I'm scheduled to start in a private ED hospital next month. I started at a VA on a PCU unit as a new grad, but I feel like I'm depriving myself of the experience I desire.
As I consider transitioning from a highly political, but stable federal hospital (VA) to a private hospital in order to gain the ED experience that I desire (a broader pt population-not just older vets in for pain med refills and jock itch), I ask myself how the ACA has affected your employer (hospital, school, prison, etc.). Have budgets been cut? Have layoffs taken place (specifically nurses being laid off)? Are you called off less or more? Have PRN positions been eliminated or increased? Is agency/travel used more? Have your benefits been affected? Have your employers anticipated any forthcoming changes?
My hospital is turning a huge profit and we're seeing record numbers of ED pts, new admits, and more ppl are being signed up for PCP's than ever before.
What I don't understand is why several of the surrounding hospital networks are are cutting costs by firing and removing raises, bonuses, and shift differentials while the CEO's, according to our local business journal have all given themselves and the boards record raises. Someone told me it was because of those layoffs and budget cuts they were able to reap said raises, all the while still reporting higher profit margins.
Greed and fear are very powerful things and it's them we should be fearing, not the ACA.
Now I have changed my wife and son to the policies offered from her job.
I had to change my son's doctor.
I have increased my major medical deductibles from $500 to $2,000 for my wife and son.
Then to top it all off i STILL have to pay 16% more than I did the previous year.
As for work, we are seeing even more people in our ER. Sadly, most of the increase are people with no insurance or Medicaid. Plus most of the Medicaid pts are still people who should been seen in the PCP’s office. We are also seeing an increase in pts who are coming in less than 24 hours after being seen in their PCP’s office.
This isn't necessarily true for every hospital. Those that provide poor quality care will lose money to those who out-perform them.
"more ppl are being signed up for PCP's than ever before
There are actually numerous conservative sources for this, although they frame it as the impending the PCP shortage due to too many people now signing up for PCP's.
Specializes in Case mgmt., rehab, (CRRN), LTC & psych.
The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. ObamaCare) has positively impacted the hospital system that employs me. Census usually plummets during the summer season, but this year we were loaded with patients to full capacity. More nurses were hired to address the increased workload. Some were PRN, but most new hires were full-time employees.
Personally, I was uninsured from March 2010 to December 2013. Thanks to the ACA I now have a great PPO plan through BC/BS that is costing me about $65 per pay period. The ACA has flaws, but overall it's been good for me professionally and otherwise.
This isn't necessarily true for every hospital. Those that provide poor quality care will lose money to those who out-perform them.
There are actually numerous conservative sources for this, although they frame it as the impending the PCP shortage due to too many people now signing up for PCP's.
The people who made the statements I referred too had many nebulous statements sprinkled with others that may or may not be true. When I see posts like that, I am suspicious of whether they really have any clue (is x poster's hospital really making more profits due to the ACA? How much? Are their patients really more compliant with meds?), or are they just so emotionally invested in their support of the President and Obamacare that they feel a need to defend it whenever they can?
Your points (which are debatable) aside, I would like to hear about the specifics from the people who made the statements I was referring to.
The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. ObamaCare) has positively impacted the hospital system that employs me. Census usually plummets during the summer season, but this year we were loaded with patients to full capacity. More nurses were hired to address the increased workload. Some were PRN, but most new hires were full-time employees.
Personally, I was uninsured from March 2010 to December 2013. Thanks to the ACA I now have a great PPO plan through BC/BS that is costing me about $65 per pay period. The ACA has flaws, but overall it's been good for me professionally and otherwise.
I'm home today because my hospital didn't need me. I've been placed on call 4 times in the past 12 months. That is twice as much as the year before.
I had great insurance before. It is still great, but more expensive.
I guess Obamacare isn't working as well, here.
Yes, it is ridiculous to relate a hospitals census and without more specifics, your lack of insurance, to any effect Obamacare may or may not have had in it's short existence.
