I work PRN at a hospital, usually 36-48 hours per week. We have been told that because of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) we can no longer work more than 30 hours a week. While this doesn't officially take effect until Jan. 2015, our hospital is choosing to implement this now.
Of course, you can imagine, we are all upset, particularly those of us who work full-time hours. I choose to work PRN because I get paid more per hour and don't need benefits because I have insurance through my husband's employer.
Our hospital heavily utilizes PRN nurses both dedicated to a particular floor and a float pool. We all feel this is really going to negatively affect patient care and adequate staffing. I am going to find another PRN job to get the hours I need to work each week.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
They both say thanks to obamacare you can only work 2 shifts at most a week as a PRN.
did they provide any evidence to support what they were telling you? did you research their claims? I am not seeing the 'why' portion answered here. in what way is 'Obamacare' restricting you to 2 shifts per week. is it because you work 12 hour shifts and if you work 3 shifts/week they must offer you a health insurance benefit?
Honestly there was no evidemce given and i haven't really researched it, only here say. I just posted that i was also being told this to the original poster that this is why i am also not allowed to work but so many hours.
I think that the fact that PRN employees are non-benefitted, meaning that the employers do not offer them health insurance because they are PRN, there's a cap on the number of hours one can work and not be offered health insurance.
I would think, however, there has to be a stipulation that if you have health insurance elsewhere, and can prove it, then it should not matter how many hours one works.
I think that the fact that PRN employees are non-benefitted meaning that the employers do not offer them health insurance because they are PRN, there's a cap on the number of hours one can work and not be offered health insurance. I would think, however, there has to be a stipulation that if you have health insurance elsewhere, and can prove it, then it should not matter how many hours one works.[/quote'] The problem with that is that by law they have to offer health benefits to everyone working over a certain amount of hours ( cant remember exact number) But I still don't see why is such a big deal for a big business like a hospital or healthcare facility to offer Health benefits to all their employees even if it is an in-house kind of treatment plan and access to facilities? I understand that they don't offer vacation, sick, 401k , etc to PRN benefits, but why to ignore corporate responsibility and instead of offering health insurance to all their employees they opt for the short sighted method of reducing their personnel hours. I am no corporate accountant or CFO, but i think it wont be such a burdensome cost to cover all your employees health benefit no matter if they are part-time , PRN, or full-time. For crying out loud, if a grocery supermarket chain like Publix offers health insurance to all their employees why cant a mega corporation hospital company? Or for the sake of it any other kind of healthcare facilities? The blame the ACA thing is a petty justification for their own greed.
I would think it would need to be an average, like over a 12 week period a person can not average 24 or more hours a week. I have a per diem job, some weeks I work 4 days other weeks I work zero. I average 1-2.
Specializes in Leadership, Psych, HomeCare, Amb. Care.
We continue to utilize our registry people as we did before ACA.
If we have a need for any one person for more than 30 hours per week, we'd look at creating another benefited position. Having an excessive number of registry/pt folks is really a huge administrative headache.
Specializes in Vents, Telemetry, Home Care, Home infusion.
My religious health system offers full health insurance to anyone in a budgeted position 24hrs or more as part of their "living wage" strategy...no change with ACA at 88% cost with employee paying 12% based on salary structure.
Average clerical staff: employee, spouse, 2 children selecting Blue Cross HMO coverage pays $75.00 biweekly.
As Manager, top of pay structure for Blue Cross PPO plan, I pay $225.00 biweekly.
I found this thread when I was trying to gather more information regarding the impact of the employer mandate on per diem RNs. I have been an RN for over 35 years and have worked full time, part time, agency, and per diem at different times throughout my career. I recently switched to per diem status after my mother was diagnosed with cancer so that I could have greater flexibility in scheduling. Working for a large institution, there is always a need for supplemental staff to cover sick calls, leave, vacations etc. I was recently informed that I will have my hours capped at 25 per week, to keep below the 30 hour employer mandate of the ACA. When taking into account that as a per diem I may have shifts cancelled, even if I have not worked in over a month, I will never be able to work more than 25 hours per week. Consequently, I will probably need to return to a staff position to make ends meet, which will severely curtail my ability to arrange my schedule around family needs.
I am extremely disheartened by some of the comments. Having worked at different statuses at different times I have been aware of a sense of animosity towards per diem and supplemental staff. It is most unfortunate that RNs can have such negativity towards their own. We are all professionals and there is room for all statuses within our profession.
There were clearly problems with the system of healthcare in the US before the ACA. Unfortunately, there are now many new ones, several of them related to the employer mandate to provide benefits. In my own opinion, an employee could have much greater flexibility if benefits were not tied to one’s job. How many times have we heard coworkers lament that they stay in a miserable position “for the benefits”? There are many other models of health care provision in other countries that are not based on employer coverage. My hope is that we can achieve a solution to the problem of health care coverage that respects the varied and individual needs of persons. The present state of the law does not.
I found this thread when I was trying to gather more information regarding the impact of the employer mandate on per diem RNs. I have been an RN for over 35 years and have worked full time part time, agency, and per diem at different times throughout my career. I recently switched to per diem status after my mother was diagnosed with cancer so that I could have greater flexibility in scheduling. Working for a large institution, there is always a need for supplemental staff to cover sick calls, leave, vacations etc. I was recently informed that I will have my hours capped at 25 per week, to keep below the 30 hour employer mandate of the ACA. When taking into account that as a per diem I may have shifts cancelled, even if I have not worked in over a month, I will never be able to work more than 25 hours per week. Consequently, I will probably need to return to a staff position to make ends meet, which will severely curtail my ability to arrange my schedule around family needs. I am extremely disheartened by some of the comments. Having worked at different statuses at different times I have been aware of a sense of animosity towards per diem and supplemental staff. It is most unfortunate that RNs can have such negativity towards their own. We are all professionals and there is room for all statuses within our profession. There were clearly problems with the system of healthcare in the US before the ACA. Unfortunately, there are now many new ones, several of them related to the employer mandate to provide benefits. In my own opinion, an employee could have much greater flexibility if benefits were not tied to one’s job. How many times have we heard coworkers lament that they stay in a miserable position “for the benefits”? There are many other models of health care provision in other countries that are not based on employer coverage. My hope is that we can achieve a solution to the problem of health care coverage that respects the varied and individual needs of persons. The present state of the law does not.[/quote']
I haven't notice any kind of animosity towards PRN employees in this thread. Actually most of the animosity is towards employers that instead of doing the right thing and providing healthcare benefits, prefer to cap their employee hours.
Also the stay in a miserable position for benefits is something that I see changing now with the ACA. Many people stayed because they had pre-existent conditions and needed the group insurance or no one would insure them, but now they can be insured by themselves so is easier to leave those miserable positions.
The ACA is not a one fix them all legislation but is a step in the right direction in many things. Everyone should be insured, period, we all need healthcare at some point , so we may as well have the insurance for it. Do people complain and scream because Car Insurance is mandatory? We all buy car insurance, and should all buy health insurance.
Consequently, I will probably need to return to a staff position to make ends meet, which will severely curtail my ability to arrange my schedule around family needs.
Don't give up! if PRN works best for you and your family right now, you can make it work. What about getting a second PRN position with another company? My company has not said anything about reducing my hours, but I just signed with a second company anyway.
herring_RN, ASN, BSN
3,651 Posts