I'm still not clear on the difference between EMRs (electronic medical records) and EHRs (electronic health records), but now we have PHRs (personal health records). At least PHRs I think I understand.
Back to the first two: I've read where there's no difference between EMRs and EHRs except that EHR is designed to be more marketing friendly for some reason. I've also read where EMRs are patients' electronic records maintained at one location while EHRs are shared electronic records available across a network.
Whatever the case may be, the stimulus package from our lawmakers includes a bundle of dough to implement EMRs and/or EHRs. (Could this be like Betamax v. VHS or Blu-Ray v. HD-DVD?)
However the stimulus package implementation turns out, and we won't know for years, PHRs are available right now on both Google and MSN. A personal health record is something that the individual chooses to create on one of those providers (I think WebMD offers PHRs as well).
Security issues aside, people have expressed fears that these providers might sell your data to pharmaceutical and other health marketing companies. Google denies this, if you trust what Google says.
Still, this is pretty exciting when you factor in IBM's development of Continua-compatible software, which you can use to upload your vital data to your PHR, where your physician can access it and make recommendations. Already, a pulse oximeter is available (whatever that is), and future devices will measure blood pressure, glucose levels, temperature, weight and so on. In other words, instead of going in for a physical, you can update your data and have your doctor analyze it.
Now, the question is--will physicians go along with this since they can't charge for an office consultation if you don't come in person? I doubt it unless the rules are changed so they can charge for e-visits.
Wouldn't it be great to sit at work, take your uploadable blood pressure, and sit back and wait for your doctor to call and say, "I think we need to change your Lisinopril level." Sure beats taking a morning off and waiting around two hours for your doctor to get to you.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Does Starbucks CEO Now Punch the Time Clock?
After voluntarily surrendering his nearly $10-million yearly salary because of poor company performance, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is now earning less than one-percent of that, or $10,000 annually. Unfortunately, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), that means that Schultzie is no longer an exempt employee and must start punching the time clock.
Let's look at what the FLSA says about exempt and non-exempt employees. First, the difference: Exempt employees are generally paid a salary and are not subject to overtime rules; non-exempt employees are paid hourly with overtime coming after 40 hours each week (though some states, like California, start the overtime clock ticking after eight hours each day).
However, just being paid a salary does not automatically make someone exempt. There are also "white-collar duties tests," and here Schultz would qualify as an executive.
Now, and here comes the crucial part, to be exempt an employee must pass an earnings test by being paid $455 a week minimum. Let's see, $10,000 divided by 52 weeks comes out to about $192.30 each paycheck.
Busted! Get that man a time clock.
To stay current with all these laws and regulations, I rely on Personnel Concepts. This particular information came from PC's handy HR Desk Reference.
Let's look at what the FLSA says about exempt and non-exempt employees. First, the difference: Exempt employees are generally paid a salary and are not subject to overtime rules; non-exempt employees are paid hourly with overtime coming after 40 hours each week (though some states, like California, start the overtime clock ticking after eight hours each day).
However, just being paid a salary does not automatically make someone exempt. There are also "white-collar duties tests," and here Schultz would qualify as an executive.
Now, and here comes the crucial part, to be exempt an employee must pass an earnings test by being paid $455 a week minimum. Let's see, $10,000 divided by 52 weeks comes out to about $192.30 each paycheck.
Busted! Get that man a time clock.
To stay current with all these laws and regulations, I rely on Personnel Concepts. This particular information came from PC's handy HR Desk Reference.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
FMLA Marks 16th Anniversary Today
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) marks its 16th anniversary today (Feb. 5, 2009) in a beefed-up version that now allows family of service members to take up to 26 weeks of unpaid leave to care for their relatives in the military. Of course, provisions for 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for oneself or one's family, or for the birth or adoption of a child, are still on the books.
Some 7 million of the FMLA-eligible 77.1 million workers took leave in 2005, the latest year for which statistics have been released.
As I was reading up on FMLA today, one other statistic stuck out, courtesy of a group called AAUW, to wit:
Some 7 million of the FMLA-eligible 77.1 million workers took leave in 2005, the latest year for which statistics have been released.
