本研究以「臺北榮民總醫院國際醫療策略營運模式之研究―與台大醫院比較為例」為題，旨在探討台灣兩家指標性醫學中心於國際醫療市場的策略定位、產品化程度、資訊透明度、整合能力與產業成熟度之差異。近年全球跨境醫療市場快速成長，國際病患對醫療品質、流程效率、資訊公開程度與跨領域服務的期待日益提高。台灣憑藉其優質醫療與成本效益具備競爭潛力，但各醫院於國際醫療市場的發展策略不一，使產業呈現不均衡的格局。本研究比較臺北榮民總醫院（簡稱臺北榮總）與國立台灣大學醫學院附設醫院（簡稱台大醫院）兩者在國際醫療策略的差異，對台灣國際醫療未來發展具有重要參考價值。
本研究採用司徒達賢策略形態分析法、策略矩陣分析法與產業矩陣理論三項策略工具，建構多元比較架構。研究資料來源包含兩家醫院官方網站、國際醫療中心資訊、政府政策資料、醫療旅遊資料庫、相關文獻與公開報導等。研究顯示，兩家醫院因組織使命、歷史背景及資源配置不同，形成截然不同的國際醫療策略路徑。臺北榮總的策略定位主要為國家級醫療任務與醫療外交，其核心著重於臨床能力輸出、國際合作與教育訓練，而非國際病患市場的商業競爭；台大醫院則以市場導向策略為核心，透過醫療產品化、一站式國際醫療流程、資訊透明化與跨語系服務，形塑高效率、標準化與高度可比較的國際醫療服務體系。
本研究發現，兩家醫院於國際醫療產品化、資訊透明度、市場定位、流程整合與產業階段上有顯著差異。臺北榮總處於產業矩陣中的「能力導向階段」，擁有強大臨床專科與研究能量，但醫療服務商品化程度低，流程與資訊未達國際化標準；台大醫院則已跨越「產品導向階段」，並逐漸朝向「整合服務階段」發展，透過健檢商品化、手術套餐化、行政整合與跨部門協作，具備高度市場競爭力。本研究亦指出，臺北榮總在國家醫療外交與國際合作方面具有不可取代性，但在吸引跨國自費病患方面仍有很大成長空間。
綜合以上，本研究認為臺北榮總提升國際醫療應採分階段策略，包括：提升資訊透明度、建立標準化國際醫療流程、發展專科醫療產品線、強化跨部門整合能力、導入醫療旅遊合作模式，並於長期建構跨國遠距醫療平台與精準醫學國際中心。此策略可使臺北榮總循序漸進地從能力導向走向產品化與整合化，進而提升其在國際醫療市場之競爭力與國家形象。本研究之結論可作為政府與醫療機構推動國際醫療產業升級之策略參考，也提供後續研究醫療機構策略比較的重要基礎。

This study, titled “A Strategic Analysis of the Development of International Medical Services at Taipei Veterans General Hospital: A Comparative Analysis with NTU Hospital,” aims to examine the strategic differences between two leading medical centers in Taiwan regarding their development, positioning, and operational models within the international healthcare market. With the global expansion of cross-border healthcare, international patients are increasingly seeking medical services abroad due to disparities in healthcare quality, cost structures, treatment accessibility, technological sophistication, and integrated medical– tourism packages. Taiwan possesses strong advantages in medical quality and affordability, yet the development of international healthcare services varies significantly among institutions, resulting in uneven industry progress. This study compares Taipei Veterans General Hospital (TVGH) and National Taiwan University Hospital (NTUH) to identify their strategic orientations and provide insights for policy formulation and healthcare management.
To establish a rigorous analytical framework, this research adopts three major strategic tools: (1) the Strategic Form Analysis proposed by Shih-Torng Ding, which evaluates strategy logic through strategy description, premise testing, choice of alternatives, and execution; (2) strategy matrix analysis, which visualizes differences in productization, transparency, competitive positioning, and market orientation; and (3) industry matrix theory, which situates each hospital within the developmental stages of the international healthcare industry—from capability-oriented, to product-oriented, integrated service-oriented, and platform-oriented models. Data sources include official hospital websites, international healthcare center information, government policy documents, medical tourism databases, and relevant academic literature.
The findings reveal fundamental differences between the two hospitals. TVGH’s strategy is rooted in its identity as a national medical institution tasked with medical diplomacy, 6 international cooperation, and talent training. Its international healthcare model emphasizes capability export, technical assistance, and cross-border academic collaboration instead of commercial market competition. Conversely, NTUH adopts a market-driven strategy, emphasizing the productization of healthcare services, transparency of information, standardized processes, one-stop international patient services, and multilingual support systems. This strategic orientation results in higher competitiveness in attracting self-pay international patients.
