Grievances and Unit Issues

• On December 13, 2005, the Hospital and the Union signed a settlement agreement in which the Hospital committed to addmonitor nursesimmediately on 5 Wollman, 7 Lachman and 9 Lachman. Each of these units has a combination of intermediate and telemetry patients. According to the contractual nurse/patient ratios, the maximum number of intermediate patients a nurse may have is 4 and the maximum number of telemetry patients is 6. The Hospital has not fully implemented the agreement for the following reasons:

   

  1. There is no hospital-wide policy delineating the distinction between intermediate patients and telemetry patients, and
  2. There is inadequate RN staff

   

  NYPNU met with Phyllis Yezzo, Acting VP of Nursing, and Glenn Courounis, VP of Human Resources, on January 31st to address these issues. Ms. Yezzo is new to her position, so we agreed to give her 2 to 3 weeks to review the situation. If the matter is not resolved at that time, the Union is prepared to go to arbitration to enforce the settlement.

Overtime

Despite rumors to the contrary, the Hospital has not adopted a “no overtime” policy. The Hospital is merely insisting that all overtime must be preapproved in accordance with Article XIII §1(a). In some cases, the Hospital is offering RNs “time owed,” or “comp time,” instead of overtime. Be aware that RNs cannot be required to take comp time in lieu of overtime. If any RN is encountering problems regarding overtime pay or has questions about overtime, please contact the NYPNU office.

Health & Safety

The New York Committee on Occupational Safety and Health offers customized workshops to affiliate unions. Topics include Hazardous Waste, Identifying Workplace Hazards, Lead, Mold, OSHA Laws, Stress, Workers’ Compensation, Bloodborne Pathogens – Needlesticks, Renovation and Construction Hazards, and Violence in the Workplace. If you have a particular health and safety concern that other NYPNU members may share, please call the Union office and let us know.

American Association of Registered Nurses (AARN)

At our January meeting, the AARN voted to support single payer health care, also known as Medicare for all. In addition to NYPNU, the AARN consists of the California Nurses Association, the Massachusetts Nurses Association, the Maine State Nurses Association, and the Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses & Allied Professionals. For more information about single payer health care, see the Q and A.

What is Single Payer Health Care?

"Single Payer" is the term used for the most simple and inexpensive way of paying for health care.

All the money now being spent on health care would be collected by a public agency and paid to all health care providers.

We now have hundreds of insurance companies with thousands of health plans, co-pays, deductibles, out-of-pocket costs, employer paid health benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, Worker's Compensation, automobile medical coverage, etc. This multi-payer system diverts health care dollars away from paying for actual care.

Why is single payer less expensive?

With a multi-payer system, every insurance company and payment source is billed separately. Each doctor, hospital, nursing home, or pharmacy needs to hire legions of billers, plan analysts and reviewers to accommodate the multiple payers. At the same time, each insurance company also pays for advertising, marketing, lobbying, and other wasteful administrative costs.

America’s health system is the most expensive in the world. The US spent $1.9 trillion on health care in 2004, or 16% of GDP. The US pays $5,635 per capita on health care while leaving 46 million American citizens uninsured. In contrast, Canada provides comprehensive coverage for all residents for $3,000 per capita.

The high expenditures do not result in additional capacity. In 2002 the US had 2.3 physicians and 7.9 nurses per 1,000 people, compared to an average in OECD countries of 2.9 physicians and 8.2 nurses. National studies have estimated that up to 60% of administrative costs would be saved if a single payer system were implemented. These administrative savings are enough to cover all of the uninsured, and virtually eliminate co-payments, deductibles and exclusions for those who now have inadequate plans—without any increase in total health spending.

Will universal single-payer health care cost individual taxpayers more money?

No, the public sector already pays for 45% of American health care (60% if you include tax subsidies). Combine that with the amount that employers and employees are

paying for health insurance and out-of-pocket expenses, and there is more than enough money to provide universal coverage without any of us spending more money.

Isn’t the government too inefficient and bureaucratic to run such a large program?

Many of us have negative feelings toward government, and examples of government inefficiency and incompetence abound. Yet the record of private insurers is far worse. Their overhead is, on average, 600% above that of public programs. Under a universal single-payer program, all the current private and public bureaucracies would be streamlined into one. The patchwork of programs and plans with their own eligibility requirements, billing processes, competition, advertising, etc., would be reduced to one uniform system that pays all health care providers for all medically necessary care. As for efficiency, Medicare spends 2% of its budget for administration, compared to the 14% to 45% spent by private health insurance companies.

How would the single-payer agency collect the money?

Much work is being done to determine the best and fairest way to collect the trillions of dollars already being spent on health care in New York and the rest of the country. For instance, a payroll tax could replace the money employers and employees currently spend for health insurance. Whatever is eventually decided, the method would replace, not add to, the health care dollars currently being spent.

Doesn’t such comprehensive reform have to be implemented at the national level?

A single payer system can be instituted at either the state or federal level. John Conyers (MI) has already introduced a bill in Congress (HR676) that will provide universal coverage through Medicare. It now has 65 co-sponsors, including Carolyn Maloney, Jerry Nadler, Charles Rangel, Major Owens and Anthony Weiner.

On the other hand, the Canadian system started in one province (Saskatchewan). If enough pressure were brought to bear on our state government, New York could lead the way. We would simply need support from our Congressional delegation to obtain federal waivers for ERISA, Medicare, and Medicaid.