Healthcare emergency management salary survey analysis

Introduction

The field of emergency preparedness is often considered to be an underrecognized field to many in healthcare. However, those who serve in this field play a vital role in keeping healthcare centers running smoothly. This was highlighted during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Emergency preparedness professionals have a wide variety of roles that center around a few key concepts: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. With mitigation, the field strives to reduce the risk of a disaster. Mitigation activities include moving into hallways during tornado warnings to protect patients from possible harm from debris.

In the context of the preparedness cycle, preparedness involves creating and regularly updating plans for disasters that may involve natural disasters, such as tornadoes or flooding, mass casualty events, and patient surges such as those resulting from a mass shooting, chemical exposures, such as from routine farming, a chemical plant explosion or terrorist attack, or pandemic. As one can imagine, each scenario comes with its own unique challenges, and formulating a plan and protocol ahead of time can increase the likelihood of a positive outcome.

Response involves how resources are utilized given the emergent situation and what the healthcare organization will do during the event and in the short term after the event. Recovery efforts focus on long-term efforts to return the organization to regular operating conditions. Recovery can take an extended amount of time. Within the recovery frame, other components of the preparedness cycle may come into play, as recovery efforts may highlight weaknesses in mitigation efforts, and preparedness plans. This serves to highlight that the preparedness cycle is cyclical, and different aspects of the cycle are frequently operating concurrently.

The Association of Healthcare Emergency Preparedness Professionals (AHEPP) is an international membership-based organization that supports Healthcare Emergency Managers (HcEMs) by providing tools, training, education, and opportunities for collaboration in and among HcEMs. The organization accomplishes this goal through an annual conference, monthly webinars, the HcEM certification, and many other resources available on the organization’s website.

AHEPP prides itself on being member-focused. Through conversations with members, especially after the COVID pandemic, AHEPP identified the membership’s interest in the salaries of fellow HcEMs in the field and what resources may be offered to these professionals. Information regarding salaries in the field is also of interest to attract high-quality and qualified candidates. The present study aims to help establish foundational knowledge for salary trends in the healthcare preparedness industry. This will serve to benefit both employees and employers alike by offering a basis for salary negotiations and attracting potential applicants to the field. This is the second iteration of the salary survey, and while many questions remained the same, the present study incorporates modifications to some questions based on feedback regarding questions asked in the first iteration of the survey.

Literature about healthcare emergency preparedness professionals is limited outside of AHEPP. Much of the current literature on the field of healthcare emergency preparedness focuses on burnout within the HcEM field following the COVID-19 pandemic. This is an important consideration as this second iteration of the salary survey will be compared to the first to assess turnover, changes to salaries and resources, and other factors that may have been impacted by the pandemic. However, regarding current costs, and resources relevant to the field of emergency preparedness, there are major gaps in the literature. There are indications that the field has undergone significant changes since widespread federal funds were first distributed in 2002 through the Health Resources and Service Administration Bioterrorism Preparedness grant (1). While the United States (US) government provides some financial support for the field, additional support exists in nongovernmental resources which vary to include competencies (i.e., knowledge, skills, and expertise), money, infrastructure or equipment, services, relationships, and more (2). The exact details regarding the prevalence and availability of these assets are difficult to define (2), as such, an objective of this study is to identify the availability of resources and assets, such as financial support and training related to the field to name a few, provided to preparedness programs by government and nongovernmental partners. While emergency preparedness departments have limited support and resources to utilize, they are often pressured to also provide resources such as an output for employees, patients, and others they aim to support (3). This means they must allocate funding to organization-wide resources such as mass notification systems (3), burdening the budget, and thus additional governmental and nongovernmental resources are needed to supplement the program.

Other sources aim to define the roles and certain weaknesses of the field. Carrier et al. state that “being prepared for a natural disaster, infectious disease outbreak or other emergency where many injured or ill people need medical care while maintaining ongoing operations” is a tough task necessitating coordination of diverse entities at the local, regional, and national levels (4). Further, it is iterated that while many stakeholders have frequent communication, primary care clinicians and nursing homes are missing participants in healthcare preparedness coalitions (4). Special attention to the specific locations that workers cover, such as hospitals, tertiary centers, etc., will be an aspect of consideration in the given study as such entities are important considerations in emergency preparedness. The primary objective of this study is, therefore, to begin the process of filling some of the gaps in the literature and information about the important field of emergency preparedness in healthcare.

