U.S. added 467,000 jobs in January despite omicron variant surge

Posted on by • Posted in Employee Benefits, Employee Compensation, Employee Staffing, Employee Staffing Shortage, Job Creation, Job Growth, Job Loss, Job Market, Job Search, Labor Market Participation Rate, Market Outlook, Market Trends, Recruiting, Talent Management • Leave a comment
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/02/04/january-jobs-report-unemployment-2022/?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=wp_news_alert_revere&location=alert&wpmk=1&wpisrc=al_news__alert-economy–alert-national&pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJjb29raWVuYW1lIjoid3BfY3J0aWQiLCJpc3MiOiJDYXJ0YSIsImNvb2tpZXZhbHVlIjoiNWI2M2EzNDJhZGU0ZTI3Nzk1NTBjYTFiIiwidGFnIjoid3BfbmV3c19hbGVydF9yZXZlcmUiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy53YXNoaW5ndG9ucG9zdC5jb20vYnVzaW5lc3MvMjAyMi8wMi8wNC9qYW51YXJ5LWpvYnMtcmVwb3J0LXVuZW1wbG95bWVudC0yMDIyLz91dG1fc291cmNlPWFsZXJ0JnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPXdwX25ld3NfYWxlcnRfcmV2ZXJlJmxvY2F0aW9uPWFsZXJ0JndwbWs9MSZ3cGlzcmM9YWxfbmV3c19fYWxlcnQtZWNvbm9teS0tYWxlcnQtbmF0aW9uYWwifQ.k79F1bMVX5omgqrBnZiELGG3mi1K1_VnFOfPRs7BjVw

The U.S. economy added 467,000 jobs in January as the omicron variant spiked to record heights, with the labor market performing better than many expected two years after the pandemic began.

The unemployment rate ticked up slightly to 4 percent, from 3.9 percent the month before.

The monthly report, released by the Department of Labor, stems from a survey taken in mid-January, around the time the omicron variant was beginning to peak, with close to 1 million new confirmed cases each day. The rapid spread during that period upended many parts of the economy, closing schools, day cares, and a number of businesses, forcing parents to scramble.

But the labor market, according to the new data, performed very well during that stretch.

In addition to the robust January, the Department of Labor also revised upward the figure for December’s jobs report, to 510,000 from 199,000, and November, to 647,000 from 249,000. That means that there were some 700,000 more jobs added at the end of last year than previously estimated — showing a labor market with momentum heading into the new year.

The data sets show a labor market that continues to recover at a strong pace from the pandemic’s worst disruption in March and April of 2020.

New outbreaks and variants have sent shockwaves through the economy since then, but the labor market has continued to return, with companies working to add jobs and wages steadily rising.

The industries experiencing growth in January were lead by the leisure and hospitality sector, which added 151,000 jobs on the month, mostly in restaurants and bars. Professional and business services added 86,000 jobs. Retailers added 61,000 jobs in January, which is typically an off month. Transportation and warehousing added 54,000 jobs.

The labor market’s participation rate, a critical measurement that has never fully recovered from losses during the pandemic’s earliest days, also went up significantly, to 62.2 percent from 61.9 percent. That shows more people are reentering the labor force, looking for work.

Average hourly earnings increased by 23 cents on the month to $31.63, up 5.7 percent over the last year. However, those gains for many people have largely been wiped out by rising prices from inflation.

The data was collected during a tumultuous period. Nearly nine million workers were out sick around the time the survey was taken, and some of them could have been counted as unemployed based on the way the survey is conducted.

January is traditionally a weak month for employment when retail and other industries shed jobs after the holiday season. Economists say that seasonal adjustments made to the survey’s data to account for this have the potential to distort the survey in the other direction, given that the holiday shopping boom appeared to take place earlier this year than typical.

As such, predictions for job growth for the month had been all over the map. Analysts surveyed by Dow Jones predicted an average of about 150,000 jobs added for the month, in what would be the lowest amount added in a year. Some economists predicted job losses, of up to 400,000.

Last year was a strong year for growth in the labor market, with the country adding an average of more than 550,000 jobs a month — regaining some 6.5 million jobs lost in the pandemic’s earlier days, after the Department revised its numbers. The country has about 2.9 million fewer jobs than it had before the pandemic, according to the figures released Friday.

