The 30 Best Workplaces in Healthcare, According to Employees

The 30 Best Workplaces in Healthcare, According to Employees

Marcia Frellick

April 13, 2017

Great Place to Work, which partnered with Fortune magazine, has released its Best Workplaces in Health Care 2017 rankings after tallying employee-generated points.

Employees of qualifying companies – those that self-identified as being in the healthcare industry ― answered 58 questions about how often they experience the behaviors that make a workplace great, such as whether they feel physically safe, whether they are proud to work there, and whether employees care about each other.

The Top Five

Topping the list of 30 again this year was Texas Health Resources, headquartered in Arlington, with 18,815 employees. Of 1256 employees surveyed, 94% said their workplace was great. It was also ranked 31 this year in Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to Work For.

The company cited programs and policies that showcase what makes it unique. Among them are low medical premiums with low deductibles and 90% coinsurance and a 401k matching program in which, after 1 year, the company matches every dollar an employee contributes, up to certain limits. Also, Texas Health pays for tuition and some fees for approved degree plans that benefit the employee or the company.

Continue Reading

The Effects of Medicaid Expansion under the ACA: Updated Findings from a Literature Review | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

Coverage: Studies show that Medicaid expansion results in significant coverage gains and reductions in uninsured rates, both among the low-income population broadly and within specific vulnerable populations.

Access to care, utilization, affordability, and health outcomes: Most research demonstrates that Medicaid expansion positively impacts access to care, utilization of services, the affordability of care, and financial security among the low-income population. Studies have also shown improved self-reported health following expansion, but additional research is needed to determine effects on health outcomes.

Economic measures: Analyses find positive effects of expansion on multiple economic outcomes, despite Medicaid enrollment growth initially exceeding projections in many states. Studies also show that Medicaid expansions result in reductions in uncompensated care costs for hospitals and clinics as well as positive or neutral effects on employment and the labor market.

As the Trump Administration and Congress debate ACA repeal and replacement, gains in coverage and access as well as economic benefits to states and providers are at stake if the Medicaid expansion is repealed.

Source: The Effects of Medicaid Expansion under the ACA: Updated Findings from a Literature Review | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

Research on the effects of Medicaid expansions under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) can help increase understanding of how the ACA has impacted coverage; access to care, utilization, affordability, and health outcomes; and various economic outcomes, including state budgets, the payer mix for hospitals and clinics, and the employment and labor market. Understanding these findings can help inform the debate over a repeal of the ACA (which would include the Medicaid expansion).

This summary reviews findings from 108 studies of the impact of state Medicaid expansions under the ACA published between January 2014 (when the coverage provisions of the ACA went into effect) and January 2017. (This is an update to an earlier issue brief, “The Effects of Medicaid Expansion under the ACA: Findings from a Literature Review,” that covered studies published through May 2016.) It includes peer-reviewed studies as well as free-standing reports, government reports, and white papers published by research and policy organizations, using data from 2014 or later. This brief only includes studies that examine impacts of the Medicaid expansion; it excludes studies on impacts of ACA coverage expansions generally (not specific to Medicaid expansion alone) and studies investigating potential effects of expansion in states that have not (or had not, at the time of the study) expanded Medicaid. In both the brief below and the tables, findings are separated into three broad categories: Medicaid expansion’s impact on coverage; access to care, utilization, affordability, and health outcomes; and economic outcomes for the expansion states.

Continue Reading

Crip for a Day – New research shows role-playing disability promotes distress, discomfort and disinterest 

Source: New research shows role-playing disability promotes distress, discomfort and disinterest

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28287757

Professionals in the fields of education and rehabilitation psychology have long used disability simulations to try to promote understanding and improve attitudes about persons with disabilities. To simulate blindness, for instance, participants might complete tasks while wearing blindfolds or goggles. Others use earplugs to mimic deafness. Others may navigate indoor and outdoor areas in a wheelchair. The idea is to boost empathy by giving people perspective on what it is like to have a disability.

However, a recent study published by Michelle Nario-Redmond, Ph.D., professor of psychology, reveals that disability simulations often result in feelings of fear, apprehension and pity toward those with disabilities, proving Nario-Redmond’s thesis that disability simulations do more harm than good.

Continue Reading

Guidelines: How to Write and Report About People with Disabilities

Guidelines: How to Write and Report About People with Disabilities (Download PDF)

Your Words, Our Image

Writers, editors, reporters and other communicators strive to use the most accurate terminology about people with disabilities. However, inaccurate, archaic and offensive expressions are still commonly used, perpetuating negative stereotypes and beliefs about people with disabilities.

For example, a person who uses a wheelchair – an objective fact – is often described as wheelchair-bound, a subjective description that implies victim hood.

As one wheelchair user puts it, “I personally am not ‘bound’ by my wheelchair. It is a very liberating device that allows me to work, play, maintain a household, connect with family and friends, and ‘have a life.’ ”

Who Says?

Since the first edition was published in 1984, we have consulted with hundreds of disability groups and individuals who have disabilities to produce Guidelines: How to Write and Report About People with Disabilities. The eighth edition presents the latest terminology preferred by people with disabilities.

The Associated Press Stylebook, the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th edition) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all adopted some of the recommendations from previous editions of the Guidelines.

The first edition of the Guidelines was produced with funding from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Since then, more than one million copies have been distributed, and the electronic version is now used by people around the world.

Please use the Guidelines when you write or report about people with disabilities. We also offer a poster that presents a short list of disability writing style dos and don’ts.