AHEPP does not publish original research on its website; rather, it focuses on providing easy access to existing resources related to training, information, and collaborative activities that are beneficial to the HcEM. Resources available on the website include links to videos, links to outside websites, and links to tools and resources created by AHEPP members who wanted to share their work with the AHEPP community (5). Currently, there is no information regarding salaries, industry characteristics, or position demographics available on the public website.

In 2019 AHEPP attempted to capture HcEM salary data from existing databases, such as the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS) but was unsuccessful due to limited availability of the information being sought. AHEPPs first iteration of the salary survey gathered salary data for the tax year 2020. This data provided some baseline information, but some questions were difficult for the respondents to understand, as some questions were not clearly phrased while others were not asked to a sufficient degree of specificity. The second iteration of the salary survey collected data from tax year 2023. Additionally, continued surveillance provides a better picture of the longitudinal trends, especially since many in the field faced the traumatic event of the pandemic. With the pandemic, salaries often altered, workers faced a heightened level of burnout, and there were changes to the number that served in a preparedness capacity at a healthcare entity. Study designers also hoped to provide salary information to help ensure equity within the field and recruit new HcEMs, all of which necessitate continued surveillance.

Current data on HcEM salary and position details is extremely limited. The USBLS includes data relevant to the field, but only for one position title, “Emergency Management Directors” (6). However, it is important to note that many professionals within the field of HcEM do not have this title or even a supervisory role, therefore there is a substantial gap in available information. The USBLS defines the role of an emergency management director as being responsible for preparing “plans and procedures for responding to natural disasters and other emergencies. They also help lead the response during and after emergencies, often in coordination with public safety officials, elected officials, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies” (6). While the definition from the USBLS of the role of emergency management director accurately depicts the role these workers fill, the same job description can be applied to other workers within the field without the title of “Director”. This muddies the water when it comes to actual compensation reported by the USBLS. Therefore, this study aimed to collect data from emergency health professionals via a survey in order to provide a baseline of information regarding salaries and resources within the field. We present this article in accordance with the STROBE reporting checklist (available at https://jphe.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jphe-25-25/rc).

Methods

HcEM salary data was first collected in the 2021 AHEPP Salary Survey. Analysis showed that numerous survey questions were not understood by respondents as intended by the survey designers. Additionally, it was determined that the 2021 survey did not provide insight into all of the areas that the researchers aimed to examine. Therefore, the 2023 survey was modified to incorporate suggested modifications by AHEPP leadership. Problems encountered in the first survey centered around questions about full-time equivalent (FTE), leading to limited analysis with this lens of focus. Research Electronic Data Capture (RedCap version 14, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA) was used as the survey design platform. Survey alterations were made during the summer of 2023. The second survey was piloted amongst leadership in AHEPP, or those heavily involved in the field, some of whom were involved in the survey design and others who were not. Participation in piloting did not preclude one from answering the survey once it was formally distributed. All pilot related responses were not included in analysis. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments. The project was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (# 0704-21-EX) and began with a statement of the intent of the study and how findings would be utilized. Respondents proceeding with the survey was considered consent in the study.

The 2023 survey was distributed in a myriad of ways. A link to the survey was posted on the AHEPP public website and included in the bi-weekly AHEPP Update newsletter for three iterations. Finally, the survey was promoted via social media including LinkedIn and Twitter (X).

Survey responses were gathered for six weeks after the survey was initially distributed. Survey respondents were incentivized via the drawing of two free memberships (a one-year duration) to AHEPP. The drawing was random and occurred when the survey response period closed.

Both members and non-members of AHEPP were invited to respond to the survey. Upon initiation of the survey, respondents were asked what country they were employed in. If any country other than the US was selected, the survey was terminated due to the study only being approved to take place within the US. Anyone who had job responsibilities in a healthcare emergency preparedness program and received a W2 for 2023 was eligible to fill out the survey, regardless of age, AHEPP membership, workplace setting, workplace title, or any other demographic variable. Any responses to the survey were considered a partially complete survey and eligible for inclusion.

