Oppose the Safe Staffing for Quality Care Act

Oppose A.108 (Gunther)/S.1168 (Rivera)

AN ACT to amend the public health law, in relation to enacting the "safe staffing for quality care act”

This legislation would create specific staffing ratios for nurses and other direct-care staff in hospitals and nursing homes. The fact is that research does not reflect that high staffing levels produce higher quality of care or quality of life. In fact, the only outcome of this legislation will be higher Medicaid costs and less quality of life programming for nursing home residents.

Furthermore, a study commissioned by Department of Health (“the Cornell report”) estimates that this legilsation would cost between $1.9 and $2.3 billion annually for nursing home staff alone. The legislation fails to acknowledge or address the longstanding shortage of nurses and nurse aides, particularly in the nursing home setting, and fails to recognize the various categories of professional and para-professional direct care staff employed in nursing homes in addition to nurses and certified nurse aides.

Enter your information to contact your lawmakers, urging them to oppose specific staffing ratios for nurses and other direct-care staff in hospitals and nursing homes. You can also access LeadingAge NY's memo of opposition here.

Contact your lawmakers now, urging them to oppose this unfunded mandate!

Subject:

Please Oppose A.108 (Gunther)/S.1168 (Rivera)

Dear Official,

As your constituent and someone concerned for New York’s aging citizens and their caregivers, I urge you to oppose A.108 (Gunther)/S.1168 (Rivera), legislation that would create specific staffing ratios for nurses and other direct-care staff in hospitals and nursing homes. According to a study commissioned by the Department of Health (DOH) the staffing standards proposed in A.108 (Gunther)/S.1168 (Rivera) would cost between $1.9 and $2.3 billion annually for nursing home staff alone. Moreover, the legislation fails to acknowledge or address the longstanding shortage of nurses and nurse aides, particularly in the nursing home setting, and fails to recognize the various categories of professional and para-professional direct care staff employed in nursing homes in addition to nurses and certified nurse aides.  The fact is that research does not reflect that high staffing levels produce higher quality of care or quality of life. In fact, the only outcome of this legislation would be more costs to nursing homes and less quality of life programming for residents.
Non-profit, mission-driven nursing homes recognize the critically important role that nurses and certified nurse aides play in nursing homes.  Many strive mightily to recruit and retain nurses and nurse aides, but cannot find candidates to fill vacant positions.  This is supported by the Cornell report, which projected that the nurse-to-patient ratios proposed in this legislation would require an additional 45,158 full time nurses.  In addition, some research suggests that New York State will continue to experience a nursing shortage through the next decade, which could make meeting any mandated minimum staffing levels unachievable for most providers.
By arbitrarily focusing exclusively on the numbers of nurses and nurse aides, the legislation also fails to take into account the variety of other professionals and paraprofessionals that provide direct care to residents in nursing homes.  These include feeding assistants, recreation therapists, activity aides, physical therapists, physical therapy aides, occupational therapists, speech therapists, and more. All contribute significantly to the resident experience of care and quality of life. The Cornell Report concludes by noting that the COVID-19 pandemic has only highlighted the need to maintain workforce flexibility. A team-based approach and flexible staffing are essential to a sustainable health care system and an integrated approach to care.
Given the lack of sensitivity of staffing ratios to resident needs, it is not surprising that research studies have not found a relationship between ratios and improved quality of care.  According to the Cornell Report, there is “limited evidence on the actual effects of mandated staffing ratios in 14 states on patient care.  In California, which implemented comprehensive mandated RN staffing ratios in 2004, a 2010 review of the literature concluded that “while staffing levels increased in acute care hospitals there is no evidence for significant patient care impact.”  
Before mandating ratios, the State should find ways to encourage entrance into the field of nursing, support recruitment and retention of nurses and aides in nursing homes, assist nursing education programs that are struggling, assist with the cost of nursing education, and reduce burdensome paperwork requirements that take direct care workers away from the bedside. 
For these reasons, I urge you to oppose A.108 (Gunther)/S.1168 (Rivera).

Regards, Your Name

Send me emails about this campaign

Send me text messages about this campaign

Thank you for taking action. Now, share with your friends!