As I was reading up on FMLA today, one other statistic stuck out, courtesy of a group called AAUW, to wit:
A 2008 study by the Institute for Health and Social Policy found that only five of the 173 countries surveyed did not guarantee at least some form of paid maternity leave to its workers. These countries are Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland, Papua New Guinea, and our very own USA. Illustrious company, to say the least.
August company to say the very least when you figure that 98 of these countries offer at least 14 weeks of paid leave.
Hard to Keep These $93K-a-Year Employees Happy
Gotta pity poor Randall Hinton, who says he's running out of music to listen to on his $93,803-a-year guv job, where he otherwise has nothing to do from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Oh, but he does also idle away his away counting cars passing by on the New York Thruway as he gazes out the window and listens to music.
The guy basically can't be fired either, so why's he complaining and demanding new responsibilities at the State Insurance Fund in Albany?
Hinton said he's treated as a second-class employee with fewer resources than even the lowliest Insurance Fund worker. "I have no Internet access, no printer, no laptop, no car. Every day it's a struggle for me to bring in something I haven't read or listened to. I can tell you how many white cars pass on the Thruway . . . I can't take it anymore."
How did Hinton get into this mess (or nirvana, depending on one's perspective)? He had the gall to sue former Governor George Pataki for discrimination on the job. In a settlement, he was transferred into his current position, but his supervisors were ordered not to give him anything to do.
Now, he's suing again, claiming more discrimination and workplace retaliation and demanding some work to do.
Hang in there, Randall. You're been on the state dole, er, payroll for 27 years already, and as I calculate it, in three more years, you can retire on 90 percent of your pay, or $84,422.
Oh, but he does also idle away his away counting cars passing by on the New York Thruway as he gazes out the window and listens to music.
The guy basically can't be fired either, so why's he complaining and demanding new responsibilities at the State Insurance Fund in Albany?
Hinton said he's treated as a second-class employee with fewer resources than even the lowliest Insurance Fund worker. "I have no Internet access, no printer, no laptop, no car. Every day it's a struggle for me to bring in something I haven't read or listened to. I can tell you how many white cars pass on the Thruway . . . I can't take it anymore."
How did Hinton get into this mess (or nirvana, depending on one's perspective)? He had the gall to sue former Governor George Pataki for discrimination on the job. In a settlement, he was transferred into his current position, but his supervisors were ordered not to give him anything to do.
Now, he's suing again, claiming more discrimination and workplace retaliation and demanding some work to do.
Hang in there, Randall. You're been on the state dole, er, payroll for 27 years already, and as I calculate it, in three more years, you can retire on 90 percent of your pay, or $84,422.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
E-Verify Included in House Stimulus Package
A House Republican managed to get a requirement that employers who benefit from the stimulus package going through Congress use the E-Verify system to ensure they're hiring legal workers.
The amendment was slipped in by Representative Jack Kingston, R.-Ga.
"We cannot allow for illegal aliens to benefit from this deficit spending," Kingston said. "The American taxpayer will one day be forced to pay it back, so it should be them that benefit."
Even though his amendment was included, he ultimately did not vote for the House package.
The amendment was slipped in by Representative Jack Kingston, R.-Ga.
"We cannot allow for illegal aliens to benefit from this deficit spending," Kingston said. "The American taxpayer will one day be forced to pay it back, so it should be them that benefit."
Even though his amendment was included, he ultimately did not vote for the House package.
Regulating Fatsoes in Japan: A Weighty Matter
Sorry for my un-pclike reference to obese people, but I came across an interesting article detailing how this past year Japan passed a law mandating that all citizens aged 40 to 74 have the waists measured as part of their annual physical (I guess if you live longer, you get a pass).
Employers and local governments are obliged by law to ensure these exams happen, and when people come in above the limits of 33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women, they must voluntarily reduce the bulge, and if that fails in three months, attend voluntary counseling.