This survey was administered during June and July of 2024 and gathered salary and other data for the tax year of 2023. The tax year 2023 data was analyzed primarily with attention to descriptive statistics. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were used for a closer assessment of the data focusing on different relationships with salaries. Additionally, the two surveys were compared to assess for trends in data over the two study years. Salary was considered all forms of compensation as would be declared on a W-2 form. FTEs dedicated to emergency preparedness activities were clarified as “out of 100%, the answer should be a percentage. Therefore, a half time emergency manager is 50%. A quarter time manager is 25%, etc.”. Total number of FTEs dedicated to emergency preparedness work at the institution was further defined as “If you are the only person specifically allocated to emergency preparedness/management, AND you are full time, your response would be ‘1’. If you and another half-time person are specifically allocated to emergency preparedness/management then your response would ‘1.5’.” Further the preparedness program budget consisted of money allocated specifically for professional development/training funds on a personal or departmental level.

Statistical analysis

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 29, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) was utilized for all statistical analyses using an alpha value of 0.05. Data was largely assessed utilizing descriptive statistics. One-way ANOVA was utilized to compare salaries and various other variables (such as region, state, gender, and age to name a few). A Levene’s test was utilized to assess for violations to the ANOVA assumptions on one instance due to small sample sizes.

Results

Demographics

There were 206 responses to the survey with 148 responses considered to be complete. Responses that were considered partially complete were included in the analysis. One-hundred-one respondents (out of 193 responses) indicated that they were female, compared to 88 respondents denoting themselves as male. Four respondents preferred not to answer regarding their gender. The mean age of respondents was 47.87 with a range from 22 to 70 years old (185 responses). The majority of respondents indicated that they were White (n=172, out of 188 responses), with Black or African American (n=5), Asian (n=1), and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (n=1) representing a far fewer number of responses. Nine respondents preferred not to answer. Respondents largely considered themselves to not be Hispanic or Latino or Spanish origin (n=172, out of 188 responses), with a smaller portion (n=5) considering themselves of Hispanic or Latino or Spanish Origin. Some respondents (n=11) preferred not to answer.

One-hundred-ninety-five respondents (out of 204 responses) indicated that they were working in the US. Alternative answers resulted in the conclusion of the survey as results in other countries were not the focus of this study. Every Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) region was represented by respondents (194 responses). FEMA Region Five had the most respondents (n=42). Nearly every state (n=41) was also represented with the most respondents working in North Carolina (n=17, out of 194 responses). Figure 1 further breaks down the respondents within FEMA regions, while Table 1 details the state-level representation.

Figure 1 FEMA regions with n-values. Numbers 1–10 represent the 10 FEMA regions. FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The educational background of respondents was very diverse. Most respondents (n=75, out of 169 responses) completed a Master’s degree, followed by the completion of a bachelor’s degree (n=54). Some respondents (n=16) completed an associate’s degree, some (n=18) indicated that they completed some college, and others (n=6) completed a doctoral degree. Some respondents further specified their highest held degree type as depicted in Table 2.

Respondents also held a variety of field-specific certifications including Certified Business Continuity Professional (CBCP) certification (n=4, out of 206 responses), Certified Energy Manager (CEM) certification (n=27), Certified Healthcare Emergency Professional (CHEP) certification (n=45), CHECPC certification (n=9), Healthcare Emergency Manager-Basic (HcEM-B) certification (n=2), Healthcare Emergency Manager-Professional (HcEM-P) certification (n=2), Healthcare Emergency Manager-Mastery (HcEM-M) certification (n=7). Sixty-seven respondents indicated that they had other certifications than those listed in the survey which included a wide variety of responses with none that stood out as being more popular than 1–3 respondents.

Regarding the experience of the respondents, there was a mean of 12.54 years of healthcare experience not including time in an emergency preparedness/management role with a range of 0 to 50 years (179 responses). There was a mean of 9.39 years of emergency management experience with a range from 1 to 40 years (178 responses).

