California NP's - page 2
by juan de la cruz Guide | 11,030 Views | 59 Comments
Join the California Association for Nurse Practitioners in garnering support for SB 491 (Hernandez), if passed, this is a substantial piece of legislation that would make our state part of the progressive group of states that... Read More
- 0Apr 6, '13 by ChristineNQuote from juan de la cruzBut if they were still NP's that were employees of a hospital or larger healthcare organization, couldn't they still be members of the union? I understand if they are in independent practice and owning their own clinic that partaking of the union might not make sensewithout talking directly to anyone at CNA, I'm assuming that the opposition stems from the fact that the bill would elevate NP's as independent providers, similar to physicians, hence would not be members of California nursing unions anymore.
- 0Apr 6, '13 by TheOldGuyThe thing is, with both CMA and CNA opposing, this bill doesn't have a chance. Someone asked "what is wrong with this state?" - I think the question is "what is wrong with nursing?"! Nursing is like a pot of crabs on the stove - when one tries climbing out, the others pull it down.....
CNA/NNU want to be in control and if they aren't then they oppose things. They get involved in areas that have nothing to do with nursing (eg gay marriage - Projections Inc Blog), and don't really promote the development of nursing as a profession.
This bill does everything we would want - and the timing is perfect. Kudos to Hernandez. Too bad its going nowhere - and it will be years before the issue is brought up again. CANP has no juice - They didn't propose it. They didn't champion it. They aren't out lobbying for it. They aren't trying to generate public support for it. It took an OD (Hernandez) to bring this bill forward, and he's all by himself.
- 0Apr 6, '13 by juan de la cruz, MSN, RN, NP GuideQuote from ChristineNThat is true in theory. Many hospital based NP's in CA are union members (UCSF, Stanford, Kaiser in the Bay Area). If this bill becomes law, there's no stopping these hospitals from changing the employment arrangement from a hospital employee to a contract status with the medical group like physicians if the NP's are going to be independent. There are NP's where I work who are non-union already. I think unions like to have the numbers...it strengthens their power to negotiate. Is the opposition a way to stick out for NP's best interests? no, it does protect the union from losing membership.But if they were still NP's that were employees of a hospital or larger healthcare organization, couldn't they still be members of the union? I understand if they are in independent practice and owning their own clinic that partaking of the union might not make sense
- 0Apr 6, '13 by juan de la cruz, MSN, RN, NP GuideIf you're a CANP member, you would have already gotten an email about this bill. The next step is for the Senate's Business, Professions, and Economic Development Committee to look at the bill. There are nine senators in that committee: Corbett, Padilla, Wyland, Yee, Price, Block, Hill, Emmerson, and Galgiani. A form letter has been emailed to CANP members and all one has to do is fill in one's name and information on the form and a message is sent automatically to the senators. Unfortunately, I can not post a link to that letter because it shows my personal information on the link.
Is it OK to be pessimistic and do nothing about this bill? On one hand, the nursing union in California have offered no support and the physician's group through the CMA is just laughing at this move by the union. The physician lobby need not make a statement it seems - the non-support of CNA speaks for itself. Unions have a strong lobby and the current California legislature favors having the unions on their side. The overwhelming argument in support of this bill is it will greatly help with the Affordable Care Act by making patient access to primary care services more streamlined. Senator Ed Hernandez has been an NP ally. He is responsible for the law that eliminated physician supervision as a requirement for NP's obtaining a Furnishing License.
- 0Apr 7, '13 by TheOldGuyI'm not saying to do nothing....I'm just saying that I don't think the bill has a snowball's chance in you know where. I'm still up for trying though!
I am very frustrated with CANP and am no longer a member. Sending an email to CANP members with a form letter is hardly lobbying! A couple of years ago I went to their lobbying day event - what a joke! I spoke with them at that time about scope of practice. They were totally intimidated by the all out effort that CMA made the last time this issue came up.
In the states that have been successful in expanding scope of practice (and as you know California doesn't even have a defined scope!), a concerted effort involving letter writing, media advertisement, and boots on the ground lobbying was necessary.