Federal budget:
The President and Legislators agreed to a debt deal. The deal includes:
o Immediately enacted 10-year discretionary spending caps generating nearly $1 trillion in deficit reduction; balanced between defense and non-defense spending.
o President authorized to increase the debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion, eliminating the need for further increases until 2013.
o Bipartisan committee process tasked with identifying an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, including from entitlement and tax reform. Committee is required to report legislation by November 23, 2011, which receives fast-track protections. Congress is required to vote on Committee recommendations by December 23, 2011.
o Enforcement mechanism established to force all parties – Republican and Democrat – to agree to balanced deficit reduction. If Committee fails, enforcement mechanism will trigger spending reductions beginning in 2013 – split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Enforcement protects Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs from any cuts.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Friday, August 5, 2011
California Legislature: Pass SB 490 to replace the death penalty!
The death penalty in California is a dysfunctional failure that risks killing innocent people and costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. SB 490 will give voters the option to replace the death penalty with life without parole, saving Californians $1 billion over five years.
The death penalty costs $184 million each year in California, according to a new report by a federal judge and a law professor. A single execution costs $308 million above the cost of life without parole. Meanwhile education, health care, and law enforcement are drastically underfunded.
Life without parole is a better alternative that saves funds to keep our communities safe, provides swift and certain justice for victim's family members, and does not run the risk of killing an innocent person. We can save $1 billion over the next five years without releasing a single prisoner. Support SB 490 for real justice and public safety.
Please go HERE to read and sign petition.
The death penalty costs $184 million each year in California, according to a new report by a federal judge and a law professor. A single execution costs $308 million above the cost of life without parole. Meanwhile education, health care, and law enforcement are drastically underfunded.
Life without parole is a better alternative that saves funds to keep our communities safe, provides swift and certain justice for victim's family members, and does not run the risk of killing an innocent person. We can save $1 billion over the next five years without releasing a single prisoner. Support SB 490 for real justice and public safety.
Please go HERE to read and sign petition.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Debt-Ceiling Compromise Cancels Medicaid Fight!
Yesterday, the President signed a bill that ended months of intense negotiations over lifting the country’s debt-ceiling. But for the fate of Medicaid – and the millions of seniors, people living with disabilities, and low-income children who rely on the program – the negotiations are just beginning.
What’s the deal?
In short, the final compromise lifts the debt ceiling enough to last until after the 2012 election and puts in place two stages of cuts in government spending.
In the first stage, caps are immediately placed on discretionary spending, saving $917 billion over 10 years.
In the second stage, a bipartisan joint committee is tasked with developing legislation to reduce the deficit by another $1.2 – $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Failure by the committee to produce an agreement by Thanksgiving or by Congress to enact their plan by December 23 would trigger automatic across-the-board cuts in federal spending to achieve $1.2 trillion in savings. If the Committee agrees on – and Congress enacts – less than $1.2 trillion in deficit-reduction, the across-the-board cuts will be triggered to make up the difference.
Let’s start with some good news:
Medicaid and Medicare were spared any immediate cuts in the first stage. That said, the first stage cuts include significant short-run spending reductions; any serious economist will tell you that cutting federal spending in the midst of an economic downturn will only worsen the nation’s employment outlook. These larger economic forces certainly have implications for state budgets and Medicaid, but that’s a blog for another day.
The picture is murkier in the second stage. While Medicaid and Medicare are very much at risk for major cuts in a compromise that the joint committee might broker (more on that below), Medicaid is completely exempt from the automatic across-the-board cuts that would be triggered if the committee fails to achieve $1.2 trillion in deficit-reduction. Medicare benefits are also largely protected: across-the-board cuts to Medicare are limited to 2 percent of the programs’ costs and can only come from cuts to providers and insurers.
This is an important victory. Inside reports suggest that Republican negotiators demanded that Medicaid be added to the mix of programs that could face cuts in the event of the trigger, but the Obama administration refused to budge on this point. Consumer advocates deserve credit: they worked tirelessly over the past few months to send a strong message to Congress and to the White House that Medicaid matters. It’s clear that Obama took that message to heart.