“Omicron is going to make it look like things dropped off a cliff in January, but overall they did not,” said Drew Matus, chief market strategist for MetLife Investment Management.

Some economists like Matus say that the prospects for such rapid regrowth are more complicated this year, with the fiscal measures that boosted the economy during the pandemic’s first two years, like generous government aid, and record low interest rates from federal bankers, having largely expired, and the country’s confidence in a virus-free future dented after the winter wave.

Since the rollout of vaccines last year, there have been hopes that a return to a more typical rhythm of life could encourage some of the roughly two million people who have left the labor force during the pandemic to seek work anew, but thus far, continued threats from variants — and uncertainty after more closures of schools, daycares, and office — have prevented this from materializing in a substantial way.

There are signs that the omicron exacted a toll on the economy during its peak.

Weekly unemployment claims swelled mid-month to its highest level since October, though the numbers have come down in the two weeks since. Other statistical markers like passenger traffic at airports, hotel revenues, and dining reservations also took a hit during the month.

Recent months continue to be marked by incredible churn in the labor market, as record numbers of workers are switching jobs. In December, some 4.3 million people quit or changed jobs — a number which was down from an all-time high in November but still at elevated. Employers continue to report near record numbers of job openings: the Bureau of Labor Statistics said they reported some 10.9 million openings last month.

Understanding the implications of using agency nurses

Posted on by • Posted in Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Labor Spend Management, Nurse Agency Staffing, Nurse Morale, Nurse Overtime, Nurse Staffing, Nurse Travelers, Nurses Compensation, Nurses Leadership, Nurses Shortage, Observation • Leave a comment
https://us17.campaign-archive.com/?e=d1e747d2d8&u=526c5e99ee0439b6f83f7c051&id=51fc2969df

The Great Nursing Resignation, and hospitals’ growing reliance on expensive agency labor (a.k.a. “travelers”) has grabbed headlines, for good reason. But lately we’ve heard a couple of anecdotes from health system leaders about the second-order impacts of the phenomenon that are worth considering as well.

First, as the ranks of agency nurses at hospitals have swelled, full-time employed nurses’ morale has plummeted—tenured nurses are having to orient their new temporary co-workers, then watch them earn up to three times as much money for the same work.

At the same time, willingness to work overtime among employed nurses has dropped. That’s not just because of burnout—it turns out that the nurses who were most likely to take overtime shifts are also more likely to have chosen to leave full-time employment to become travelers, where they are even more richly rewarded for working extra shifts. So, the “productivity” of the remaining corps of staff nurses has dropped, even as caseloads have increased.

One other implication we’ve heard about recently: the economic impact of “observation” cases, where patients are held in a staffed bed but not admitted—already a bad bargain for hospitals—has gotten worse. That’s because the cost of deploying staff to care for those patients has gone up, due to wage inflation and use of travelers. It’s hard to overstate the level of staffing crisis at most hospitals today, and the rapid growth in reliance on temporary staff will have consequences lasting well beyond the current surge.

How “Goliaths” that adapt can retain industry dominance

Posted on by • Posted in Care Delivery Assets, Consumer Focus, Consumer Preferences, Consumer-Centric, Consumerism, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Industry Dominance, Patient Satisfaction, Seamless, Strategy, Strategy Demand-Driven, Strategy Supply-Driven, Value of Incumbency • Leave a comment
https://us17.campaign-archive.com/?e=d1e747d2d8&u=526c5e99ee0439b6f83f7c051&id=51fc2969df
5 Steps for Defeating Digital Goliaths - Adthena

A thought-provoking piece in this week’s Harvard Business Review about the underrated advantages longstanding industry giants have over disruptors got us thinking about health system strategy. The authors highlighted several companies that have enjoyed sustained success over a century or more, including agricultural behemoth Deere and Company, and shipping giant company A.P. Møller-Maersk, which wielded “strategic incumbency” to successfully innovate and pursue new strategies, leveraging scale, trusted customer relationships, and long-term planning capabilities—attributes that new market entrants often lack when looking to disrupt established consumer channels. 

The Gist: In a market where healthcare unicorns constantly garner headlines, the article offers a counterintuitive perspective about the value of incumbency.

Health system leaders might look to the experience of Maersk, which moved from a supply-driven focus (pushing its products to customers), to a demand-driven strategy (navigating customers through logistical pain points), using technology to maximize its vast asset portfolio.

