When you consider that some of the part-time employees are working for other healthcare entities and just keep some hours at LGH so that they can have benefits, this move is understandable.

I think it is horrible. How can a hospital deny health coverage for its own employees? Especially when it is making a $113 million dollar profit.

They have money for player pianos and fountains and all that, yet for their own staff it's tough luck. They have money for an executive box at the Barnstormers.

The people I know in that situation aren't working anywhere else and have no other options for insurance except welfare. This isn't about the community or staying competitive, it's about saving some money to claim an executive bonus.

And from reading Mary Miskey's comments it's clear her attitude towards her own employees is "Let them eat cake"

Hasn't it been rare for some time to give part-timers benefits at all?

That does it...

I'll never defend LGH ever again

ETA:

Hmmm. So LGH, I'm sorry, LG Health, just spent $20 million promoting and marketing its new name, and pointy-starred logo including mandatory "happy-thought" training and goofy notebooks for all their staff - and now they can't scourge in the comfy cushions of the hotel-like entryway to find a few pennies to provide health care for their part-time (ie. read: least-well off) employees.

The LGH health care plan is a racket, anyway. Everyone who works there MUST go to LGH-affiliated doctors and hospitals, or automatically pay a $1000 fine.

I don't even think their resident spin-mistress, Jan L. Bergen, could make this move sound good... ahem... for the community. But I am sure they will try - it's just another "extraordinary experience" provided by LGH, opps... LG Health.

Yeah, and it gets even better for them...they cut benefits to their staff, forcing them onto public assistance which is paid by tax-dollars...and LGH is Tax Exempt.

What a win-win for them

Well, I guess John Lines and Mary Miskey will be getting a nice Christmas bonus this year...with their salaries, I'm sure they need all the help they can get.

I'm so sick of LGH here lately. I know they have surplus all year long and are constantly looking for ways to spend it to maintain their non-profit status. The move to remove health benefits to p/t employees just shows they are only about money. I will never go for treatment there.

It is. No question. But LGH, with their money and the fact that it is a healthcare organization, could dare to be different.

That said, they also see the large lune up of candidates for hire and don't have to do the extras right now.

Good one, Chris!

The largest healthcare provider in the area doesn't it think it can afford to provide healthcare to its lowest paid employees.

But the current system is OK, right?

At least someone got it, lol. See, if you meet me then you'll understand my sense of humor just a bit more, right? LOL LOL LOL

Miskey said LGH must be concerned not only about employees but the community.

"We always need to be very conscious of how we spend dollars because they are community dollars," she said.

LGH made a profit of $113 million last year. Because the organization is non-profit, all of that money must be reinvested.

For example, Lines said, LGH is establishing a new method of maintaining medical records that will cost tens of millions of dollars.

"Everything we earn stays here to meet the growing demands for health care in Lancaster County," he said.

I'm very suspect of a person who promotes caring about the community yet has no qualms about kicking their own people off of their insurance. It's like saying you are all about family while bankrupting your brother.

And I love Lines' comment about the growing demands for health care in Lancaster County...yeah, like all the people you are going to make uninsured.

I can't believe that this is anything but an executive money grab. They probably called around the other hospitals and said, "You mean your executives make WHAT???" and so decided they better get "competitive" with executive compensation at the expense of the employees.

I'm wondering where PML is and why we haven't seen her comments??

It's in keeping with the executive suites for the very special elite patients. I don't ever want to hear of them crying about a shortage of bed space for sick people when they have a room the size of a ballroom for one person.

Yes and LGH is offering them more hours so that they can keep their benefits. I'm just wondering how many more hours they would need to work to qualify for the benefits? Would have been nice if that had been reported. So do they have to go to full time or will just upping to 25 hours/week be enough to still get the benefits? Can't make a judgement about this without that information. If they are requiring these part-timers to go to so many hours that they can no longer work, then that is an issue to me. However, if they are just asking them to work 5 more hours a week (for which they would be paid), then I think that is probably reasonable considering the current economic climate and that this only impacts 3% of their workforce.




She had a LTE in the paper earlier this week. I think it might have even been about healthcare.

How come nobody gripes about McDonald's? I may be wrong, but I thought it was common practice for them to hire almost entirely part-timers so they wouldn't have to pay out benfits. That's been going on for years...but given the fact that most employees there are minorities, I guess it's just not on most peoples' radar.
Edit: I can't substantiate the fact that most McDonald's employees are minorities, but it sure seems that way.

