Why did Sen. Wilkerson chose to support the ill-conceived BU bio lab sited in Roxbury despite overwhelming opposition from constituents in her district and advocacy groups such as ACE in Roxbury, Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, a multitude of public health experts and organizations, and Dorchester People for Peace?
The Boston Globe
Rules don’t matter to Wilkerson
By Joan Vennochi, September 25, 2008STATE SENATOR Dianne Wilkerson never lets the rules get in the way of political ambition.
After losing last week’s Democratic primary to newcomer Sonia Chang-Diaz, Wilkerson is now promising to wage a last-stand, write-in campaign – as a Democrat.
It doesn’t matter to Wilkerson that her plan for political resurrection defeats the very purpose of a Democratic primary, which is to let voters pick the Democrat who will run in the final election. For Wilkerson, the “D” stands for “diva.”
Last Tuesday, Democrats picked Chang-Diaz by a slim 228-vote margin.
Wilkerson has the right to demand a recount. But if she loses it, she isn’t giving up. She’s pulling a Joe Lieberman, minus the grace of doing it as a third-party candidate. “I’m not an independent. I’m a Democrat,” she said emphatically when she announced her intention to run a sticker campaign.
This time, she will have to run without support from big-name Democrats who endorsed her previously….
COMMENTS (27)
read full article and comments at
http://www.boston.com/bostongl…
You know it’s one thing to rap Wilkerson (ethically challenged, not too smart with the filing deadlines, etc.) but it’s another to criticize her for one of the smartest things she did as a legislator — and that’s having the courage to stand up to the whack-job nursing union and vote against their one-size-fits-all staffing ratio bill. Just because some caustic nurses say their bill is the “safe” staffing bill don’t make it so.
<
p>Wilkerson — along with 23 other senators — extricated herself from the greasy grip of the MNA because there was a tough alternative piece of legislation. The senate bill that passed rejected DPH setting staffing limits in favor of nurses at each hospital setting limits specific to that hospital. The nurse-created staffing plan would have to be filed and followed; if it wasn’t the DPH could step in and set limits.
<
p>Especially important, hospitals would be required to monitor and collect patient outcome data based on nurse-sensitive measures. Hospitals would report these results to the Betsy Lehman Center for Patient Safety. The Center would publicly report hospital-specific performance data, aggregated industry trends, and best practices.
<
p>So let’s give Dianne a big round of applause (as she’s escorted out the door) for holding hospitals’ feet to the fire while at the same time showing a little courage by rejecting a lousy bill from the MNA. And let’s hope that Ms. Chang-Diaz — whose victory was impressive and hard-fought — doesn’t Baaa! like a sheep every time some chubby MNA nurse tries to corral her into voting for a flawed staffing bill.
The MNA bill would have increased the cost of healthcare overnight. Could anyone site average nursing salaries at MNA hospitals via a link? I have a pretty good idea, but rather than just throwing numbers around…I think folks will be surprised at how well paid they are.
Those who have knowledge about the role and responsibilities of a RN, either from being sick themselves, having a loved one become very ill, or working in the health care field know that nurses are paid commensurate with their skills and responsibility.
<
p>Anyone with a brain who looks at the research data on minimal staffing levels will quickly see through the shabby substitute bill that passed the senate under HUGE pressure from hospital executives. The above comment (likely posted by a hospital industry lobbyist) states:
<
p>
<
p>The “alternative” bill is an unacceptable substitute for clear and required staffing standards to protect patient safety. Having nurse managers who answer to hospital CEOs set the staffing goals and file the plan with the state is almost a joke–that’s pretty much what happens now. The emphasis must be on putting adequate skilled caregivers at the bedside, not on more “collecting and reporting data” to be posted on some website” for god’s sake!!! People don’t seem to get it; unsafe staffing is killing and maiming patients and driving nurses away from the field. Nurses and other patient advocates are standing up to insist that these unsafe work environments not be allowed. The analogy to the laws regulating staffing at day care centers makes sense–there are legal minimum staffing ratios for very good reason. Vulnerable, ill, and unstable patients deserve no less than this basic safety measure too.
