Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4268

Bill Overview

Title: Health Care Providers Safety Act of 2022

Description: This bill authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to award grants to health care providers for security services and other expenses related to physical security and cybersecurity.

Sponsors: Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]

Target Audience

Population: Health care providers

Estimated Size: 22000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

emergency room nurse (Boston, MA)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The new policy sounds like a much-needed relief. The ER can be chaotic and sometimes unsafe.
  • Better security would mean I can focus more on patient care rather than worrying about threats.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 8 5

cybersecurity analyst in hospital (Birmingham, AL)

Age: 33 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Any funding towards cybersecurity is welcome. Threats are constantly evolving, and we need to be on top of it.
  • This policy could free up some of our budget to hire additional staff or invest in newer technologies.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 6 5

hospital administrator (Seattle, WA)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This Act is crucial for maintaining a safe environment both physically and digitally.
  • Our hospital will apply for these grants. It will help us allocate funds to other much-needed areas like staffing and patient care.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 9 5
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 8 4

nurse in private practice (Houston, TX)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While this policy is great, smaller practices like mine might not feel the effects directly.
  • We often have to think more about physical security ourselves due to limited resources.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 5

surgeon (Chicago, IL)

Age: 62 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy is a step in the right direction, but cybersecurity needs constant vigilance.
  • Financial support will help mitigate cyber threats, but this needs to be an ongoing effort.

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 8 5
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 7 3

family doctor (New York, NY)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Cyber threats are increasing, and this policy could help reduce our vulnerability.
  • Grant accessibility for small businesses would be very beneficial, but it seems less likely we will receive this support.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 4 3
Year 20 3 2

hospital security officer (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I see firsthand how crucial security is in a hospital setting.
  • I'm hopeful the policy will allow us to invest in better security technologies and training. It can be a game-changer.

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 8 4
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 7 4

health IT specialist (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Past breaches have been stressful, and this policy could help primary security measures.
  • It could lead to less stress for IT teams, allowing better focus on development.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 4

pharmacist (Miami, FL)

Age: 47 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Our clinics face security challenges similar to larger hospitals.
  • This Act makes me hopeful for some support to improve our protective measures.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 4

nursing home manager (Denver, CO)

Age: 52 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Resources are tight, and we seldom focus on cybersecurity due to lack of funds.
  • The possibility of receiving government grants for such critical areas is uplifting, although uncertain.

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 4
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 5 3

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)

Year 2: $2050000000 (Low: $1550000000, High: $2550000000)

Year 3: $2100000000 (Low: $1600000000, High: $2600000000)

Year 5: $2200000000 (Low: $1700000000, High: $2700000000)

Year 10: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)

Year 100: $2900000000 (Low: $2300000000, High: $3500000000)

Key Considerations