2
SEPTEMBER 1984. - VOL - NO - Legidation AORN JOURNAL Nursing reimbursement bill passed by New York legislature 0 Direct reimbursement for nurses may be an idea whose time is coming. After eight years of effort by nurses, the New York state legis- lature has passed a broad reimbursement bill. It is now on the governor’sdesk, and if signed, will be effective in January 1985. RNs providing noninstitutional nursing ser- vices, such as those giving home health c m , would be eligible for direct reimbursement. The bill does not restrict direct payment to certain titles or groups, as laws in some other states have. “This should open avenues to a variety of services,” said Rosemary Sheridan, director of communications for the New York State Nurses’ Association. “Consumers will have a choice. Insurance companies will not be mandated to provide nurse-reimbursable coverage, but they must have it as an option. Consumers will be able to select policies which allow direct reimburse- ment to nurses without a physician’sorder for the services. Opposition from the insurance industry and a statewide business coalition was formidable. What was responsible for the bill’s success? In- tensive lobbying by nurses and education of leg- islators that has taken place over a number of years, according to Sheridan. Nurses held lobby days at the capital, made calls, wrote letters, and sent telegrams. And consumers were major al- lies; many lobbied on the nurses’ behalf. Legislators showed they had learned about nursing. During floor debate, a senator from a rural area spoke about the benefits of nursing care to his constituents. “Arguments we had made over the years began to sink in, Sheridan said. Most would agree that standardization among nursing education programs is long over- due. Associate degree and diploma graduates should be able to transfer to BSN programs with- out unnecessary obstacles. But when the Mary- land legislature attempted a solution this spring, opinion was deeply divided. The controversial bill passed the state’s House, but was killed in a Senate committee. Observers agree that a similar measure is likely to surface again next year. Plans were underway this summer to set up a committee to draft a compromise. When first introduced, the bill would have given 60 “blanket” credits to any RN who en- tered a BSN program by 1990. Because this would have jeopardized accreditation for BSN programs, the bill was changed. But it still in- cluded measures to liberalize transfer and ac- cumulation of credits. The state’shigher education board would have been required to “facilitate recognition of academic and clinical credits” earned by associ- ate degree and diploma nurses. This would have involved 0 liberal interpretation of academic credits 0 recognition of life experience in nursing a simplified process for transferring credits 0 elimination of challenge examinations. The bill had strong grassroots support, but earned by these nurses and clinical nursing credits 445

Nursing reimbursement bill passed by New York legislature

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

SEPTEMBER 1984. - VOL - NO -

Legidation

AORN JOURNAL

Nursing reimbursement bill passed by New York legislature

0 Direct reimbursement for nurses may be an idea whose time is coming. After eight years of effort by nurses, the New York state legis- lature has passed a broad reimbursement bill. It is now on the governor’s desk, and if signed, will be effective in January 1985.

RNs providing noninstitutional nursing ser- vices, such as those giving home health c m , would be eligible for direct reimbursement. The bill does not restrict direct payment to certain titles or groups, as laws in some other states have.

“This should open avenues to a variety of services,” said Rosemary Sheridan, director of communications for the New York State Nurses’ Association. “Consumers will have a choice. ”

Insurance companies will not be mandated to provide nurse-reimbursable coverage, but they must have it as an option. Consumers will be able to select policies which allow direct reimburse- ment to nurses without a physician’s order for the services.

Opposition from the insurance industry and a statewide business coalition was formidable. What was responsible for the bill’s success? In- tensive lobbying by nurses and education of leg- islators that has taken place over a number of years, according to Sheridan. Nurses held lobby days at the capital, made calls, wrote letters, and sent telegrams. And consumers were major al- lies; many lobbied on the nurses’ behalf.

Legislators showed they had learned about nursing. During floor debate, a senator from a rural area spoke about the benefits of nursing care to his constituents.

“Arguments we had made over the years began to sink in, ” Sheridan said.

Most would agree that standardization among nursing education programs is long over- due. Associate degree and diploma graduates should be able to transfer to BSN programs with- out unnecessary obstacles. But when the Mary- land legislature attempted a solution this spring, opinion was deeply divided.

