Bill Overview
Title: No Patient Left Alone Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires hospitals, as a condition of Medicare participation, to have certain written policies and procedures that provide for patient visitation rights and to inform patients of such rights, including any applicable restrictions.
Sponsors: Rep. Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ-2]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals requiring hospital services worldwide
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill focuses on hospitals which are a critical part of the healthcare system.
- Anyone using or potentially needing hospital services is relevant to the target population.
- Medicare is a US-based program, indicating that the legislation primarily affects the US population.
- Visitation rights affect both patients and their families/loved ones who may visit them.
Reasoning
- The No Patient Left Alone Act primarily impacts individuals who interact with hospitals, including patients, family members, and hospital staff.
- Given the policy's emphasis on visitation rights, it directly affects hospitalized individuals and their visitors, which can significantly impact mental and emotional wellbeing.
- The policy's budget allows for improvements in communication and infrastructure needed to ensure visitation policies are upheld.
- Considering these insights, the definition of affected individuals includes a wide demographic range across the U.S., primarily older adults on Medicare and their families.
Simulated Interviews
retired teacher (Florida)
Age: 72 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I often feel isolated during long hospital stays.
- The possibility of having my family visit more frequently without restriction gives me relief.
- I think this policy will improve hospital experiences.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
hospital administrator (Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will require adjustments in how we operate.
- The cost might be challenging initially, but improving patient satisfaction is key.
- I support clear, consistent visitation rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
nurse (California)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy can help reduce confrontations with relatives over visitation.
- It supports compassionate care but may increase our workload.
- I hope it comes with adequate resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
IT professional (New York)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that eases visitation process is welcome.
- Coordination between my work schedule and visiting hours is always tough.
- This policy sounds positive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
student (Illinois)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having friends visit more easily is comforting.
- Hospital stays are emotionally draining, support is critical.
- This policy feels reassuring and humane.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
retired engineer (Ohio)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate any policy ensuring my daughter can always visit.
- Many times I’ve felt alone during medical issues.
- This policy seems to cater to people like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
stay-at-home parent (Georgia)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being there for my husband without multiple hurdles would be a relief.
- Juggling kids, house, and hospital visits is exhausting.
- This policy could help lighten my emotional load.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
small business owner (Minnesota)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Clear visitation policies are crucial for planning my visits.
- The wellbeing of my parents is greatly impacted by presence of family.
- I think this policy will lead to better care overall.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
graduate student (North Carolina)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having my parents visit more freely reduces stress.
- Hospital stays can be isolating and lonely without family support.
- This policy sounds like a great aid for people in my situation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
truck driver (New Mexico)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being able to visit my wife without timing issues is important.
- The nature of my work often keeps me away, which worries me.
- Making visits easier with this policy lifts a weight off my shoulders.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $700000000)
Year 2: $450000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $650000000)
Year 3: $420000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $620000000)
Year 5: $400000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $600000000)
Year 10: $380000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $580000000)
Year 100: $350000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $550000000)
Key Considerations
- The administrative burden on hospitals to adhere to these new requirements.
- Ensuring patient privacy and protection while accommodating visitors.
- The balance of cost impacts on both hospitals and broader government programs like Medicare.