It's honestly surprising that more haven't taken the jump and is really shocking that hospitals aren't doing more to retain critical staff.
But on the hiring side, experience is one of the most widely accepted signals of value.
Help me understand this. Make it make sense...
1. Hospitals pay their nurses $X, which is way too low
2. Nurses quit because they're underpaid and overworked
3. Hospitals have a nurse staffing crisis and so pay travel nurses 2 * $X (or more!)
4. Hospitals are in a panic over the cost of travel nurses, yet instead of paying their nurses more to keep them around and eliminate the need for travel nurses, they ask the government to cap the cost of travel nurses
My mind is exploding over the ridiculousness of it.
Apropos of nothing but why is the knee jerk reaction "we need executive action to fix this staffing problem?"
IF the tradeoff is bad at 200k/yr, it wont be better at 225k/yr or 250k/yr
Instead of $250k, halve the work load somehow and make it two $125k.
If there is no number, then society cannot afford it.
But this is nursing, not trying to find ways around the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If nurses received $300k/year income, then there probably would not be a shortage since the barrier to entry is not that high.
If we really want to get down to the nitty gritty of it, most people cannot afford quality nurse care (or doctors or hospitals). So the question really comes down to how much wealth is society willing to redistribute to those who need it in the form of healthcare?
“Nurses” can be used to mean many things (CNAs, LVNs/LPNs, RNs) but this is specifically RNs, who, make much more than that, generally (median $77.6k/yr) https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/mobile/registered-nurses....
Given the amount of school a nurse must have, that’s low.
Not even close if you are talking about the USA (and actual nurses, not CNA's or MAs) - starting pay for 2 year RN degrees near me are about 55-65K, and you easily go over 100K in a few years.