A couple of quick comparisons here with us Americans, who are of course much heftier than probably 99 percent of the Japanese: Very few American men 40 to 74 would fit in 33.5-inch pants (they'd be lucky to squeeze into 36 inches), and though I can't speak for American women and their waistlines, I'm curious as to why the Japanese standard for females is larger than for males.
The International Diabetes Federation's guidelines establish 40 inches for American men and 34.6 inches for women in the waist department. Men in the U.S. come in, on average, an inch below the worry line at 39 inches, while women come out ahead at 36.5 inches.
Anyway, the Japanese goal is reduce people's weight by 10 percent over the next four years and 25 percent over the next ten years. Financial penalties await both companies and local governments whose charges fail to reach government benchmarks.
I'm not kidding--fines will be assessed.
(The waist rule came about over a proposal by the prime minister to charge people 75 or older more for their insurance, so this is something of a compromise.)
The goal of all this, of course, is to reduce obesity-based disease and cut health care costs. The Japanese, it appears, are all worked up over something called metabolic syndrome, which causes vascular diseases and diabetes. (I just call it the fatso syndrome, a club to which I aspire between bouts of depressing diets.)
The Japanese public has popularized the whole concept by calling those who are overweight metabo, short for metabolic. They've even developed catchy little tunes, to which they sometimes dance:
Employers and local governments are obliged by law to ensure these exams happen, and when people come in above the limits of 33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women, they must voluntarily reduce the bulge, and if that fails in three months, attend voluntary counseling.
A couple of quick comparisons here with us Americans, who are of course much heftier than probably 99 percent of the Japanese: Very few American men 40 to 74 would fit in 33.5-inch pants (they'd be lucky to squeeze into 36 inches), and though I can't speak for American women and their waistlines, I'm curious as to why the Japanese standard for females is larger than for males.
The International Diabetes Federation's guidelines establish 40 inches for American men and 34.6 inches for women in the waist department. Men in the U.S. come in, on average, an inch below the worry line at 39 inches, while women come out ahead at 36.5 inches.
Anyway, the Japanese goal is reduce people's weight by 10 percent over the next four years and 25 percent over the next ten years. Financial penalties await both companies and local governments whose charges fail to reach government benchmarks.
I'm not kidding--fines will be assessed.
(The waist rule came about over a proposal by the prime minister to charge people 75 or older more for their insurance, so this is something of a compromise.)
The goal of all this, of course, is to reduce obesity-based disease and cut health care costs. The Japanese, it appears, are all worked up over something called metabolic syndrome, which causes vascular diseases and diabetes. (I just call it the fatso syndrome, a club to which I aspire between bouts of depressing diets.)
The Japanese public has popularized the whole concept by calling those who are overweight metabo, short for metabolic. They've even developed catchy little tunes, to which they sometimes dance:
“Goodbye, metabolic. Let’s get our checkups together. Go! Go! Go!
Goodbye, metabolic. Don’t wait till you get sick. No! No! No!”
A survey of British doctors also finds that half of them think that fatsoes should be charged for their health care, so the public doesn't have to subsidize the extra costs of fat-related diseases.
It's a good thing that Tom Daschle hoisted himself by his own petard by failing to pay taxes. Had he become Health and Human Services secretary and health care czar, he had his eyes fixed on a National Health Board, which could indeed--in all its folly--target the American public with a similar edict.
You know? "America, Get Thin or Get Out!" (Kind of like, "America, Love It or Leave It" in a liberal's interpretation.)Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Obama Plays the Exec Order Cat-and-Mouse Game
Nothing new here, as both Democrats and Republicans do it. When Dubya came to office, he reversed Clintonian mandates, and now Barack Obama has taken a few swipes at George W. and his executive orders.
First, under the Rahm Emanuel rule, all government agencies have been forced to place on hold any directives that hadn't taken hold by Jan. 20, inauguration day of the new administration.
This has affected important labor issues such as the E-Verify system and the change in documentation for employment verification. You can read about these in the News Alerts section of Personnel Concepts.