The majority of respondents (n=123, out of 178 responses) indicated that they had no plans to retire or leave the emergency preparedness field in the next five years. Other responses included a plan to retire within a year (n=3), a plan to retire within three years (n=27), and a plan to retire within five years (n=25). The majority (n=154, out of 179 responses) also indicated that they did not change jobs within 2023, with the rest (n=25) subsequently indicating that they did change jobs in 2023.

Respondents were asked if they worked for a healthcare system or in a single practice setting. Most (n=132, out of 156 responses) indicated that they work for a healthcare system, while the rest (n=24) worked primarily in a single practice setting. There was a wide variety of practice settings worked by respondents (206 responses). These are depicted in Table 3.

The level of trauma center, according to the American College of Surgeons, for the respondent’s hospital was also gathered (130 responses). All trauma levels were accounted for with an additional 32 respondents indicating that they were not affiliated with a trauma center. Level one trauma centers were the most common (n=44), level two included 20 respondents, level 3 included 13 respondents, level 4 included 19 respondents, and level 5 included 2 respondents. The mean number of beds the respondents considered themselves responsible for was 709.34 with a range from 0 to 25,000 (148 responses). Respondents indicated that they reported to various titles in their role as an emergency preparedness professional (145 responses). The survey inquired about the titles of Chief Compliance Officer, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Information Officer, Chief Medical Officer, Chief Nursing Officer, and Chief Operating Officer as demonstrated in Table 4. Table 5 details the wide variety of other positions HcEM workers report to.

Most respondents (n=104, out of 143 responses) indicated that they were the supervisor for their practice setting’s Emergency Preparedness/Management program with the subsequent group of respondents (n=39) not considered to be the supervisor.

Salary data

Respondents were asked about details concerning their FTE. The mean number of personal FTEs dedicated to emergency preparedness activities was 74.94% (139 responses). The mean total FTEs dedicated to emergency preparedness activities at the respondents’ institution was 2.70 (142 responses). The majority of respondents (n=115, out of 143 responses) indicated that their department did not grow in 2023, with smaller proportions seeing an increase (n=18), decrease (n=9), or were unsure of changes (n=1). Most respondents (n=83, out of 141 responses) were not provided with a personal budget for professional development in the field, with the rest (n=58) indicating that they were provided some monetary support. The monetary support ranged from $500 to $5,000 annually. Regarding support for the Emergency Preparedness Department professional development, the responses were largely the same with 86 (out of 140 responses) indicating no support and 54 indicating monetary support. The departmental funding ranged from $200 to $10,000. The mean number of disasters responded to within 2023 was 6.96 (139 responses). The mean salary of respondents was $98,374.66 with a range from $45 to $280,000 and a median of $95,000 (139 responses). Out of interest given the high salary of the aforementioned individual, special attention was given. This individual was a supervisor and indicated that they had 90% of their FTE dedicated to emergency preparedness.

The highest mean and median salary was in Alaska with $203,000 compared to the lowest in Arkansas at $25,022.50. State-by-state comparisons were not statistically feasible given the low sample sizes for numerous states. Table 6, however, depicts the mean and median salaries of the remaining states.

When mean salaries were compared across FEMA regions, the findings were found to be significant (P=0.03) with a Levene’s test P value of 0.205, suggesting no violations to ANOVA assumptions. Region 10 had the highest mean salary of $147,333.33 and Region 6 had the lowest mean salary of $78,443.00. Table 7 depicts the mean and median salaries of the remaining FEMA regions.

There was also a significant difference in salaries between genders (P=0.02) with higher salaries in males (this analysis included those who preferred not to answer). There was no statistically significant difference between age and salary (P=0.36) as well as between race and salary (P=0.25) and salary and ethnicity (P=0.52). There was a significant relationship between salary and education level (P=0.01) with mean salaries increasing as education level increased as demonstrated in Table 8.

When looking at work experience in regard to salaries, the relationship between salary and healthcare experience outside of a role in an emergency preparedness professional was found not to be statistically significant (P=0.30). There was a significant relationship (P<0.001) between salary and experience in the emergency preparedness field with salaries for the most part increasing as years of experience increased. Whether respondents changed jobs during 2023 had no statistically significant relationship with salaries (P=0.74). Those who indicated they worked in a healthcare system did not have a significantly different salary compared to those who worked primarily for a single practice setting (P=0.16). There was a significant relationship between trauma level and salary (P=0.006) with those who worked with higher-level trauma centers (i.e., level 1) having a higher salary. The relationship between the number of beds and salary was not statistically significant (P=0.06).