Likewise, health systems have an abundant “supply” of care delivery assets, and now need to build the connective tissue to make the care experience across those point solutions seamless for patients. 

Hospitals seek government help on staffing costs

Posted on by • Posted in American Hospital Association (AHA), Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Labor Cost Structure, Labor Shortages, Labor Spend Management, Labor Temporary, Medicare, Medicare Reimbursement, Pandemic, The CARES Act • Leave a comment
https://us17.campaign-archive.com/?e=d1e747d2d8&u=526c5e99ee0439b6f83f7c051&id=51fc2969df

The American Hospital Association (AHA) is asking Congress for an additional $25B to help hospitals offset high labor costs, largely incurred by the need to rely on travel nurse staffing firms that charge two to three times pre-pandemic rates. The AHA, along with 200 members of Congress, is urging the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the staffing agencies for anti-competitive activity, although the agency has previously declined to do so. 

The Gist: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is now releasing $2B in of provider relief dollars from the CARES Act. Beyond that, after nearly two years and $178B of federal support, hospitals shouldn’t count on additional funds from the government, even as costs of labor and supplies continue to rise. 

Instead, we’d expect more scrutiny over how the remaining relief dollars are spent. Federal support during the pandemic has masked structural economic flaws in provider economics, and we expect 2022 will be a year of financial reckoning for many hospitals and health systems. 

Rand: Most health systems pay physicians based on volume, not quality

Posted on by • Posted in Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Physician Compensation, Physician Practice Management, Quality Measures, Quality of Care, Value-Based Healthcare, Volume-Based Compensation • Leave a comment
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/compensation-issues/rand-most-health-systems-pay-physicians-based-on-volume-not-quality.html?origin=BHRE&utm_source=BHRE&utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter&oly_enc_id=2893H2397267F7G
Rand: Most health systems pay physicians based on volume, not quality

Physicians employed by group practices owned by health systems are mostly paid based on the volume of care, despite recent insurance companies’ efforts to pay based on quality, a Jan. 28 Rand study published in Jama Health Forum found.

Seventy percent of practices follow a volume-based compensation plan, according to the analysis. For more than 80 percent of primary care physicians and more than 90 percent of physician specialists, volume-based compensation is the most common.

Although many health systems have financial incentives for quality and cost, only 9 percent of primary care providers and 5 percent of specialists have compensation based on those criteria.

“Despite growth in value-based programs and the need to improve value in healthcare, physician compensation arrangements in health systems do not currently emphasize value,” Rachel Reid, the study’s lead author and a physician policy researcher at Rand, a nonprofit research organization, said in a news release emailed to Becker’s. “The payment systems that are most often in place are designed to maximize health system revenue by incentivizing providers within the system to deliver more services.”

The study looked at physician payment structures for 31 physician organizations affiliated with 22 health systems across four states. The researchers interviewed leaders, examined compensation documents and surveyed physician practices.

Single-payer healthcare bill faces key decision in California

Posted on by • Posted in Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Reform, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Single Payer Health System, Single Payer Healthcare System • Leave a comment
https://www.beckerspayer.com/policy-updates/single-payer-healthcare-bill-faces-key-decision-in-california.html?origin=BHRE&utm_source=BHRE&utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter
New Single-Payer Bill Intensifies Newsom's Political Peril | Kaiser Health News

The California Assembly is poised to vote on a bill Jan. 31 that aims to create a single-payer healthcare system in the state — the bill’s first major battle since a funding proposal for the program was introduced Jan. 6 — according to KTVU FOX 2. 

The state’s plan to create a universal healthcare system involves two bills — AB 1400 and ACA 11 — that would implement and subsequently fund the program, dubbed CalCare. The Assembly is expected to only vote on AB 1400 on Jan. 31.

The Assembly must pass the bill Jan. 31 if it hopes to pass the single-payer framework bill by the end of the year. If the bill passes in the Assembly, it would then need approval in the Senate and from voters. 

The plan is being met with public pressure that believes the system would “create a new and exorbitantly expensive government bureaucracy.” Lawmaker opposition also largely focuses on the bill’s cost, which would be between $314 billion and $391 billion annually, according to KTVU. The bill’s funding counterpart, ACA 11, proposes to pay for it with a tax increase on businesses and high-earning individuals. 