This past Friday, Obama wielded his pen to crack the union code, or rather the Bushian anti-union code, by reversing some Bush decrees.
One reversal told federal contractors they could not (as in DON'T) post notifications of workers' rights to withhold the portion of their union dues that go to political activity. A second mandated that federal contractors could not use federal payments to support or oppose unionization efforts (the thrust here is obvious since no employer would bother to pay for pro-union activities). The third ukase forces successor government contractors to offer jobs first (only?) to workers employed by the predecessor contractor.
All three edicts reverse Bush, who reversed Clinton, who was either original in these or reversed the elder Bush. Either way, you get the idea--and we all get to pay for their caprice when things backfire or produce unintended consequences.
First, under the Rahm Emanuel rule, all government agencies have been forced to place on hold any directives that hadn't taken hold by Jan. 20, inauguration day of the new administration.
This has affected important labor issues such as the E-Verify system and the change in documentation for employment verification. You can read about these in the News Alerts section of Personnel Concepts.
This past Friday, Obama wielded his pen to crack the union code, or rather the Bushian anti-union code, by reversing some Bush decrees.
One reversal told federal contractors they could not (as in DON'T) post notifications of workers' rights to withhold the portion of their union dues that go to political activity. A second mandated that federal contractors could not use federal payments to support or oppose unionization efforts (the thrust here is obvious since no employer would bother to pay for pro-union activities). The third ukase forces successor government contractors to offer jobs first (only?) to workers employed by the predecessor contractor.
All three edicts reverse Bush, who reversed Clinton, who was either original in these or reversed the elder Bush. Either way, you get the idea--and we all get to pay for their caprice when things backfire or produce unintended consequences.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Minimum Wage Laws Cost Busboys the Axe
The Wall Street Journal, which has been chronicling the nation's economic woes industry by industry, today ran a a piece about the latest cost-cutting strategy being employed at some restaurants--letting the busboys go.
Of course, this means that the wait staff must now clear tables and scrape dishes clean, tasks that most of them frown on and that some have even refused to do, leaving their places of work either voluntarily or involuntarily.
But here's the rub: Since busboys usually don't receive tips, they must be paid the full minimum wage, but wait staff generally fall under the "tipped employee" category and can be paid as little as $2 or $3 an hour, depending on the state.
Here we see an excellent example of the minimum wage law's backfiring, but you won't hear any politician denouncing such laws. Instead, they'll blame the heartless restaurateurs and pass a law limiting their profits (to go along with executive pay and bonus laws coming out this week).
The really ironic thing is that, for at least one group of 570 restaurants all called Bob Evans (which seems to be a Midwestern chain), spoons are disappearing and must be replaced at an alarming rate.
Theories abound, all the way from wait staff revenge to a simpler cause--the spoons, being lighter and handier, are used to scrape the plates but they end up getting discarded into the trash can with the leftovers.
Anyway, we can only hope that the cost of the spoon replacements outweighs the cost of the previous bus staff.
Karmic revenge, you know.
Of course, this means that the wait staff must now clear tables and scrape dishes clean, tasks that most of them frown on and that some have even refused to do, leaving their places of work either voluntarily or involuntarily.
But here's the rub: Since busboys usually don't receive tips, they must be paid the full minimum wage, but wait staff generally fall under the "tipped employee" category and can be paid as little as $2 or $3 an hour, depending on the state.
Here we see an excellent example of the minimum wage law's backfiring, but you won't hear any politician denouncing such laws. Instead, they'll blame the heartless restaurateurs and pass a law limiting their profits (to go along with executive pay and bonus laws coming out this week).
The really ironic thing is that, for at least one group of 570 restaurants all called Bob Evans (which seems to be a Midwestern chain), spoons are disappearing and must be replaced at an alarming rate.
Theories abound, all the way from wait staff revenge to a simpler cause--the spoons, being lighter and handier, are used to scrape the plates but they end up getting discarded into the trash can with the leftovers.
Anyway, we can only hope that the cost of the spoon replacements outweighs the cost of the previous bus staff.
Karmic revenge, you know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)