, Power, and Governance.Cornell:Cornell University Press.
27. Knoke, D.,Pappi, F. U.,Broadbent, J.,Tsujinaka, Y.(1996).Comparing Policy Networks: Labor Politics in the U.S., Germany, and Japan.New York:Cambridge University Press.
28. Knoke, D.,Yang, S.(2008).Social Network Analysis.Los Angeles:Sage.
29. Koliba, C. J.,Mills, R. M.,Zia, A.(2011).Accountability in Governance Networks: An Assessment of Public, Private, and Nonprofit Emergency Management Practices Following Hurricane Katrina.Public Administration Review,71(2),210-220.
30. Krackhardt, D.(1987).QAP Partialling as a Test of Spuriousness.Social Networks,9,171-186.
31. Laumann, E. O.,Knoke, D.(1987).The Organizational State: Social Choice in National Policy Domains.London:The University of Wisconsin Press.
32. Li, H.,Suen, W.(2009).Viewpoint: Decision-making in Committees.The Canadian Journal of Economics,42(2),359-392.
33. Loewenberg, G.(2015).On legislatures: The Puzzle of Representation.New York, NY:Routledge.
34. Marsh, David(ed.)(1998).Comparing Policy Networks.Buckingham:Open University Press.
35. Mitchell, J.(1997).Representation in Government Boards and Commissions.Public Administration Review,57(2),160-167.
36. Nash, Kate(ed.),Scott, Alan(ed.)(2001).The Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology.Oxford:Blackwell Publishing.
37. O’Toole, L. J., Jr.,Hanf, K. I.,Hupe, P. L.(1997).Managing Implementation Processes in Networks.Managing Complex Network: strategies for the Public Sector,London:
38. Perry, B. L.,Pescosolido, B. A.,Borgatti, S. P.(2018).Egocentric Network Analysis Foundations, Methods, and Models.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
39. Provan, K. G.,Kenis, P.(2008).Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,18(2),229-252.
40. Provan, K. G.,Milward, H. B.(1995).A Preliminary Theory of Interorganizational Network Effectiveness: A Comparative Study of four Community Mental Health Systems.Administrative Science Quarterly,40,1-33.
41. Provan, K. G.,Milward, H. B.(2001).Do Networks Really Work? A Framework for Evaluating Public-Sector Organizational Networks.Public Administration Review,61(4),414-423.
42. Rhodes, R. A. W.(1997).Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability.Buckingham:Open University Press.
43. Rice, M. F.(1982).Who Rules in Local Communities: Reputation, Decision-Making, Leadership, and Community Power Revisited.Journal of Political Science,10(1),19-29.
44. Sandström, A.(2008).Sweden,Dept. of Business Administration and Social science at Luleå University of Technology.
45. Scott, J.(ed.),Carrington, P. J.(ed.)(2011).The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis.London:SAGE.
46. Spira, L. F.,Bender, R.(2004).Compare and Contrast: Perspectives on Board Committees.An International Review,12(4),489-499.
47. Visser, B.,Swank, O.(2007).On Committees of Experts.The Quarterly Journal of Economics,122(1),337-372.
48. Wasserman, S.,Faust, K.(1994).Social Network Analysis: Methods and Application.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
49. Wasserman, Stanley(ed.),Galaskiewicz, Joseph(ed.)(1994).Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.London:SAGE.
50. Wesselink, A.,Paavola, J.,Fritsch, O.,Renn, O.(2011).Rationales for Public Participation in Environmental Policy and Governance: Practitioners’ Perspectives.Environment and Planning A,43(11),2688-2704.
51. Wolfinger, R. E.(1960).Reputation and Reality in the Study of Community Power.American Sociological Review,25(5),636-644.
52. World Health Organization=WHO(1978).Declaration of Alma-Ata.Alma-Ata, USSR:World Health Organization.
53. Yang, K.,Pandey, S. K.(2007).Public Responsiveness of Government Organizations: Testing a Preliminary Model.Public Performance & Management Review,31(2),215-240.
54. 丁志音，2000，〈阿拉木圖全民健康宣言〉，國家教育研究院－雙語詞彙、學術名詞暨辭書資訊網頁：http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1307075/，檢索日期：2018 年 5 月 20 日。
55. 王光旭(2009)。國立政治大學公共行政學系。
56. 王光旭(2012)。委員會決策參與影響因素之探析－社會鑲嵌的觀點。政策與人力管理，3(2)，75-117。
57. 王秋蓉(2015)。國立高雄應用大學企業管理系。
58. 吳毓淳(2002)。國立政治大學社會學研究所。
59. 林聚任(2009).社會網絡分析：理論、方法與應用.北京:北京師範大學出版社.
60. 健保署，2017，〈全民健康保險年報〉，健保署：https://www1.nhi.gov.tw/Nhi_E-LibraryPubWeb/CustomPage/P_Detail.aspx?FType=8&CP_ID=207，檢索日期：2018 年 5 月 20日。 8&CP_ID
61. 莊海玲(2013)。國立臺中教育大學特殊教育學系。
62. 陳敦源(2006)。全民健保監理委員會委託研究報告全民健保監理委員會委託研究報告,全民健保監理委員會。
63. 陳敦源,張耀懋(2012)。行政院衛生署委託研究報告行政院衛生署委託研究報告,行政院衛生署。
64. 葉素萍，2018，〈世界醫師會大會蔡總統錄影談臺灣健保典範〉，中央通訊社：https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/201805220260.aspx，檢索日期：2019 年 5 月 22 日。
65. 榮泰生(2013).UCINET 在社會網絡分析（SNA）之應用.臺北:五南圖書出版股份有限公司.
66. 劉宜君(2013)。衛生福利部委託研究報告衛生福利部委託研究報告,衛生福利部。
67. 劉宜君,陳敦源,林昭吟,王光旭(2016)。衛生福利部委託研究報告衛生福利部委託研究報告,衛生福利部。
68. 劉宜君,王千文(2016)。委員會委員角色評估之研究：以全民健康保險會為初探案例。社會研究學報，2(2)，33-35。
69. 蔡翔傑,黃東益,陳麗光,陳敦源(2009)。委員會治理過程之評估－「全民健保醫療給付協議會議」的個案研究。臺灣政治學會年會暨『動盪年代中的政治學：理論與實踐』學術研討會，新竹:
70. 衛生福利部，2014，〈二代健保總檢討報告〉，衛生福利部：http://dep.mohw.gov.tw/DOSI/cp-289-7569-102.html，檢索日期：2019 年 10 月 20 日。

1. 簡子文,張浩也,孫同文,林晏生(2023)。地方議會分配政治網絡分析：以南投縣第 17 與 18 屆議員提案為例。文官制度季刊，15(2)，121-157。