Health Care Reform bill jeopardizing the future of nursing?

nicurn001 · Dec 9, 2009

If the present system of financing healthcare continues , do we not face the same problems , already employers are using the weak economy to validate lower expectations re. pay .

Whatever system of financing healthcare we go forward with , one thing is sure employers will be looking to minimise our income , while we of course will be looking for ways to maximise our income .

tewdles, RN · Dec 14, 2009

Will the jobs still be there?...of course...people will still go into the hospital for nursing care. There will still be nurses in offices and clinics and SNFs. Who knows how the pay will be...we have lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians writing our reform.

SilentMind · Dec 16, 2009

Will the jobs still be there?...of course...people will still go into the hospital for nursing care. There will still be nurses in offices and clinics and SNFs. Who knows how the pay will be...we have lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians writing our reform.

I've never much cared for your opinion. But this is the truth.

To the OP, don't feel too guilty about not having the slightest clue what this health care reform is actually about. The majority of the people voting on it don't know anything more about it then you do.

Onekidneynurse · Dec 21, 2009

Keep in mind that this question is coming from someone (me) who knows very little about the bill. But i keep hearing people say that this Health Care Reform bill (if passed) will destroy the careers of those working in the Health Care. Is this true? How will this bill affect nurses? Will the salary that nurses have become used to still be there when the smoke clears? Will the jobs still be there?

ESRD is the only chronic disease in the US totally funded by Medicare. The companies involved in caring for these patients hadn't gotten a raise in payment from Medicare in dozens of years. Right now I can't remember how long. Also, the present reimbursement is low and bundled. In other words, we get the same payment for every patient no matter what they require.

tewdles, RN · Dec 21, 2009

ESRD is the only chronic disease in the US totally funded by Medicare. The companies involved in caring for these patients hadn't gotten a raise in payment from Medicare in dozens of years. Right now I can't remember how long. Also, the present reimbursement is low and bundled. In other words, we get the same payment for every patient no matter what they require.

This is the same for hospice as well. All hospice payment is paid per diem according to the patient status; routine, respite, or inpatient. As one might imagine, some routine patients are very expensive and some are very inexpensive....a wide range. IMHO, medicare has the best hospice benefit.

RNOkie · Dec 21, 2009

I am so glad to have found this discussion because I have the same questions; just had no idea how to start a new thread:(

I have no idea what's on the table and probably would not understand the legalese anyway. Perhaps someone could explain it to me...

I realize that Medicare/medicaid are gov agencies that, unfortunately are now practicing medicine rather than letting the MD's do their job. But, what has the goverment EVER gotten their hands into that has been effectively managed? Yes, the health care system is a mess, and no, I have no solution. But, if I understand this correctly, among other things, if this thing passes, citizens can actually be FINED for having no coverage. If they could afford a fine, perhaps they could afford coverage.

Maybe the government needs to focus more on getting a handle on the riduculous premiums and claim denials instead of passing yet one more law. SOLVE THE PROBLEM INSTEAD OF MAKING NEW RULES.

My point being is this: the Government now owns Wall Street, The Big Car Companies, and goodness knows what else. I'm sure to some, socialized medicine sounds like the solution, and who knows, it may be. But, I for one, both as a patient and a nurse do NOT want a governmental official making medical determinations on my life or the lives of my patients; when, where and what provider they see; what procedures are allowed, who gets seen first, who has to wait? Already the recommendations of breast cancer screening has been changed. Does this mean scientific research has now determined that the risk for breast cancer has decreased after the age of 40?? What's next??

It just appears to me that we are moving away from foundations on which this great US was founded upon, and more and more towards total governmental control. But what the heck do I know; I'm just a nurse.

This may not be the appropriate site for venting my frustrations, but thanks for letting me do so.

FLmomof5 · Dec 21, 2009

ESRD costs 0.35 of every $1 of medicare.... and the previous posts mention that the government underpays.

There are nurses in all the countries that have socialized medicine. You might even get an increase in pay! Just don't expect to take as much HOME! We are going to get taxed out the ying-yang.

Onekidneynurse · Dec 21, 2009

ESRD costs 0.35 of every $1 of medicare.... and the previous posts mention that the government underpays.
There are nurses in all the countries that have socialized medicine. You might even get an increase in pay! Just don't expect to take as much HOME! We are going to get taxed out the ying-yang.

And it's growth has been 9% or more for years. And I don't see that getting lower any time soon.

As another aside. More and more people are being taken care of at home. So hospital nurses might want to think about that. Not many patients come into the hospital any more for long term antibiotics among other things.

http://www.usrds.org/2007/view/11_econ.asp

memememe · Mar 22, 2010

actually the mammogram recommendations have not changed from the objective suggested start to 50 from 40 - unfortunately. The committee who made the recommendation was unaffiliated with any special interest entity (including government) and they did not consider economic costs when doing the study. The committee found that the number of women who had to undergo chemotherapy and other interventions for false positive results between the ages of 40-50 far outweighed the number of women with actual positive results - something like one woman who actually had a dangerous cancer for every 30-40 who had to undergo dangerous treatments for benign cancers. HOwever this was skewed by the media of an example of 'rationing healthcare' when in reality it is just better policy. so it never passed.

also, most countries in europe don't start mammogram screening until 50, some even 55.

sistasoul · Mar 22, 2010

The reality of big brother looms ever closer.

Mukfay · Mar 28, 2010

ESRD is the only chronic disease in the US totally funded by Medicare. The companies involved in caring for these patients hadn't gotten a raise in payment from Medicare in dozens of years. Right now I can't remember how long. Also, the present reimbursement is low and bundled. In other words, we get the same payment for every patient no matter what they require.

This is so true. So even if we don't ration healthcare, this system will ration healthcare automatically as unscrupulous providers (or those who just want to make a decent living) will find ways to shunt the more critical (translated: expensive) patients somewhere else while they take the simple cases.

If memory serves, the ANA fully endorsed Barack Obama. Am I correct about this?

Regards,

Mukfay