Employees have to move up to 20 hours a week.

The problem is that there aren't that many job openings. Also, in most cases, a person is only working those hours because that's all their schedule will allow...nobody is trying to make a living on those part-time jobs.

What you are looking at is a mother who works a few hours when her husband is off work to provide child care, but when her husband works full-time, she has to be home. The husband's job provides no insurance to family members. Now what will they do?

A student who is also working to earn some money and have the insurance. Now what? Without the coverage the student will have to buy insurance on his/her own and then how will he/she be able to afford tuition?

A person with a medical condition that prevents him/her from working full-time. This person works what he/she can and the insurance is a big benefit because of medical costs...now what?

Anyone working these type of jobs was basically doing so to have the insurance because no other option existed. If LGH really cared about the needy, why did they just kick their employees most in need to the curb?

They were able to make $113,000,000.00 in surplus this past year WITH those people covered...how much more of a surplus do they need? How much is enough?

Then John Lines and Mary Miskey come up and talk about having to do this to serve the community...please. Who do they think they are, Abraham having to sacrifice his son Isaac to serve God?

Someone who is closer to the situation will have to comment on whether there is an honest effort being made to offer more hours to individuals or whether many will wind up remaining part-time. One of the problems is the alphabet soup of different entities. So one can't move from LGH to the Rehab Hospital, or from W&B to the Physician's Surgical Center. Or from the MRI group to VNA....

Thanks for the clarification on the hours. Sounds like the real problem goes back to the failed health-care system that has made insurance so high cost that it is not affordable. Ironic that the employer in this case happens to be part of that system.

This is beyond belief!! LGH made 114 MILLION DOLLARS last year!! Why did they trim the benefits? So they can up the profit margin. Give me a break!! They put a hospital where one is not needed, instead of putting it in the southern end, or Columbia, where they tore down the one they bought. They are the first ones to scream "duplication of services" when someone builds close to them. If LGH really cared about their employees, they would build a center and give FREE medical care to the people they are cutting off. They claim to be humanitarians, but when these people are cut off, and they need assistance, it will the tax payers who will be paying.

That is literally what is done all the time in the USA. You are irresponsible and pass the biggest spending bill in history then schedule a summit on fiscal responsibility.
An airliner crashes killing hundreds and they trot the spokesperson out to tout the airline's commitment to the safety of the traveling public. It's normal.

I'm struck by your comparison of a locally-run hospital to an airline or the federal government.

This issue aside, the LG board is a group of local businessman who may apply business ethics to healthcare. How receptive they are to input from the community and physicians is a big question because they seem to be so insulated and use a few individuals as the go-betweens. When so many people believe that these individuals focus in too much or don't know what's going on at the hospital (TB), then we should be concerned.

It's about the strategies employed by PR hacks; This particular one is typical.

I don't know about the plan that LGH has but, most hospitals have coverage that costs more forom the employee than what factory workers pay and the hospitals coverage isn't as good. They coud get better medical coverage from the insurance companies advertising on TV.
My wife is a nurse and I am a factory worker.

It all depends on the deal the individual employers make with the health care insurance companies. My wife's employed in the LG system, and I'm employed by Lancaster's large commercial printer. She covers the whole family for 1/3 of what it would cost per pay period if I provided the family's coverage for the same type coverage.

Has it been announced yet what LG intends to do with the old YMCA building? It shouldn't sit idle, or worse, just be demolished like the Columbia Hospital building just was. I do know the building has to be brought up to code.

I once worked 32 hours per week and was increased to 34.5 hours per week. I proved that I needed more time to do the assigned job [I worked until my assignments were accomplished and documented the hours -which came to 36 hours per week (not skipping lunch or break times)]. I received 34.5 hours because if you worked 35 or more hours per week, they paid benefits. I just cut one patient service from my hours [ with the permission of my supervisor], to make the work fit the hours. The state would not have liked it if they found out that I took five minute potty breaks, instead of the 12 to 15 minute breaks, required] My supervisor could have given me work for 40 hours per week. Be careful if you or someone you love needs a retirement or rehab facility, that the facility you choose pays their help. Your loved one may be the one to suffer from the lack of adequate help.