Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/5157

Bill Overview

Title: Nurse Overtime and Patient Safety Act

Description: This bill requires certain providers, as a condition of Medicare participation, to limit mandatory overtime for nurses. Specifically, the bill prohibits hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, home health agencies, rural health clinics, federally qualified health centers, and other specified providers from requiring nurses to work (1) more than a previously scheduled shift, 48 hours in a workweek, or 12 consecutive hours in a 24-hour period; or (2) during the 10 hours immediately following the 12th hour worked in a shift during a 24-hour period. Qualifying work hours include time spent in training, on call, and on standby. The bill's provisions do not apply during declared emergencies or disasters, subject to specified conditions, and do not preclude voluntary overtime. The bill also establishes (1) certain protections for nurses who file complaints against providers, (2) documentation and notice requirements for providers, and (3) potential civil penalties for violations.

Sponsors: Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

Target Audience

Population: Nurses working under providers participating in Medicare and their patients

Estimated Size: 4000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Registered Nurse (Chicago, IL)

Age: 32 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy sounds like it could provide some much-needed relief from the exhausting number of hours we work.
  • It could improve my work-life balance, allowing me to spend more time with my family.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Nurse Practitioner (Rural Mississippi)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Anything that limits overtime is going to help, though in our clinic, we still have to get the job done.
  • More resources would be necessary to make this policy really effective here.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

RN (Specializes in ICU) (New York City, NY)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Limiting overtime could reduce burnout and improve patient care in critical areas like the ICU.
  • It's promising, but I'll believe it when I see actual scheduling changes.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Nurse Manager (Detroit, MI)

Age: 39 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While beneficial for staffing, compliance and administrative costs are a serious consideration for the hospital's budget.
  • This might initially add stress as we adjust.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Pediatric Nurse (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy might allow me to enjoy my remaining working years more, by lowering stress and physical demands.
  • I hope the younger nurses really benefit from this.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Travel Nurse (Seattle, WA)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy won't impact my current job much as travel nurses work under different conditions.
  • It may still alleviate some work-life pressure in future assignments.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Home Health Nurse (Miami, FL)

Age: 55 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Increased regulation could help ensure better care and manage self-expectations.
  • It reassures some boundaries for a demanding job.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Emergency Room Nurse (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If implemented correctly, this could substantially reduce stress, although only if staffing levels are increased.
  • There's always a concern that this will just limit hours without fixing systemic staffing issues.

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 4
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 8 3

Veteran Nurse (Houston, TX)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Reducing overtime hours is a fantastic move to maintain younger nurses' long-term health.
  • Though retired soon, it highlights a shift towards sustainable job practices.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) (Atlanta, GA)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 12.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The focus on overtime is welcome. It might lead to new hires to alleviate workload.
  • Could allow me to focus more on my family without always thinking about work demands.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Cost Estimates

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

Year 2: $2100000000 (Low: $1600000000, High: $2600000000)

Year 3: $2200000000 (Low: $1700000000, High: $2700000000)

Year 5: $2300000000 (Low: $1800000000, High: $2800000000)

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

Year 100: $3000000000 (Low: $2500000000, High: $3500000000)

Key Considerations