Do part-time/full-time compensation differentials for nurses vary between the private and public sector?

Abstract

This study examines whether, compared to their private sector counterparts, public sector health care employers are at a disadvantage using part-time (PT) nurses to lower labour costs. Findings reveal a lack of a PT wage differential. Public and Private sector PT nurses are less likely to receive health care and pension coverage compared with full-time (FT) nurses. Yet, these PT/FT nonwage compensation coverage differentials do not vary across sectors. The nonwage findings are interpreted as suggesting that public sector health care employers are just as likely as private sector health care employers to benefit from cost savings associated with lower nonwage coverage for PT nurses.

Primary Care Nurse Practitioner Wage Differences by Employment Setting

“…One reason that PCNPs may not work in primary care settings is that they earn lower wages working in primary care than in specialty care settings (Bodenheimer & Bauer, 2016;Coomer, 2013;Jones & Gates, 2004;McGregory, Niederjohn, & Peoples, 2009;Petterson, Phillips, Bazemore, Burke, & Koinis, 2013;Schumacher & Hirsch, 1997;Walani, 2013). For NPs, Goolsby (2006) used the 2004 data file of the National Nurse Practitioner Sample Survey (NNPSS) conducted by the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners and reported that, regardless of certification, the average hourly wage of NPs working in primary care settings was $36.51, considerably lower than the $39.59 average wage for those working in specialty care settings.…”