And, an increase in patients should be expected as many more people should have insurance. That is expected. The question is, is it sustainable? And what will it do to our quality of care?
a) due to the anonymous nature of this message board, and your desire for facts to back up some statements, I feel the only facts you would accept are those that unmask the annonimity of the poster by identifying the hospital, location, etc.
b) the very implication that surely one must be lying or making statements pro-ACA because they support the President or democrats, blah, blah, blah, says more about your own political leanings than it does for NURSES making pro-ACA statements. After all, nurses supporting healthcare for all is just such a pretentious politically motivated thing to do and must indicate secret tree-huggin' Obama embracin' liberals...
c) CANCER. Yeah, I had it. I had the great fortune of being employed by the government at the time, so the $749,000 worth of chemo and four surgeries was covered. After I quit my job to go to nursing school, no one in the US would insure me AT ANY PRICE. If I had suffered the misfortune of recurrence, I would not have been covered at all. Now, with the ACA, I pay a modest sum for fantastic insurance and I don't have to worry about being denied care, or losing a job and thus losing healthcare coverage.
d) states that did not participate in the expansion are not doing as well as those that did, so the results are not the same everywhere, and costs are not the same everywhere. The KY system and Ohio systems, for example, are doing incredibly well, and the opt-out states, not so much.
e) Corporate greed is the biggest problem in healthcare, and it has been this way for decades, not because of the ACA. Tip a hat to those who thought profits were more important than wellness--they had a good run, and it will soon be ending.
The ACA is not perfect--even the exceptional UK system is not perfect--but it is a step in a positive direction for millions and millions of people, and it has already saved lives. And I don't care if a republican or democrat started it, I am a nurse and just glad it is here and that the time of kicking the poor and afflicted to the curb for their lack of sufficient funds (or genetic misfortune) is nearing an end.
Specializes in Case mgmt., rehab, (CRRN), LTC & psych.
I guess Obamacare isn't working as well, here.
It isn't working as well because you're in a Southeastern state that opted out.
Yes, it is ridiculous to relate a hospitals census and without more specifics, your lack of insurance, to any effect Obamacare may or may not have had in it's short existence.
Prior to the ACA (a.k.a. ObamaCare), my pre-existing health problems rendered me uninsurable. Now I'm able to obtain insurance for the first time in several years.
And, an increase in patients should be expected as many more people should have insurance. That is expected. The question is, is it sustainable? And what will it do to our quality of care?
The answers to these questions can only be answered with the passage of time. :)
a) due to the anonymous nature of this message board, and your desire for facts to back up some statements, I feel the only facts you would accept are those that unmask the annonimity of the poster by identifying the hospital, location, etc.
b) the very implication that surely one must be lying or making statements pro-ACA because they support the President or democrats, blah, blah, blah, says more about your own political leanings than it does for NURSES making pro-ACA statements. After all, nurses supporting healthcare for all is just such a pretentious politically motivated thing to do and must indicate secret tree-huggin' Obama embracin' liberals...
c) CANCER. Yeah, I had it. I had the great fortune of being employed by the government at the time, so the $749,000 worth of chemo and four surgeries was covered. After I quit my job to go to nursing school, no one in the US would insure me AT ANY PRICE. If I had suffered the misfortune of recurrence, I would not have been covered at all. Now, with the ACA, I pay a modest sum for fantastic insurance and I don't have to worry about being denied care, or losing a job and thus losing healthcare coverage.
d) states that did not participate in the expansion are not doing as well as those that did, so the results are not the same everywhere, and costs are not the same everywhere. The KY system and Ohio systems, for example, are doing incredibly well, and the opt-out states, not so much.
e) Corporate greed is the biggest problem in healthcare, and it has been this way for decades, not because of the ACA. Tip a hat to those who thought profits were more important than wellness--they had a good run, and it will soon be ending.
