目標：近年各界呼籲醫療機構提高財務透明度，而網際網路提供一個有效且低成本的資訊
傳播工具。本研究探討影響醫療機構在網路公開揭露財務資訊程度，及影響揭露行為的因素。
方法：建立醫院在網頁公開揭露財務資訊的量表，並調查230家醫院在網頁公開揭露財務資訊
情況。財務資訊揭露指標分為財務資訊類型、財務資訊品質、財務資訊易取得性及網頁揭露總
指標。然後分別以4項資訊揭露指標為應變數進行迴歸分析，探討影響醫院在網頁公開揭露財
務資訊的因素。結果：公立醫院在網頁公開揭露財務資訊的程度最高，其次為非營利醫院，營
利醫院公開揭露程度最低；區域醫院公開揭露財務資訊程度高於地區醫院。醫學中心的財務資
訊易取得性與揭露總指標顯著高於地區醫院；市場集中度愈高，網頁公開揭露財務資訊種類與
資訊品質也愈高；醫院新聞能見度愈高，其網頁資訊易取得性較高。結論：實證顯示醫院自願
性公開揭露財務資訊的誘因甚低，若要達成醫療機構全面公開揭露財務資訊，需要透過強制性
規範。(台灣衛誌 2012；31(2)：136-151)

Internet reporting has gained in popularity in recent years because of its low cost and wide reach. This study investigated the differences in online disclosure of financial information by hospitals under different ownership and the quantity, quality and accessibility of financial information on the websites of hospitals in Taiwan. Methods: The financial information disclosure index was constructed based on the data from the web-sites of 230 hospitals in Taiwan. The index included three parts: the categories of financial disclosure, the quality of the disclosed financial information, and the convenience of the internet search. Results: This study demonstrated significant differences in the online disclosure of financial information by hospitals under different types of ownership. Public hospitals had the highest degree of disclosure followed by not-for-profit hospitals and for-profit hospitals. The general information index was higher for metropolitan hospitals than for local community hospitals. General information and information accessibility for academic medical centers were both higher than those for local community hospitals. The index of financial categories and quality increased as the medical market concentration increased. Information accessibility from the websites of hospitals was positively correlated with visibility by the press. Conclusions: The incentives for voluntary online financial information disclosure are inadequate. Therefore, mandatory disclosure is a more effective way to increase the availability of financial information about hospitals. (Taiwan J Public Health. 2012;31(2):136-151)