The controversial bill passed the state’s House, but was killed in a Senate committee. Observers agree that a similar measure is likely to surface again next year. Plans were underway this summer to set up a committee to draft a compromise.

When first introduced, the bill would have given 60 “blanket” credits to any RN who en- tered a BSN program by 1990. Because this would have jeopardized accreditation for BSN programs, the bill was changed. But it still in- cluded measures to liberalize transfer and ac- cumulation of credits.

The state’s higher education board would have been required to “facilitate recognition of academic and clinical credits” earned by associ- ate degree and diploma nurses. This would have involved

0 liberal interpretation of academic credits

0 recognition of life experience in nursing

a simplified process for transferring credits 0 elimination of challenge examinations. The bill had strong grassroots support, but

earned by these nurses

and clinical nursing credits

445

SEPTEMBER 1954, VOL 40, NO 3 AORN JOURNAL

nursing educators and some nursing organiza- tions were opposed. Among them were the state’s Task Force on Nursing Education ap- pointed by the governor, the National League for Nursing; the American Association of Colleges of Nursing and the state’s Association of Nursing Service Administrators. The Maryland Nurses Association supported a compromise version.

The principal concern was that such a policy would undermine all of nursing education. Now that the issue has entered the political arena, it seems unlikely to die. New legislation will prob- ably be intduced, and nursing education may be headed in a new direction.

0 Aid to transplant candidates may be on the way. The US House passed a bill in June to help the nation catch up with improving transplant technology. The National Organ Transplant Act (HR 5580), sponsored by Rep Albert Gore @- Tenn) would

0

0

0

0

The

provide grants for organ procurement or- ganizations establish a transplantation network for reg- istration and matching of donated organs with patients. The agency would also coor- dinate transportation and set and maintain standards. fund purchase of immunosuppressive drugs for distribution to those unable to pay outlaw buying and selling of human organs. bill must now be considered by the Senate.

The Senate has already passed legislation to pro- hibit the buying and selling of organs and set up a task force to study various aspects of transplanta- tion.

The Reagan administration remains opposed to transplant legislation, believing the matter be- longs with private organizations, such as the American Council on Transplantation. Support- ers maintain legislation is necessary to coordi- nate and control the largely unregulated field.

0 For this fall’s election, the Nurse’s Coali- tion for Action in Politics (N-CAP) h hoping to exceed its contributions to candidates two years ago. By mid-July, the group had raised some $200,000, compared with $190,000 pnviously.

As the polkical am of the American Nurses’ Association (ANA), N-CAP endorses national candidates and makes campaign contributions. Decisions about support are made by the N-CAP board of directors according to candidates’ vot- ing records, positions on health issues, inter- views with nurses in their districts, and recom- mendations from nurses living in their areas.

All of N-CAP’S funds come from individual nurses, who do not necessarily belong to ANA. Under federal election laws, political action committees (PACs) must be independent of the parent organization.

About 36 states also have nursing political action committees that raise funds and make endorsements for state and local political races. They are affiliated with state nurses’ associ- ations.

For more information about N-CAP and how to contribute, write N-CAP, 1101 14th St NW, Second moor, Washington, DC 20005, or call (202) 789-1800. You may request a list of en- dorsements, or watch for them to be published early this fall in the American Nurse and in N-CAP’S newsletter, the Political Nurse.

N-CAP can provide you with a contact for your state-level PAC, or you may contact your state nurses’ association.

PATRICIA PAlTERsON LEGISLATIVE COLUMNIST

New Deadline Set for AORN Scholarship AORN has changed the deadline for applying for an AORN scholarship to M a y 1. This will facilitate funding for students who enroll in summer sessions as well as the academic year. Scholarships are available to AORN members who further their education in academic settings. For information, write or call Paula Stiles, credentialing coordinator, AORN, 10170 E Mississippi Ave, Denver, CO 80231, (303) 755-6300. Members who have applications with the previous deadline date on them are asked to discard the applications and request a new application.

4 4 1