Salaries had a significant relationship to those who were considered to be a manager or supervisor (P=0.02) with such a status resulting in a higher average salary. There was no statistically significant difference found between salary and FTE dedicated to emergency preparedness work (P=0.44) as well as no statistically significant difference between salary and total FTEs dedicated to the emergency preparedness field at the institution (P=0.42). There was a significant relationship found between salary and those who received monetary support for personal professional development (P=0.01), but there was no statistically significant difference between salary and professional development at a department level (P=0.46). The number of disasters responded to did not have a significant relationship with salaries (P=0.17).

Discussion

This survey had a diverse group of respondents with nearly every state and every FEMA region represented. There was nearly an equal number of males and females with the breakdown as 53.4% and 46.6% respectively. There was also a wide range of ages from 22 to 70 years old. Notably, most of the respondents considered themselves white (91.5%) and not of Hispanic or Latino or Spanish origin (91.5%).

The USBLS reports a median salary of $96,380 for those who work in hospitals in the role of “Emergency Management Directors” (6). This compares to the findings of the current study with a median salary of $95,000. The first salary survey conducted by AHEPP found a median salary of $83,500, indicating an increase since 2020 (7).

While we were unable to statically compare salaries at a state level, it is important to note the results comparing salaries at the FEMA region level were significant (P=0.03). This might suggest that salaries are regional-based and that neighboring states impact each other as they are the ones that make up a region. Compared to the findings of the first salary survey, region 2 had the highest mean whereas it is second to highest in the current study (7). It is important to note that these findings may largely be impacted by the regional cost of living differences. Further assessment of respondent cost of living was out of the scope of this study and not a line of questioning.

As is frequently the case within the US, the salaries of the respondents had a significant relationship with reported gender (P=0.02). As one could assume, males had a higher average salary of $103,583.73 compared to females with an average salary of $89,849.49. In this instance, it is important to note the three respondents who indicated that they prefer to not answer regarding their gender, as these respondents had an average salary of $144,666.67. This small group may have impacted the findings regarding this relationship. Previously, there was not a significant relationship between salaries and gender (P=0.55) (7). While salary disparities based on gender in the field of emergency preparedness are sparsely cited in the literature, they are frequently mentioned in other fields, such as healthcare. One such systemic review cites consistent findings of wage discrepancy amongst populations with similar demographic and work-related profiles (8). Another study found that wage gaps increased with education levels within the healthcare field (9). Much as one’s gender can impact one’s salary, so can one’s race. However, the current study found no significant relationship between the two (P=0.25), suggesting that race does not impact salaries within the study population. The same is true regarding the lack of a significant relationship between salary and reported ethnicity (P=0.52).

As one ages, it is common to assume that one gains experience and as such, sees an increase in salary. However, this study did not find a significant relationship between salary and age (P=0.36). This was not assessed in the first survey (7). Yet, there was a significant relationship between education level and salary (P=0.01) with the highest average salary residing with those who held a doctoral degree. One would suspect that for many, seeking a higher education level comes from an incentive to increase future earning potential, so this trend makes sense. In fact, the College Board states that “as workers age, earnings rise more rapidly for those with higher levels of education” (10). A similar relationship was found in the prior survey; however, the second highest average earning group was those with only a high school level education to much of the authors’ shock (7). The current study did not include high school as an education level to choose from.

Interestingly, general healthcare work experience did not have a significant relationship with salary (P=0.30), yet work experience related specifically to the emergency preparedness field did have a significant relationship with salaries (P<0.001). Previously, there was also a significant relationship found in the first survey iteration between salary and emergency preparedness experience in healthcare (P=0.001) (7). General healthcare work experience was not included in the first survey (7). The significant relationship with field-specific work history yet not with healthcare work experience at large speaks to the specific nature of the field and how different it is from others. Many people within healthcare often fill in to help in a time of need or when a disaster strikes and serve to provide advice to help guide future disaster planning as described in one case study (11). Yet the pay emphasizes the field’s uniqueness as compensation increases with field-specific experience. Additionally, there was a significant relationship between salary and whether the respondent was considered a supervisor (P=0.02). This certainly makes sense as it is common practice for supervisors within most fields of work to have a higher salary compared to their non-leadership coworkers. However previously, there was not a significant relationship between being a supervisor and salary (P=0.37) (7). The exact reason behind the previous findings is unknown.

