| Course | HA 635 Healthcare Human Resources Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Compensation structure review |
| Length | About 900 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MS in Healthcare Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HA 635 Unit 5
Fifteen Percent Under the Metro Median: A Compensation Structure Review for Surgical Technologists, With Three Corrections Priced Against Payroll
Student Name
Health Care Administration, Herzing University
HA 635: Healthcare Human Resources Management
Instructor Name
February 12, 2026
Fifteen Percent Under the Metro Median: A Compensation Structure Review for Surgical Technologists, With Three Corrections Priced Against Payroll
Question and Data
The workforce analysis found three unfilled surgical technologist positions, a traveler and heavy overtime. This review asks whether pay is part of the reason. It compares the hospital's pay structure for its 29 surgical technologists with the local market and examines internal equity among them.
Market data come from the federal Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics survey for surgical technologists (occupation code 29-2055), May 2025 estimates, for three geographies: the United States, Texas, and the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington metropolitan area, where the hospital recruits (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026). The metropolitan estimate rests on about 2,790 employed surgical technologists, with a relative standard error of 7.8% on employment. Because the survey covers all employers, including ambulatory surgery centers and physician offices, and because its data are about a year old, the figures are a benchmark rather than a price list. For planning, the metro figures are aged forward by 3.5% to mid-2026, an assumption based on recent regional wage growth for health care support roles.
Market Figures
Hourly wages, May 2025.
| Geography | 25th percentile | Median | 75th percentile | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | $26.29 | $31.08 | $38.34 | $33.03 |
| Texas | $24.09 | $31.35 | $38.84 | $32.04 |
| Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington | $29.88 | $38.46 | $40.54 | $35.51 |
Matching Roles on Duties
The hospital has three surgical technologist grades. Surgical Technologist I covers new graduates and staff with under three years' experience who scrub general and gynecologic cases. Surgical Technologist II covers staff validated for specialty cases who may precept. Lead Surgical Technologist covers three staff who coordinate instrument needs across rooms and act as the technologist in charge on evenings. The federal survey does not separate levels, so the match was made on duties. Grade II, whose duties match the survey's occupation description in full and whose incumbents have a median of seven years' experience, was compared with the metro median. Grade I was compared with the 25th percentile, a common convention for entry-level staff. The Lead role has no direct match, since the survey has no lead category; it was compared with the 75th percentile, and the report notes that this is an imperfect match.
Internal Grades Against the Market
Ranges and average incumbent rates, compared with the matched market point.
| Grade | Incumbents | Range | Midpoint | Average rate | Market match | Midpoint vs market |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surgical Technologist I | 9 | $24.00 to $33.00 | $28.50 | $27.40 | $29.88 (25th) | -4.6% |
| Surgical Technologist II | 17 | $27.50 to $38.00 | $32.75 | $32.80 | $38.46 (median) | -14.8% |
| Lead Surgical Technologist | 3 | $31.00 to $42.00 | $36.50 | $36.20 | $40.54 (75th) | -10.0% |
Internal Equity Problems
Compression. In the past year, the hospital hired two new graduates at $29.00 an hour, with a $5,000 sign-on bonus, to compete for scarce graduates. Seven Grade II technologists with five or more years' experience earn between $29.60 and $31.40. An experienced technologist precepting a new graduate may earn only about a dollar an hour more than the person being trained.
Lead inversion. The Lead role carries a differential of only about $3.40 an hour over the Grade II average and takes no call. Two Grade II technologists who take heavy call and overtime earned more in total last year than any of the three Leads, which discourages experienced staff from accepting the role.
Total Compensation
Differentials change the comparison. The hospital pays $2.50 an hour for evening shifts, $3.00 for weekends, $4.00 an hour for standby call, and time and a half for call-back hours. Benefits cost 28% of base pay. There is no certification differential, because certification is required for the job under Texas law. Local competitors are reported by recruiters to pay $6 to $8 an hour for standby call; the survey does not capture differentials, so this comparison rests on recruiter reports and exit interviews, not survey data. Even with differentials counted, a Grade II technologist working the standard mix of shifts earns about 10% less in cash compensation than the metro median would suggest.
Equal Pay Check
Before any option is applied, the review compared pay for men and women within each grade, since the federal Equal Pay Act prohibits paying employees of one sex less than the other for equal work requiring equal skill, effort and responsibility, unless the difference rests on seniority, merit, production or a factor other than sex (29 U.S.C. § 206). The department has 21 women and 8 men. Within Grade II, average rates differed by $0.42 an hour, and the difference was explained by tenure when each rate was compared with years of service. No unexplained difference was found in any grade. Any correction option will be applied by written rules, by grade and tenure, so that the adjustments themselves cannot create a new gap, and the analysis will be repeated after the adjustments are made.
Correction Options, Priced
Annualized base payroll for the role is $1,662,835 (25.4 FTEs at current average rates). Costs below include 12% for wage-driven benefits such as payroll taxes and retirement contributions.
| Option | What it does | Added annual cost | Share of role payroll |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Full market alignment | Move all ranges and all incumbents up 18% | $335,228 | 20.2% |
| B. Targeted alignment | Grade I minimum to $29.88; Grade II average to $36.50, about 95% of the metro median; Lead average to $39.80, placed by tenure within the new ranges | $201,510 | 12.1% |
| C. Compression and call only | Raise the seven long-tenured Grade II staff to $33.50; add $2.00 to the Lead differential; raise standby call to $6.00 | $84,328 | 5.1% |
Recommendation
Option B is recommended. It costs about $201,000 a year, but the vacancies already cost the department roughly $103,000 a year in overtime and traveler premium, plus recruitment costs, and Option B targets the experienced staff whose departure would be most expensive. If it fills the three vacancies and ends the traveler contract, its net cost falls to roughly $100,000. Option C alone would fix the most visible unfairness but leave the structure 15% below the metro median, so new hires would keep arriving above long-serving staff. Research on hospital labor markets shows that when a large employer raised nurse wages, nearby hospitals responded by raising their own, which suggests competitors may answer the hospital's move (Staiger et al., 2010). The ranges should therefore be reviewed against new survey data every year rather than reset once.
