Mar 7

Written by:
3/7/2011 11:27 AM 

The follow-up comments/statements go along the lines of: we have a big budget deficit and don’t you think you need to take your “fair share” of the cuts? Nursing homes haven’t been cut during the last rounds—shouldn’t they take their turn? Even though my public answer has been NO, we can’t continue to do more with less and expect better results, until I heard from several members about their real life stories, I didn’t have the emotion behind my response. My answer is still the same, but let me add a few reasons why we can not—should not—be on the “chopping block” at any level this session (note, these are just a few excerpts):

Reason #1: “WE DON"T GET SNOW DAYS, we operate 24 hours a day 365 days a year providing important services to the seniors. People like myself are the ones "in the ditches" actually doing the work. My job has been to continue to try to make it work and do I need to remind anyone that we have been doing more for less since the last Governor got elected. Why do they not get that at the end of a four year rate freeze, THERE IS NO MONEY LEFT, let alone try to face the cuts he is proposing.”

Reason #2: “During this week I have visited with many of you and many of you have shared staffing needs. Several of you are in dire staffing needs. One center only has one CNA on the schedule for this coming weekend. Another has only two for next Monday. . . . I am keeping all of you in my prayers as we try to give the best care to our residents under these circumstances. We have had shifts where we’ve had to literally BEG staff to fill open shifts, not because they don’t have enough hours . . . just the opposite. Most times they’re working on their 10^th, 11^th, 12^th shift or more. We’re putting employees at risk for injury, we’re putting residents at risk for injury . . . from over-tired and burned out staff.”

Reason #3: “Minnesota nursing homes are “in a box” right now, trapped between increasing costs and decreasing rates as they deal with increasingly packed facilities that are expected to fill up even more as the state’s elderly population continues to rise. And with rate equalization still on the books, there is no ability to get out of this trap.”

Reason #4: “It would be nice to see that some of the hard working staff that NFs [nursing facilities] employ would get compensated for the care and hard work they provide. Also, who is going to take care of the governor with these kinds of cuts? Most of the nursing homes would have to close and then it would be up to the families to care for their loved ones, but that would be almost impossible since they need to work to make ends meet.”

So, hopefully at the end of the day, all of the decision-makers sitting behind closed doors trying to figure out how to fill the $5 billion budget gap will understand why the answer lies somewhere other than cuts to older adult services. There are other sources and there needs to be a willingness to compromise positions on both new revenues and reductions to make that happen. 

A good quote on this came out of California last month when Democratic Governor Jerry Brown was testifying before the California State Assembly Budget Committee and got into a debate with a Republican assemblywoman over his failure to recommend changes in employee pensions. The governor asked if she would be willing to support some tax extensions if he would support an equivalent amount of pension changes. She refused. And he replied, “This is your chance to make all these Democrats do something they do not want to do. All you have to do is step up and do something you do not want to do.”

Copyright ©2011 Patti