With supervisors in mind, we considered who respondents reported to in their positions. It was found to be a vast number of people with over 87 responses (detailed in Table 5) indicating they reported to someone other than the Chief Compliance Officer (n=2), Chief Executive Officer (n=13), Chief Information Officer (n=3), Chief Medical Officer (n=1), Chief Nursing Officer (n=16), or Chief Operating Officer (n=23).

It was theorized by the authors that there might be a significant relationship between salary and whether the respondent changed jobs within 2023. This idea stems from two points, the first being that the motivation for changing jobs was for a salary increase and the second being that in a new position, someone might be serving as a redundancy in the preparedness program. However, the study herein did not find a significant relationship between changing jobs and salary (P=0.74).

A trauma level designation of a hospital indicates the amount of trauma cases and the severity of the cases they receive. This is important to consider as it relates to the volume and severity of cases received in a disaster. As such, it makes sense that there was a significant relationship between salary and trauma level (P=0.006). Previously, the authors did not find a significant relationship between trauma level and salary (P=0.37) (7). While it makes sense to see a relationship between trauma level and salary, it is important to note a few things regarding trauma level. Trauma cases often result in the care of the uninsured or those covered by governmental insurance (i.e., Medicare and Medicaid). This puts the hospital in a precarious situation in which they often require governmental funding to cover the costs of such cases (12). As the number of trauma centers increases, this puts a strain on the governmental funding support available (13), making the findings of this study interesting and opposite of what the authors would have expected given the financial burden on the hospital. On a similar train of thought, one might also think that the number of beds, which corresponds to the volume someone oversees, would impact salaries. Indeed, one such study notes a relationship between number of beds overseen and the pay of chief executive officers (CEOs) (14). Yet, there was not a significant relationship between salary and the number of beds the HcEM oversees (P=0.06) in this study. There was also no statistically significant difference between the salaries and the number of disasters responded to in 2023 (P=0.17). While this also speaks to volume, the number of disasters responded to is far more variable, making it harder to account for.

Personnel FTEs dedicated to the field of emergency preparedness had no statistically significant difference with salaries (P=0.44), as well as total department FTEs relationship with salaries (P=0.42). The first survey responses pertaining to FTEs were poorly written leading to their previous omission from data analysis. There was a significant relationship between salary and monetary support for personal professional development (P=0.01). This makes sense, as it might suggest that departments more willing to support individual professional development are more willing to pay their workers better. However, when considering monetary support for departmental professional development, there was no statistically significant difference in salaries (P=0.46). Since this is at a departmental level and not an individual level, the lack of relationship to individual salaries makes sense. Support for professional development on a personal or departmental level was not asked in the first survey (7).

Limitations

Given that this was a survey-based study, there was the potential for recall bias regarding some of the questions within the survey although most of the questions should have been supported by documentation curated throughout the year in question. However, this does not guarantee that respondents consulted previous documentation to remind themselves of the facts before answering this survey. It is also possible that it was difficult for respondents to determine the exact salary earnings dedicated just to emergency preparedness duties as opposed to those in other roles such as those that may include those of an Infection Control Practitioner, Safety Officer, and other duties. Additionally, upon reflection on the responses, it was found that 130 respondents answered the question about working at a trauma center, with 32 respondents denoting they did not work at a trauma center. However, only 116 previously indicated they worked at a hospital, with an additional 33 working at a CAH amongst other locations. These inconsistencies may be due to nonresponse or respondent misinterpretation of the question. It is possible that there are other similar instances of small differences in findings within the current study due to the aforementioned nonresponse or misinterpretation necessitating closer analysis of all questions. Yet, some degree of variability is to be expected in a survey-based study including incomplete responses in analysis. However, the authors do not believe that this impacts the results of this study to any large degree. It is worth highlighting the limitation that not all respondents completed the survey (148 completed, out of 206 responses).

