↓ Skip to main content

Hospital physician payment mechanisms in Austria: do they provide gateways to institutional corruption?

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Hospital physician payment mechanisms in Austria: do they provide gateways to institutional corruption?
Published in
Health Economics Review, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13561-017-0148-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Margit Sommersguter-Reichmann, Adolf Stepan

Abstract

Institutional corruption in the health care sector has gained considerable attention during recent years, as it acknowledges the fact that service providers who are acting in accordance with the institutional and environmental settings can nevertheless undermine a health care system's purposes as a result of the (financial) conflicts of interest to which the service providers are exposed. The present analysis aims to contribute to the examination of institutional corruption in the health sector by analyzing whether the current payment mechanism of separately remunerating salaried hospital physicians for treating supplementary insured patients in public hospitals, in combination with the public hospital physician's possibility of taking up dual practice as a self-employed physician with a private practice and/or as an attending physician in private hospitals, has the potential to undermine the primary purposes of the Austrian public health care system. Based on the analysis of the institutional design of the Austrian public hospital sector, legal provisions and directives have been identified, which have the potential to promote conduct on the part of the public hospital physician that systematically undermines the achievement of the Austrian public health system's primary purposes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 21%
Researcher 5 18%
Other 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 7 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Social Sciences 3 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 9 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 May 2023.
All research outputs
#14,495,458
of 23,663,122 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#194
of 450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,437
of 312,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#10
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,663,122 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 450 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,386 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.