<
p>We already have “the data” and it makes the case very clearly for establishing minimum RN-to-Patient staffing levels (the studies number in the dozens):
First of all everyone who doesn’t latch on to the union bill is not a hospital lobbyist. Second, the most offensive thing about the MNA is their insistent yammering about “hospitals killing people” and “your mother will die” unless their bill is passed. No one argues that more nurses at the bedside equals better care. No one argues that. It’s how do you get to that point. Do you have an “at all times” static number for all hospitals set by the state? Or do you have a hospital-created plan that takes into account the skill level of nurses at the hospital, the acuity of patients, and other factors. And as for posting results, that’s THE ONLY WAY you can determine if nursing care at a hospital is working. You gotta know outcomes.
<
p>This is serious stuff for serious people, and I’m sorry it’s difficult for you to grasp. Politicians who delve into the intracacies of care as opposed to jumping every time an abrasive union, with their odious advertisements and their inflammatory rhetoric that paints their opponents as murderers annd worse, are to be appluded.
<
p>And finally, your analogy with day care centers is ridiculous. Day care centers are open for a set period of time and can limit the number of kids they care for. Hospitals are open 24/7 and deal with patient surges. It’s apples and oranges — oops, but I forgot, you don’t need to know the facts, you just have to insist that it’s your way or else EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE!!
This is not in the least “difficult” for me to grasp, as you state above. I know the facts, both from studying the research results and from being a member of the nursing profession for 16 years with some of that time spent working as a RN on an oncology unit. btw the majority of physicians in MA support establishing minimum staffing levels, and a 2nd btw is that the MNA is a professional association that includes collective bargaining as only one of its many functions and activities. We’re health care professionals and take patient advocacy VERY seriously.
<
p>Who are you and what knowledge do you bring to this issue?
<
p>You’re the one bringing inflammatory rhetoric and false accusations to this serious discussion, not me. (RE your comment about me: “you don’t need to know the facts, you just have to insist that it’s your way or else EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE!!”). Day Care staffing levels are a very logical analogy and most people readily understand that
<
p>Inadequate RN staffing has been shown to be partly responsible for the tens of thousands of preventable deaths that occur in the US health care system each year, as is discussed in the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Report at this link: http://www.iom.edu/CMS/8089/55…
<
p>
The Mass. Nurses Association (MNA), of which I am a long time member having been a nurse for 16 years, understands the direct link between adequate nursing care, patient safety, and good patient outcomes. It’s joined by over 130 other organizations to support the safe staffing bill (the list is here http://www.protectmasspatients… ) because the evidence is clear that safe staffing is urgently needed to promote quality care and to save lives. Yes, people are dying due to hospital administrators skimping on nurse staffing.
<
p>Yes, many nurses are well paid. Many other professionals are well paid, too. What’s the problem?
<
p>Nurses are the leaders on this because we care about our patients and we care about the quality of our work as professionals. Our in-depth understanding of this public health issue draws on nurses’ direct experience as health care providers as well as the large amount of INDEPENDENT RIGOROUS RESEARCH data. The data demonstrate a direct correlation between identifiable adequate staffing levels and quality of care/ positive patient outcomes.
<
p>Take a look at the reams of data that make the case for using scientific evidence to establish and enforce minimum RN-to-patient staffing levels that’s posted at this link; then give us a sound argument against it (hint-you won’t be able to): http://www.protectmasspatients…
<
p>Sen Wilkerson and every other legislator who voted against safe RN staffing–an urgently needed basic public health measure–should apologize to the patients, and to their families & friends, who have been harmed and who have died unnecessarily due to inadequate nurse staffing levels that exist on far too many hospital units. The evidence is clear: safe staffing saves lives. And guess what, improving quality of care while reducing nurse turnover will likely save money, too!!
for the “chubby” remark. Why they hell call these nurses fat? It only hurts your argument, which I found somewhat interesting until then (otherwise, I just would have given a zero out for such a blatant and offensive insult).
campaign finance reform are important pro-democracy initiatives, and opposition to these measures is a shameful trademark of the all-too-comfortable Beacon Hill denizen. Who are some other members who have stonewalled these reforms?
Their difference on public financing is a really important policy difference that didn’t get much play. Thanks to AnnEM for letting us know about it.
At the candidates forum at Prince Hall on September 10, Dianne Wilkerson said that she was against the bio lab.
<
p>At the forum at English High School the week before, all she would say is “who would be for the bio lab?”, suggesting that nobody with a clue would be for such a thing. (That’s kinda ironic now that I’m thinking about it, but anyway…)
<
p>Throughout the campaign, she had been attempting to finesse her response to questions about the bio lab. But on September 10, she just lied about it. Even for her, that crossed the line.