This coming November, Massachusetts voters will be called on to vote on three ballot measures. The first concerns nurse-patient ratios in Massachusetts hospitals. Specifically, it calls for a legal limitation on the number of patients assigned to each nurse, though this limit would vary based on the conditions of each hospital unit. While there are many valid arguments on both sides of this debate, voters should vote no on this referendum, and any reforms in this area should be made by legislators who are informed by healthcare experts.
This ballot question could have huge implications, for better or for worse. It may be true that California, the only state to have successfully executed such a measure, saw no clear link between staffing ratios and increased quality of care in California hospitals, according to research conducted by the University of California, San Francisco. However, the Health Policy Commission — an independent state agency — estimates that the passing of this referendum in Massachusetts will cost between 676 million to 949 million dollars per year. Thus, this decision could result in an increase in insurance premiums. At the same time, research from UCSF concluded that in California, nurses saw improved pay, lower burnout, and lower injury rate.
Nevertheless, while the effects of this ballot measure could be large and numerous, so are its complexities. Healthcare is one of this country’s most complex and controversial issues. As a result, it does not seem wise to give the general public, most of whom will not have any expertise regarding healthcare issues, ultimate power to enact this measure into law. Indeed, more time and a more in-depth analysis of the implications of this ballot measure are required to make an informed decision.
It is lawmakers who should discuss this important issue. When they do, we hope that the concerns of nursing unions are given serious credence. Nurses are extremely important to both the proper functioning of hospitals and society at large; the work they do is vital and irreplaceable. As such, their voices and any suggestions they may have to improve their and their patients livelihoods should be seriously considered.
Although we are calling for voters to vote no on this ballot measure, we are not calling for the dismissal of this issue, but rather that it be given more careful consideration by legislators — who can improve and amend it. Because of the complexity of healthcare issues, the general public is not able to make a well-informed decision.
For a proper discussion around this important issue, vote no on Ballot Question One.
This staff editorial is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.
Students Register to Vote AbsenteeMany College students from outside Massachusetts are taking advantage of absentee ballots to participate in their home state’s local politics.
The Cost of a VoteBut cost of a vote is bigger than just the numbers. There is inherent value in voting, and a moral price we pay when we do not.
UC Votes to Put Single-Gender Social Organization Proposition on BallotIn a narrow vote, UC representatives approved adding a ballot question on whether they believe final clubs and Greek organizations should go gender-neutral.
We’re Ready to Bargain for A Better Harvard
The UC Should Vote For Accountability, Not Against It