The ANA supports physician funding over safe patient ratios!

Posted
by DannyBoy8 DannyBoy8, RN Member Nurse

Has 4 years experience.

Today there was a hearing before the Massachusetts joint committee on public health regarding the safe ratio ballot initiative to be voted on this November. The supporters articulated their points with ease and clarity, while the nurse sell-outs (oops, typo), nurse managers and administrators presented fairy tale after fairy tale of how patient ratios will negatively impact operations.

My favorite quote, "my biggest fear is that I have a nurse at their maximum assignment with patients who have like an in-grown toenail, a headache, and a temperature, and I'll have to leave someone with chest pain sitting in the waiting room". Who licensed this joker? If you feel that you won't have the capacity to accommodate critical patients, hire more nurses!!!!!

The gutless cowards also released a grossly conflated economic report mere hours before the session - they're quite possibly doubling the actual cost. How does $94,000 sounds to Massachusetts RNs, because that is what you're apparently earning on average! I'll take the bait here, they must be including benefits or APRN salaries to have arrived at such a figure.

What's my favorite part of the day? How about having the audacity to support a report that says implementing safe ratios will mean that they won't be able to subsidize physician salaries...oh the humanity! Don't increase nurse funding, because the MDs are in desperate need.

If you're that sorry excuse for a nurse leader who went on some tirade about how you won't hire nurses without three years of experience because we aren't just "bodies". You're dammmmmm right, we aren't just bodies, and we should be recruiting the best nurses in the same way that we recruit the best doctors while also ensuring that floor nurses aren't roasted over the coals 36 hours a week.

The ANA is #notmyassociation

http://www.bwresearch.com/reports/bwresearch_mha-nlr-report_2018Apr.pdf

cleback

cleback

1,381 Posts

Is the 94k including benefits? I kinda believe it if it does.

Anyway, shaking my head at the rest of it. Wth.

FolksBtrippin, BSN, RN

Specializes in Psychiatry, Pediatrics, Community, Nurse Manager. Has 6 years experience. 2,067 Posts

It makes me sick. Such betrayal. I am at a loss for words.

DannyBoy8

DannyBoy8, RN

Has 4 years experience. 219 Posts

Is the 94k including benefits? I kinda believe it if it does.

Anyway, shaking my head at the rest of it. Wth.

Agreed, but even if it includes benefits the report is still overestimating the cost of salary + benefits at $870 million. $94k x 5900 RNs (number of additional nurses needed)= $550 million. Let's even go deeper into this fantasy land of a 94k average salary across Massachusetts and then add 25% for salary + benefits. The total figure is still short of $870 million.....by about $200 million. At their rate we'll be making $500k/year in no time.

Another highlight, "It is important to note that the average wage of RNs in Massachusetts already far exceeds the national average for RNs by 21% and is 44% higher than the average wage for all jobs in Massachusetts".

Well, this makes sense given that the Massachusetts COLA is about 40% higher than the average state (so we're underpaid in that regard, thanks for hammering this home for us). God forbid people aside from executives and doctors earn a few extra bucks - and deservedly so. Nurses make 21% more than the average salary, you say? Well that kind of makes sense given our education and talent.

I don't know if anyone else caught that CNN featured a front page story all day about the nursing shortage (we all know this is fabricated), but make no mistake, this was by design. The ANA, AHA, and AMA will be flexing their muscles as November approaches. Good move on their part. Every legislator in this state certainly reads CNN (largely democrats in our state congress) and would've seen it this morning, or they were directed to it by the opposition lobby before/after the hearing. They were certainly trying to make the point that they're no nurses to hire! :singing:

Nursing schools are rejecting thousands of applicants -- in the middle of a nursing shortage

Edited by DannyBoy8

Jedrnurse, BSN, RN

Specializes in school nurse. Has 30 years experience. 2,776 Posts

Another highlight, "It is important to note that the average wage of RNs in Massachusetts already far exceeds the national average for RNs by 21% and is 44% higher than the average wage for all jobs in Massachusetts".

[

Pay doesn't matter in a safe staffing issue. You can make $50 hour but that doesn't magically enable you to give decent care with an unreasonable assignment.

Or is the ANA is lobbying for lower pay...?

LovingLife123

LovingLife123

1,570 Posts

They will obviously have to hire more nurses if ratios are implemented. And while I fully support safe ratios, I understand that means for our pay.