Additionally, while confounding variables were accounted for in the study, the analysis focused on single comparisons as opposed to those conducted within a lens of an intersectional framework. Further, the current study does not include assessment of the regional implication of cost of living and how this may impact salaries as it was felt to be out of the scope of this study. Finally, AHEPP was utilized to aid in survey dissemination. This may have limited the audience reached and contributed further to a selection bias.

Next steps

Future studies will be conducted so that further trends can be assessed. The work of these efforts will slowly start to compile a portfolio of salary data aimed to support and continue to advance the field. The authors welcome suggestions regarding future editions of the survey and specific questions field workers want answered. Additionally, it is important to consider that emergency preparedness professionals work in countless other settings than in healthcare at the local and state government levels. It would be of value to expand the surveyed pool to all preparedness professionals, serving to advance salary knowledge for the field at large.

Conclusions

This survey-based study offers a unique set of data serving to start the rectification of the paucity of information publicly available regarding the salaries of emergency preparedness professionals. There are many trends regarding salaries within the field that are important take-aways. Notably, a worker’s education level positively impacts one salary potential. Additionally, as someone works with higher-level trauma centers, there is an increased salary opportunity. The findings of this survey provided more beneficial data compared to the first iteration of the survey. While these are just a few of the important findings of the study, the authors believe that professionals within the field will be able to utilize the findings herein in future salary negotiations or to place themselves in a better job market to fit their needs both with salary as well as workload in mind.

Acknowledgments

None.

Footnote

Reporting Checklist: The authors have completed the STROBE reporting checklist. Available at https://jphe.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jphe-25-25/rc

Data Sharing Statement: Available at https://jphe.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jphe-25-25/dss

Peer Review File: Available at https://jphe.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jphe-25-25/prf

Funding: None.

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jphe.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jphe-25-25/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (No. 0704-21-EX). The survey began with a statement of the intent of the study and how findings will be utilized. Respondents proceeding with the survey was considered consent in the study.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Kim DH. Emergency Preparedness and the Development of Health Care Coalitions: A Dynamic Process. Nurs Clin North Am 2016;51:545-54. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Acosta JD, Chandra A, Ringel JS. Nongovernmental resources to support disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. Disaster Med Public Health Prep 2013;7:348-53. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Biddinger PD, Reisman D, Seger RF, et al. Current Emergency Preparedness Resources and Capabilities Among Academic Health Systems in the United States. Disaster Med Public Health Prep 2018;12:574-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Carrier E, Yee T, Cross D, et al. Emergency preparedness and community coalitions: opportunities and challenges. Res Brief 2012;1-9.
5. Association of Healthcare Emergency Preparedness Professionals. AHEPP Open Resources. 2024. Available online: https://www.ahepp.org/page/OpenResources
6. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Emergency Management Directors," 29 August 2024. [Online]. Available online: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/emergency-management-directors.htm#tab-5
7. Thiel GE, Hansen KF, Hansen A, et al. 2020 Healthcare Emergency Manager Salary Survey. 2022.
8. Hoff T, Lee DR. The gender pay gap in medicine: A systematic review. Health Care Manage Rev 2021;46:E37-49. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Dill JS, Frogner BK. The gender wage gap among health care workers across educational and occupational groups. Health Aff Sch 2024;2:qxad090. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Baum S, Ma J, Payea K. Education Pays, 2013: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society. Trends in Higher Education Series. College Board. 2013. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED572537.pdf
11. Taschner MA, Nannini A, Laccetti M, et al. Emergency Preparedness Policy and Practice in Massachusetts Hospitals. Workplace Health Saf 2017;65:129-36. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Haddad DN, Hatchimonji J, Kumar S, et al. Changes in payer mix of new and established trauma centers: the new trauma center money grab? Trauma Surg Acute Care Open 2024;9:e001417. [Crossref] [PubMed]
13. Grossman Verner HM, Figueroa BA, Salgado Crespo M, et al. Trauma center funding: time for an update. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open 2021;6:e000596. [Crossref] [PubMed]
14. Joynt KE, Le ST, Orav EJ, et al. Compensation of chief executive officers at nonprofit US hospitals. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:61-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]