The study further identifies clear disparities between the two institutions regarding productization, information transparency, market positioning, service integration, and placement within the industry matrix. TVGH currently remains in the “capability-oriented stage,” possessing strong clinical expertise and research capacity but lacking productization and commercialized international healthcare models. NTUH has progressed beyond the “product-oriented stage” and is advancing toward the “integrated service stage,” enabling it to offer well-defined, comparable, and market-ready healthcare services and medical tourism packages. These differences reflect not only organizational capabilities but also institutional missions and resource allocation philosophies.
Additionally, this study argues that the two institutions embody distinct “value propositions.” TVGH’s value lies in enhancing Taiwan’s medical diplomacy and global reputation through international cooperation and the export of medical expertise. NTUH, on the other hand, derives value from its transparency, standardized medical products, and integrated international patient pathways, which function effectively in the competitive global healthcare market. These differences imply that Taiwan’s national-level medical diplomacy and medical tourism industries may require differentiated development strategies rather than a uniform model.
Based on the findings, this study proposes phased strategic recommendations for TVGH, including enhancing information transparency, developing standardized international healthcare pathways, creating specialized medical product lines, strengthening crossdepartmental integration, building medical tourism collaborations, and exploring long-term innovations such as precision medicine platforms and cross-border telemedicine systems. By following these recommendations, TVGH could gradually evolve from a capability-oriented institution to one that achieves productization and service integration, thereby improving its competitiveness and influence in the international healthcare arena.
Overall, this research contributes to existing literature by providing a systematic comparison between two leading Taiwanese hospitals and establishing a comprehensive strategic analysis framework. The findings offer valuable implications for healthcare institutions, policymakers, and stakeholders seeking to advance Taiwan’s position in the global medical services market.

甘兆欽、張達人、蔡文娟、陳淑萍、李素珍（2009）。組織變革新論：整合藍海策略與平衡計分卡－以嘉南療養院為例。經營管理論叢（第三屆管理與決策學術研討會特刊），1–20。
司徒達賢（2005）。策略管理新論：Strategic management: A new perspective for analysis。智勝。
司徒達賢(2024)。策略管理講義：第三章 策略構想, 國立政治大學商學院. https://gsba.nccu.edu.tw/seetoo/images/3%E7%AC%AC%E4%B8%89%E7%AB%A0%E7%AD%96%E7%95%A5%E6%A7%8B%E6%83%B3.pdf
行政院國家發展委員會（2022）。智慧醫療發展與政策方向白皮書。https://www.ndc.gov.tw/
周怡君（2020）。大數據與人工智慧於醫院管理之應用。醫療資訊與管理期刊，8(1)，22–39。
陳威明（2025）。打造醫療台灣隊的國際品牌：台北榮總經驗。Taiwan Medical Journal（醫事廣場），68(7)，30–40。
陳亮恭（2018）。台灣高齡化與醫療服務發展策略。臺北：天下文化。
黃建瑋（2021）。臺灣醫療旅遊市場之競爭策略分析：以醫學中心為例。國際企業管理評論，12(3)，45–70。
衛生福利部（2023）。國際醫療發展現況與推動策略報告。https://www.mohw.gov.tw/
醫策會（2021）。臺灣醫療品質與國際醫療統計年報。醫策會出版。
Chang, C. L., & Huang, Y. H. (2021). Business model analysis for healthcare service innovation. International Journal of Healthcare Management, 14(1), 45–56.
Deloitte. (2018). 2018 global health care outlook: The evolution of smart health care. Deloitte Insights.
Hall, C. M. (2011). Health and medical tourism: A kill or cure for global public health? Tourism Review, 66(1/2), 4–15.
Hwang, J., & Christensen, C. (2008). Disruptive innovation in health care delivery: A framework for business-model innovation. Health Affairs, 27(5), 1329–1335.
Lee, J., & Kim, H. (2020). Smart hospital transformation and digital innovation in Asia. Journal of Medical Systems, 44(8), 1–12.
Medical Tourism Association. (2020). Medical tourism statistics and trends. MTA Publications.
OECD. (2019). Health at a glance 2019: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing.
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation. Wiley.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press.
Porter, M. E., & Teisberg, E. O. (2006). Redefining health care: Creating value-based competition on results. Harvard Business School Press.
Smith, R., & Martinez, J. (2020). Strategic positioning of academic medical centers in global health care. Health Policy and Management Review, 15(2), 101–118.
WHO. (2021). Global strategy on digital health 2020–2025. World Health Organization.