We can't have it all. They money has to come from somewhere. I personally want physicians to be funded as well. I'm sure we all know what a treasure it is to have a physician who cares about the patients. It makes my week so much better on the icu when I have a good physician.

I don't think an icu nurse should ever have more than two patients. That's our ratio right now, but I'm seeing things happen that lead me to believe we will be taking 3 soon. It's not safe. Floor nurses should be 4 or less. I get too many rapid responses from the floor that probably could have been prevented but the nurse has 6 patients and therefore a couple fall through the cracks. It's not their fault, it's the system.

But it's going to come at a cost. The first thing to be cut will be our salaries. I make very little as a nurse as it is. I know that if I job hopped a little I could up my hourly pay, but I like my unit. I like my coworkers. It's a trade off. 4-5 dollars an hour means nothing if I'm miserable.

There are no quick and fast answer here.

DannyBoy8

DannyBoy8, RN

Has 4 years experience. 219 Posts

Pay doesn't matter in a safe staffing issue. You can make $50 hour but that doesn't magically enable you to give decent care with an unreasonable assignment.

Or is the ANA is lobbying for lower pay...?

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, explain if you would.

I think I agree with you, that this isn't about pay. However, the opposition (not just the ANA) is coming at nursing from any direction they can, as I was trying to show - subtle implications that nurses are 'already' paid well enough.

DannyBoy8

DannyBoy8, RN

Has 4 years experience. 219 Posts

They will obviously have to hire more nurses if ratios are implemented. And while I fully support safe ratios, I understand that means for our pay.

We can't have it all. They money has to come from somewhere. I personally want physicians to be funded as well. I'm sure we all know what a treasure it is to have a physician who cares about the patients. It makes my week so much better on the icu when I have a good physician.

I don't think an icu nurse should ever have more than two patients. That's our ratio right now, but I'm seeing things happen that lead me to believe we will be taking 3 soon. It's not safe. Floor nurses should be 4 or less. I get too many rapid responses from the floor that probably could have been prevented but the nurse has 6 patients and therefore a couple fall through the cracks. It's not their fault, it's the system.

But it's going to come at a cost. The first thing to be cut will be our salaries. I make very little as a nurse as it is. I know that if I job hopped a little I could up my hourly pay, but I like my unit. I like my coworkers. It's a trade off. 4-5 dollars an hour means nothing if I'm miserable.

There are no quick and fast answer here.

Lower pay is a scare tactic used by the union busting anti-ratio crowd and is nothing more than a lie. Salaries will not be cut - basic economic principles....

EaglesWings21, ASN, RN

Specializes in Medical Surgical. 380 Posts

We are going through staffing cuts at my hospital. People are leaving left and right. Patients aren't getting proper care because nurses just don't have the time. It wears down on a person, especially when you come to work and want to give your patients the best but don't have the tools to do so.

Administration can use whatever fancy words they want to but the bottom line is their salaries are at least 6 figures while the weight of patient care is placed on the back of the nurses and the burden keeps getting bigger. The other night I had an acute stroke on my shift, confused patient trying to climb out of bed and pulling everything off, blood pressure in the 180's with q1h intervention, blood transfusion, a family member with an emergency, a patient with s/s of sepsis and no tech. It was almost impossible for me and I consider myself a high performer.

onthego782

onthego782

Has 10 years experience. 17 Posts

Please don't give the ANA (AKA ..Against Nursing Association) money. They are not anything representing nursing. They sold out long long ago. They do nothing for actual real world nursing.

We need a organization just to fight the ANA on nursing behalf in all honesty.

Stop giving them money and a false sense of representing the profession.

missmollie, ADN, BSN, RN

Specializes in Neuroscience. Has 4 years experience. 869 Posts

The ANA report is as biased as they come.

Jedrnurse, BSN, RN

Specializes in school nurse. Has 30 years experience. 2,776 Posts

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, explain if you would.

I think I agree with you, that this isn't about pay. However, the opposition (not just the ANA) is coming at nursing from any direction they can, as I was trying to show - subtle implications that nurses are 'already' paid well enough.

That's sort of what I inferred from the quote re: pay. Some people focus on the fact that nurses are well-paid. (Depends on where you work and what kind of work you do, but that's another story.) Good pay doesn't negate the need for sufficient staffing.