However, proponents argue that CalCare would cost less than the state’s current system, which equates to $517 billion when considering both taxes and household spending. 

FDA fully approves Moderna’s COVID vaccine

Posted on by • Posted in Clinical Research, Coronavirus, Coronavirus Delta Variant, Coronavirus Mutation, Coronavirus Omicron Variant, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Pharmaceutical Industry, Vaccination, Vaccine, Vaccine Booster, Vaccine Distribution, Vaccine Efficacy, Vaccine RNA, Vaccine Safety, Vaccine Supply • Leave a comment
https://www.axios.com/fda-approves-moderna-covid-vaccine-5933165a-ad71-4069-a418-44b73b41c5bb.html?stream=top&utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts_all
A health care worker preparing a dose of Moderna's coronavirus vaccine.

The Food and Drug Administration fully approved Moderna’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine on Monday, saying it meets its safety and manufacturing requirements.

Why it matters: Moderna’s vaccine, which will now be marketed as Spikevax, is the second coronavirus vaccine to receive full approval after the FDA approved Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine in August.

What they’re saying: “The public can be assured that Spikevax meets the FDA’s high standards for safety, effectiveness and manufacturing quality required of any vaccine approved for use in the United States,” acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock said in a statement.

  • “The totality of real-world data and the full [Biologics License Application] for Spikevax in the United States reaffirms the importance of vaccination against this virus,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said.

The big picture: The rise of the Omicron variant forced vaccine makers to reevaluate the effectiveness of their vaccines, which were developed based on eaarlier forms of the virus.

  • Studies show that Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccines still overwhelmingly prevent severe disease and hospitalizations, especially when the first two doses are reinforced with a booster shot.

Colorado Mom Hit With $847 Facility Fee for Son’s Virtual Doc Visit

Posted on by • Posted in Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Out of Pocket Expenses, Rev Cycle Management, Revenue Cycle, Surprise Bills, Telemedicine, Telemedicine Reimbursement, Virtual Healthcare, Virtual Visit • Leave a comment
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/96855?xid=nl_medpageexclusive_2022-01-31&eun=g885344d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MPTExclusives_013122&utm_term=NL_Gen_Int_Medpage_Exclusives_Active
A mother holding her unhappy looking son on her lap during a telemedicine video call.

A Colorado mom got quite the shock when she received a hefty “facility fee” bill for her toddler’s telehealth appointment.

Brittany Tesso said she had already paid a bill from Children’s Hospital Colorado for $676.86 for the 2-hour virtual visit for her 3-year-old son to determine if he required speech therapy, according to a report by KDVR, a Colorado TV station.

But 2 weeks later, she received a separate bill for an additional $847.35, leading Tesso to tell the station: “I would’ve gone elsewhere if they had told me there was an $850 fee, essentially for a Zoom call.”

Tesso said she was told the additional amount was for a “facility fee.”

“I was like, ‘Facility fee? I didn’t go to your facility,'” Tesso told the station. “I was at home and, as far as I could tell, some of the doctors were at home too.” Tesso said she was told by a hospital representative that it charges the same fee whether patients come to the facility or receive care via telehealth.

KDVR had reported an earlier story of a father who said he was charged a $503 facility fee after his son was seen at a medical practice in a building owned by Children’s Hospital Colorado, and roughly 20 viewers reached out to the news outlet about their similar experiences.

Tesso told KDVR that she believed the second bill was a surprise bill, and suggested that state lawmakers could do more to prevent such instances. An HHS rule banning surprise billing went into effect on January 1 of this year.

Adam Fox, deputy director at the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, told KDVR that patients have little recourse because there are no regulations in the state regarding facility fees charged by hospitals.

In a statement provided to KDVR, Children’s Hospital Colorado said that the issue was not exclusive to the hospital, and that it continually looks at its own practices “to see where it can adjust and improve.”

The hospital added in the statement that it continues “to advocate for state and federal policies that address healthcare consumer cost concerns through more affordable and accessible insurance coverage and hospital and provider price transparency, while also defending children’s access to care and the unique needs of a pediatric hospital.”

In response to a MedPage Today request for comment, the hospital said it had no further information to share.

Telehealth is likely to remain a mainstay in healthcare delivery, according to a December Kaiser Health News (KHN) article, but experts also told KHN that it’s not yet clear how such appointments, and any accompanying facility fees, will be handled moving forward.