References
Minimum wage, 29 U.S.C. § 206 (2025).
Staiger, D. O., Spetz, J., & Phibbs, C. S. (2010). Is there monopsony in the labor market? Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Labor Economics, 28(2), 211-236. https://doi.org/10.1086/652734
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2026). Occupational employment and wage statistics: May 2025 estimates, surgical technologists (29-2055). https://www.bls.gov/oes/
HA 635 Unit 5 instructions, in plain terms
Unit 5 asks you to review the compensation structure for a health care role. Expect to state the question and data, present market figures, match roles on duties, compare internal grades with the market, identify equity problems, consider total compensation, check equal pay and price correction options before recommending one. Students often ask which market data to use and how to match jobs. Federal wage survey data by metro area are a solid public source, and matching should rest on duties, not job titles. Look for compression, where new hires earn close to experienced staff. Count differentials and benefits. Run an equal pay check before any change. Price each option as a share of payroll and compare it with what vacancies already cost.
How this HA 635 Unit 5 example is built
The review opens with the staffing problems from Unit 1 and the question of whether pay contributes. A market table gives hourly percentiles for the metro area. The matching section describes the three grades by duties and assigns each to a market point. A comparison table shows ranges and average rates below the market. The equity section explains compression between new graduates with sign-on bonuses and experienced Grade II staff. The total compensation section lists differentials and benefits and how competitors compare. The equal pay section reports what the within-grade comparison found. Three options are priced with benefits added. The recommendation weighs Option B's cost of about $201,000 against current overtime and traveler premiums.
Reading the HA 635 Unit 5 rubric
Herzing's rubric for a compensation review usually covers the question, market data, job matching, the grade comparison, internal equity, total compensation, legal checks and priced options. Matching on duties and pricing options against payroll carry the most weight, because a pay change that cannot be justified or afforded will not be approved. Market points reward a named public source with date and geography. Matching criteria look for duties rather than titles. Equity credit goes to compression identified with numbers. Total compensation should include differentials and benefits. The equal pay check is often credited. Recommendations should compare cost with the price of vacancies. Bureau of Labor Statistics wage data, the Equal Pay Act and Staiger's study of nurse labor markets support the review.
HA 635 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points
Compensation reviews in HA 635 Unit 5 most often lose credit by matching jobs on title alone. Another frequent problem is comparing base pay with the market while ignoring differentials and benefits. Students often miss compression created by sign-on bonuses and new-graduate rates. Options are not priced, or benefit costs are left out. The equal pay check is skipped. Market data have no date or area. The recommendation does not compare its cost with overtime and agency spending. Retention risk among experienced staff is ignored. Finally, show cost against the price of doing nothing, because graders reward a review a finance committee could approve on the numbers alone.
Get a HA 635 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 5 instructions and the rubric from your HA 635 classroom, plus the roles in scope and any benchmark data your section requires you to use. We write a custom example with sourced market ranges, duty-based matching, compression identified and each correction priced for a full year, returned in 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.
More HA 635 papers and healthcare administration samples
- HA 635 Unit 1: Workforce demand analysis
- HA 635 Unit 2: Job analysis packet
- HA 635 Unit 3: Selection defensibility memo
- HA 635 Unit 4: Credentialing and competency review
- HA 635 Unit 6: Discipline case file
- HA 635 Unit 7: Turnover and retention study
- HA 635 Unit 8: Employment policy defense
- HA 620 Unit 5: Cost allocation report
- HA 625 Unit 5: Workplace investigation report
- HA 630 Unit 5: Marketing mix and referral plan
- HA 640 Unit 5: Make or buy analysis
HA 635 Unit 5 questions, answered
Where does legitimate benchmark data come from?
Published wage data from federal statistical agencies, state workforce reports and recognized industry surveys all qualify, and each names its scope so you can say what the figure covers. Salary aggregator sites built from self-reported entries are weaker and should be labeled as such if you use them. Whatever you cite, record the geography and the collection period beside the number.
How many roles should the review cover?
Few enough to compare properly. Three or four related positions in one department let you show a hierarchy and find compression inside it, while a survey of twenty scattered titles produces a table nobody can interpret. Choose roles that sit above and below each other, since the internal relationships are what make the review a structure review rather than a list of wages.
Should I include my own salary or my colleagues' pay?
No. Individual pay is confidential in most organizations and sharing it in coursework can create a real problem for you. Use published ranges, described grades and hypothetical incumbents placed within them, which gives the report everything it needs. If your instructions ask for an organizational example, describe the structure in general terms and keep every actual figure out of the file.
Where can I find a free HA 635 Unit 5 sample paper?
The full HA 635 Unit 5 compensation structure review is free on this page, surgical technologist pay against the metro market with compression and three priced options. We can prepare a pay review for any other clinical role.
What is pay compression in healthcare?
Compression happens when new hires are paid close to, or above, experienced staff, often because starting rates rose to compete for scarce graduates. This sample measures compression among surgical technologists and prices a fix.