Why Doesn't the U.S. Have an Office of the National Nurse?

BBFRN, BSN, PhD · Sep 22, 2009

For the record, I believe this office is necessary in moving the autonomy of our profession forward from the top down, IMHO. It's time to take control of our own profession politically, and work from the inside to fix the nursing shortage.

In addition, I believe that with whatever shape health care reform takes, we nurses are in a prime position to carry the nation's health promotion/risk prevention initiatives forward. This is work that is within our domain, and we will be needed to implement these initiatives forward, along with those in public health.

Home Health Columnist / Guide · Sep 22, 2009

ajn reports: the initiative to create a national nurse: stalled

...the nursing establishment declines to endorse. a number of nursing and public health organizations have declined to endorse the concept of an office of the national nurse. among them is the tri-council for nursing, an umbrella organization representing the american association of colleges of nursing (aacn), the american nurses association (ana), the american organization of nurse executives, and the national league for nursing (nln).
"the tri-council has been very clear that we don't need to put resources into creating a brand new office when we already have a chief nurse officer of the united states public health service (usphs)," said m. elaine tagliareni, president of the nln. "everyone wants to improve the quality of care and the public health service, but there's an infrastructure already in place. we need to focus on elevating the position of the chief nurse officer, not create another one, and we need to address other issues that are pertinent to the nursing community."
in the fall of 2007, the ana and other organizations set out their reasons for opposing the establishment of the office of the national nurse:
* the programs proposed for oversight by the national nurse would be redundant because existing public health bodies already direct them.
* funding for existing programs is already strained, making new ones impractical.
* the proposal's public health-education efforts are limited to simple messages and do not incorporate proven, evidence-based interventions...
the role of the national nurse. "our goal is to elevate and enhance the position of the chief nurse officer of the usphs so it becomes a full-time position within the office of the surgeon general, and to make the position's official title the national nurse for prevention," says mills. "having a full-time, recognizable public health nursing leader at the federal level is necessary to a culture of health promotion and disease prevention."

from www.entrepreneur.com

national nurse update.

another bill is anticipated to be re-introduced into the 110th congress; with the concept that the current chief nursing officer (cno) for the u.s. public health system usphs) assumes the role of the national nurse. this position restructured to include proposed duties of the office of the national nurse. the nnno feels that it is crucial to also re-title the position to "national nurse," rather than keep the title, "chief nursing officer." mills believes that the title "national nurse" will be unique and recognizable and presently few really understand or know of the important roles that the chief nurse officer of the usphs performs.

think the idea of usphs cno being renamed national nurse and expanding role including media exposure has the best merit and increases awareness of public health ... win win.

John20 · Sep 22, 2009

For what? Another federal government office to support with our tax dollars. Not in my opinion. Also there can be no office to speak for all of us as we all have different opinions. I'm not for health care reform the way it is being proposed, so no "National Nurse" can speak for me no matter which party appoints them. Sounds like another big wasteful mess like the Office of Homeland Security. Are we any safer because a federal office has been created? No. All the changes made could have been incorporated by already existing agencies.

We don't need to pay for a federal office to improve access to advance practice nurses as this is inevitable whether we stay in our current system or adopt national health care. It's like paying for shoelaces on the side when they already come with the shoes.

Teri Mills · Sep 22, 2009

John,

You raise many valid concerns which I believe have been addressed. We are asking for Congress to designate an EXISTING position to be the National Nurse, this is the Chief Nurse Officer of the USPHS. This position is ALREADY funded, but currently is a dual appointment shared with the branch of the HHS from where this nurse worked before being nominated and selected to be CNO. We are asking for this to be a FTE, just as the other CNO's in the military commissioned corps are. So no new funding is necessary, just a revamping of what is already there.

Second, the selection process would remain within the USPHS to keep the position apolitical like it currently is. However, in addition to the current roles/responsibilities of the CNO of the USPHS, we are asking for this position to take on a broader focus, that of engaging nurses to participate in existing programs of prevention so they may be replicated in areas of greatest need.

Please do take the time to learn and study this exciting proposal which now has the endorsement and support of over 75 prominent nurse leaders, international, national and state organizations. Visit http://nationalnurse.org or email me via my profile for more information.

John20 · Sep 23, 2009

My base stance is that the federal government is already spending money it doesn't have. Don't take this as a political rant because the Republicans have wasted as much or more over the last 8 years as I anticipate Obama wasting. My opinion is the position is not needed and if there is already funding in place for such a position, that position and it's funding should be cut (along with a ton of other government waste).

BBFRN, BSN, PhD · Sep 23, 2009

But do you feel the same about the Surgeon General's position as well?

John20 · Sep 23, 2009

No, the Surgeon General already does (advocates to the public on issues of health like smoking and alcohol) what you want the CNO to do. I wouldn't mind seeing his budget(as well as everyone else's) cut. The title "Surgeon General" commands a lot more respect from the public than "Chief Nurse".

If you accept that our federal government is spending money they don't have, I think you would agree that the position is just not necessary at a time of financial crisis. And make no mistake about it, the federal government is spending MUCH more than it is taking in. We are headed for a crisis in this country much worse than we are experiencing with today's recession.