Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association

This article is outside of Ballotpedia's coverage scope and does not receive scheduled updates. If you would like to help our coverage scope grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.

Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association
Basic facts
Type:	Industry association
Website:	Official website

The Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association represented 70 Massachusetts hospitals on political and legislative matters as of 2018. It opposed Massachusetts Question 1, the Nurse-Patient Assignment Limits Initiative, in November 2018.

History

As of November 2018, the Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association included the following statement on its website:

“

The Massachusetts Health & Hospital Association (MHA) was founded in 1936, and its members include 70 licensed member hospitals, many of which are organized within 29 member health systems, as well as interested individuals and other healthcare stakeholders. MHA serves as the unified voice for Massachusetts hospitals on Beacon Hill and Capitol Hill.

”

Political activity

Ballot measure activity

Massachusetts Question 1, Nurse-Patient Assignment Limits Initiative

See also: Massachusetts Question 1, Nurse-Patient Assignment Limits Initiative (2018)

The Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association (MHA) opposed Massachusetts Question 1, the Nurse-Patient Assignment Limits Initiative, which was on the ballot November 6, 2018. The initiative was designed to establish patient assignment limits for registered nurses working in hospitals..

The MHA contributed $18.4 million to the Coalition to Protect Patient Safety, the official campaign opposed to Question 1. The committee argued that enforcing limits on nurse-patient assignments would increase patient wait times and force hospitals to cut back on services. They also argued it would be too expensive for hospitals to hire more nurses, resulting in hospitals closing down.

BW Research Partnership and Mass Insight Global Partnerships study commissioned by the MHA

On April 30, 2018, BW Research Partnership and Mass Insight Global Partnerships released a study commissioned by the MHA titled "Protecting the Best Patient Care in the Country: Local Choices v. Statewide Mandates in Massachusetts," an analysis of the proposed measure which would mandate a certain nurse to patient ratio. The report concluded that the approval of this initiative could cost the healthcare system $1.31 billion in the first year and $900 million annually thereafter due to nurse salaries, wage inflation, and technology. The study also concluded that implementation of the initiative would "reduce quality of care and increase inequality in care provision."

The executive summary described by the report as its key findings can be expanded here

“ The following study conducted by BW Research Partnership and Mass Insight addresses three main areas of questioning with regards to the proposed Mandated Nurse Staffing Ratios, or MNSRs: (1) what are the costs and other financial impacts of the proposed MNSR ballot initiative, (2) to what extent is the MNSR feasible to implement across all hospitals in Massachusetts, and (c) how will the MNSR impact care at both hospital and non-hospital healthcare facilities across the Commonwealth. The research team examined impacts to staffing, wage inflation, recruitment and turnover costs, employer competition, as well as additional costs to education and training using a mixed methodology approach that synthesized data across several sources—PatientCareLink, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and Economic Modeling Specialists Intl (Emsi), and comprehensive surveys and interviews with healthcare leaders in Massachusetts. Massachusetts’ healthcare system is powered by the most talented professionals in the nation and is home to some of the highest rated hospitals. Implementation of MNSRs would disrupt this successful approach by limiting flexibility and limiting the ability of providers to hire the most qualified candidates available, at a time when the state is lowering the cap on healthcare spending for 2018 and the federal budget will lead to significant cuts to healthcare programs. Some estimates suggest that Massachusetts could lose more than $12.5 billion in Medicaid funding each year if the Trump Administration’s FY 2019 budget is approved as drafted. The data suggest that a one-size-fits-all statewide implementation will be a costly and poor allocation of resources, leading to greater inequity in the provision of care, less local access to healthcare, and reduced patient choice. Furthermore, hospitals may be forced to hire less experienced and educated RNs, which would likely offset any quality and safety improvements that the proposal’s sponsors believe would follow from MNSR adoption. Where staffing challenges exist, an approach in which local care teams craft solutions in the context of available resources would likely be more efficient and cost-effective than a one-size-fits-all mandate that might produce lower qualified and inexperienced RN staffing. Doctors and nurses at the bedside are best able to tailor solutions to local needs, which best protects and supports patients as well as critical healthcare programs, achieving the goal of improved healthcare at lower costs. ”

The full study can be read here.

Overview of ballot measure support and opposition

The following table details the Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association's ballot measure stances available on Ballotpedia:

Ballot measure support and opposition for Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association
Ballot measure	Year	Position	Status
Massachusetts Question 1, Nurse-Patient Assignment Limits Initiative	2018	Supported a "no" vote	dDefeated

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms 'Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association'. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association - Google News

External links

• website