Last week, The Boston Globe weighed in on Question 1 to urge a NO vote.
The Globe wrote:
“… Question 1 would probably have costs and consequences for access to care: adding up to $1 billion a year in expenses, hurting community hospitals, reducing the number of psychiatric beds, and sidelining other caregivers. The question’s proponents need to demonstrate to voters why they should accept those risks. They haven’t. In fact, there is no conclusive evidence that a nurse staffing law will lead to better care. And without clear evidence, a yes vote on Question 1 represents too much of a gamble for a health care system that is already considered one of the best in the world …. Massachusetts hospitals typically lose money on behavioral health and already have trouble hiring psychiatric nurses. If the ratios go into effect, the lack of available nurses, plus the cost, would force many of those providers simply to close units. The state could be losing an estimated 1,000 psychiatric beds, in the midst of an opioid epidemic.”
Addressing a common question among voters – namely, why a question regulating patient care is even up for a public vote, as opposed to at least undergoing reasoned legislative deliberations – the Globe wrote:
“The union’s efforts on Beacon Hill have failed for a reason. There’s not enough evidence that making hospitals hire more registered nurses would further the overarching goals of access, affordability, and quality, and too many reasons to fear it might backfire on all three.”
Read the full Boston Globe editorial here.
Other newspapers editorializing against Question 1 include, to date, the Wall Street Journal, Cape Cod Times, MetroWest Daily News, Milford Daily News, and Southcoast Today.