Continue Reading

Rights in mind: Thinking differently about dementia and disability

Tom Shakespeare -University of East Anglia, UK, Hannah Zeilig – University of the Arts London, UK, & Peter Mittler – University of Manchester, UK

Download Rights in Mind (2017)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to argue for the utility of a relational model of disability, as a way of conceptualizing dementia. We explore whether dementia should be considered as a disability, and whether people with dementia might consider themselves as disabled people. We review examples of, and issues raised by, the political activism of people with dementia. We consider how language constructs dementia negatively. We discuss how the environment influences the experience of dementia. In conclusion, we show that a relational model of dementia lays the basis for a human rights approach to the condition, based on collaborative partnerships between people with dementia and people from other disability communities.

The Unique Challenges of Surveying U.S. Latinos | Pew Research Center

As the U.S. Hispanic population grows, reaching nearly 57 million in 2015 and making up 18% of the nation’s population, it is becoming increasingly important to represent Hispanics in surveys of the U.S. population and to understand their opinions and behavior. But surveying Hispanics is complicated for many reasons – language barriers, sampling issues and cultural differences – that are the subject of a growing field of inquiry. This report explores some the unique challenges currently facing survey researchers in reaching Hispanics and offers considerations on how to meet those challenges based on the research literature and our experiences in fielding the Pew Research Center’s National Survey of Latinos.

Source: The Unique Challenges of Surveying U.S. Latinos | Pew Research Center

By Anna Brown

Designing the Survey Questionnaire: Stress Confidentiality, Translate with Cultural Context in Mind

A respondent’s answer to a survey question, or even their decision to participate in the survey at all, is a product of social and cognitive context and may differ across racial and ethnic groups. In fact, studies have shown that Hispanics are more likely to refuse to participate in surveys, or having agreed to take a survey, more likely to refuse to answer individual questions under some circumstances. This disproportionate refusal rate may in part be driven by a general suspicion of government or a more specific fear of deportation among subgroups of the U.S. Hispanic population, including unauthorized immigrants. Introductory language at the start of the questionnaire that stresses the random selection of the respondent and confidentiality of responses can help to mitigate this risk, though experience suggests it will not mitigate it entirely.

Continue Reading

What is a “Person Month” & How Do I Calculate It? | NIH Extramural Nexus

A “person month” is the metric for expressing the effort (amount of time) principal investigators (PIs), faculty and other senior personnel devote to a specific project. The effort is based on the type of appointment of the individual with the organization; e.g., calendar year (CY), academic year (AY), and/or summer term (SM); and the organization’s definition of such. For instance, some institutions define the academic year as a 9-month appointment while others define it as a 10-month appointment.

Source: What is a “Person Month” & How Do I Calculate It? | NIH Extramural Nexus

Conversion of percentage of effort to person months is straight-forward. To calculate person months, multiply the percentage of your effort associated with the project times the number of months of your appointment. For example:

25% of a 9 month academic year appointment equals 2.25 (AY) person months (9 x 0.25= 2.25)

10% of a 12 month calendar appointment equals 1.2 (CY) person months (12 x 0.10 = 1.2)

35% of a 3 month summer term appointment equals 1.05 (SM) person months (3 x 0.35= 1.05)

10% of a 0.5 FTE 12 month appointment equals 0.6 (CY) person months (12 x .5 X .1 = 0.6)
Another example:

If the regular pay schedule of an institution is a 9 month academic year and the PI will devote 9 months at 30% time/effort and 3 months summer term at 30% time/effort to the project, then 2.7 academic months and .9 summer months should be listed in the academic and summer term blocks of the application (9 x 30% = 2.7 person months; 3 x 30%= .9)

An Excel-based Percent of Time & Effort to Person Months Calculator is available on grants.nih.gov.

Have additional questions related to NIH’s usage of “person months”? Visit our page of frequently asked questions (FAQs) on this topic.

Fitness facilities still lack accessibility for people with disabilities – Disability and Health Journal

James H. Rimmer, PhD, Sangeetha Padalabalanarayanan, Laurie A. Malone, PhD, Laurie A. Malone, Tapan Mehta

Source: Fitness facilities still lack accessibility for people with disabilities – Disability and Health Journal

Abstract

Background

Fitness facilities have potential to serve as places of ‘health enhancement’ for many underserved populations, particularly among people with physical/mobility disabilities where walking outdoors to meet recommendations for regular physical activity is not an option due to mobility or safety issues.

Objective

To examine the accessibility and usability of fitness facilities across the U.S. from a broader framework of physical and program access.

Methods

A convenience sample of 227 fitness facilities in 10 states were assessed by trained evaluators using the Accessibility Instrument Measuring Fitness and Recreation Environments (AIMFREE) tool. Non-parametric tests were performed to determine whether AIMFREE section scores were different by geographic region (urban, suburban), business type (nonprofit, for-profit), facility affiliation (fitness center/health club, park district/community center, hospital/rehabilitation facility, university/college), and facility construction date (pre/post passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA). Raw scores were converted to scaled scores with higher scores indicating better accessibility based on a criterion-referenced approach.

Results

Section scale scores (11/13) were low (<70) with differences found across facility affiliation. While facilities built after passage of the ADA had higher accessibility scores compared to pre-ADA facilities, only programs and water fountains had scaled scores ≥70 regardless of facility construction date.

Conclusions

There exists a strong and urgent need to encourage owners and operators of fitness facilities to reach a higher level of accessibility. Until then, many people with physical/mobility disabilities will continue to have limited access to programs, equipment, and services offered at these facilities.