The ACA is not perfect--even the exceptional UK system is not perfect--but it is a step in a positive direction for millions and millions of people, and it has already saved lives. And I don't care if a republican or democrat started it, I am a nurse and just glad it is here and that the time of kicking the poor and afflicted to the curb for their lack of sufficient funds (or genetic misfortune) is nearing an end.
a) No. Just some facts to support such statements. If that person has something specific to say, I don't need to know the hospital. Just tell me how much profit for the hospital is being attributed to Obamacare?
b) I didn't mean to say anyone is lying. But, yes. IMHO there are people who make uninformed statements about many issues because they support (or don't support) Obama. "The ACA has been a dream for my state...", and "The ACA has been a godsend" certainly sound like such statements, to me.
I am am also a nurse who "supports healthcare for all". I believe there are better ways then the ACA to do that.
c) If I understand correctly, you had chemo while you were employed, and then due to your history were unable to get insurance while unemployed. Now , you are getting insurance through your employer.
I am in favor (I think everyone is) of those with pre-existing conditions being covered. And I am glad that if you become unemployed you will be able to obtain insurance.
However, you being covered now at a modest price through your employer likely has nothing to do with the ACA. Even before the ACA, your employer could not exclude you or charge you more then others.
d) That is all well and good. However, it isn't sustainable without severe compromises in the quality of healthcare, in my opinion.
E) "corporate greed" has led to many advances in healthcare. I hope that you are wrong to think that profit in healthcare is coming to an end. I'm curious, without profit potential what will the incentive now be for healthcare innovators?
a) No. Just some facts to support such statements. If that person has something specific to say, I don't need to know the hospital. Just tell me how much profit for the hospital is being attributed to Obamacare?
b) I didn't mean to say anyone is lying. But, yes. IMHO there are people who make uninformed statements about many issues because they support (or don't support) Obama. "The ACA has been a dream for my state...", and "The ACA has been a godsend" certainly sound like such statements, to me.
I am am also a nurse who "supports healthcare for all". I believe there are better ways then the ACA to do that.
c) If I understand correctly, you had chemo while you were employed, and then due to your history were unable to get insurance while unemployed. Now , you are getting insurance through your employer.
I am in favor (I think everyone is) of those with pre-existing conditions being covered. And I am glad that if you become unemployed you will be able to obtain insurance.
However, you being covered now at a modest price through your employer likely has nothing to do with the ACA. Even before the ACA, your employer could not exclude you or charge you more then others.
d) That is all well and good. However, it isn't sustainable without severe compromises in the quality of healthcare, in my opinion.
E) "corporate greed" has led to many advances in healthcare. I hope that you are wrong to think that profit in healthcare is coming to an end. I'm curious, without profit potential what will the incentive now be for healthcare innovators?
As as it is 2:37 AM, here is the short version...
You did not use care in reading my statement. I buy my insurance through the ACA marketplace exchange. I am not covered under an employer plan. I had no coverage until this year when the ACA became reality.
Explain to me, exactly, how the quality of care will suffer? You have no data to support that theory. Millions of Americans now are receiving care.
Explain to me how the UK system--the #1 in the free world--manages to provide healthcare for all and beats the U.S. in all categories of care (including quality), if a reduction in profit is such a killer to the industry and innovation? Nearly all European nations best the U.S. in quality and affordability.
On one thing I will agree, there are some even better options than the ACA. It is called Universal HC. But the ACA is better than where we were, and a step in the right direction.
If I feel like arguing with a tree, I will respond more fully when I wake. In my opinion, the most forceful statements against the ACA that actually take the time to mention "Obama" come from those who are deeply rooted in anti-Obama propaganda, no matter the truth of an issue or policy. Not my first rodeo, and I know how this usually rolls with one so deep in their political propaganda that they refuse to recognize evidence they know to be logical and true. Release politicizing the issue. When I speak positively of the ACA and its affect in my state and on my life, I don't say "oh, thank you, Obama my President". But if one doesn't agree with the ACA just because they are anti-Obama, they almost always throw in the name.
dudette10, MSN, RN
3,530 Posts
Well, considering the 2010 ACA linked patient satisfaction with reimbursement, I think it affects us all, and not in a good way.