Now the bad news – we’re not even close to out of the woods
Relief that Medicaid will escape unscathed should across-the-board cuts be triggered must be tempered by the understanding that the trigger may not be pulled, and that committee members will consider deep cuts to Medicaid in their efforts to broker a deal.
It is difficult to predict whether the committee will succeed. On the one hand, the terms of the process were constructed specifically to put immense pressure on both parties to avoid the across-the-board cuts. If committee fails to reach a compromise, all $1.2 trillion in deficit-reduction would come from program cuts – violating Democrats’ vows to ensure revenue increases are part of any deficit-reduction package. And 50 percent of the triggered across-the-board cuts must come from the defense budget – a painful prospect for Republicans.
On the other hand, competing pressures may prevent the committee from reaching a compromise. Republicans may prefer cuts in military spending to a compromise that includes tax-increases. And if they can’t broker a deal that includes tax-increases, Democrats may prefer to allow the across-the-board cuts to be triggered since at least Medicaid and Medicare benefits are protected from those cuts.
While there is considerable debate about the likelihood that the committee will succeed, the prospects for Medicaid are grim if a deal is brokered. Having already slashed discretionary spending by nearly a trillion dollars in the first stage, it will be difficult for the committee to find more savings in those programs. That leaves revenue increases and entitlement spending as the only real options for significant deficit-reduction.
Both parties have already drawn lines in the sand around revenue increases, with Democrats insisting on including them as part of a final deal, and Republicans vowing to vote against any package that includes them. But if significant revenue increases are not part of the solution, for the committee to succeed the cuts required to Medicaid and Medicare would absolutely devastate these programs. According to a statement by Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: “The deal that President Obama and Speaker Boehner were negotiating several weeks ago would have raised Medicare’s eligibility age, raised Medicare cost-sharing charges, shifted significant Medicaid costs to states, modified cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security and other be nefit programs (and in the tax code), and instituted other entitlement savings. Those steps would have saved $650 billion to $700 billion over ten years. The joint committee would have to produce cuts twice as deep.”
And even if Democrats succeed at ensuring revenues are part of a deal, Medicaid would still likely sustain very significant cuts, such as the ones that were already on the table during earlier negotiations. Those cuts would jeopardize the health and financial security of millions of seniors, people living with disabilities, and low-income children who rely on Medicaid, and they would shift new cost burdens onto already-strained state budgets.
Making a dark picture worse, Congress needs to act this December to avert an automatic cut in Medicare doctor reimbursement rates (the “doc-fix”). While this is unrelated to the debt-ceiling negotiations, Congress will need to offset the costs of the doc-fix – about $300 billion for a 10-year fix – and they will likely look to find these savings in Medicaid and Medicare. These savings would be in addition to whatever cuts the deficit-reduction committee enacts.
Where does that leave us?
Medicaid lives to fight another day, and we should celebrate this success. But let’s celebrate while we roll up our sleeves. The fight starts anew today, and it’s not going to be easy.
What’s the deal?
In short, the final compromise lifts the debt ceiling enough to last until after the 2012 election and puts in place two stages of cuts in government spending.
In the first stage, caps are immediately placed on discretionary spending, saving $917 billion over 10 years.
In the second stage, a bipartisan joint committee is tasked with developing legislation to reduce the deficit by another $1.2 – $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Failure by the committee to produce an agreement by Thanksgiving or by Congress to enact their plan by December 23 would trigger automatic across-the-board cuts in federal spending to achieve $1.2 trillion in savings. If the Committee agrees on – and Congress enacts – less than $1.2 trillion in deficit-reduction, the across-the-board cuts will be triggered to make up the difference.
Let’s start with some good news:
Medicaid and Medicare were spared any immediate cuts in the first stage. That said, the first stage cuts include significant short-run spending reductions; any serious economist will tell you that cutting federal spending in the midst of an economic downturn will only worsen the nation’s employment outlook. These larger economic forces certainly have implications for state budgets and Medicaid, but that’s a blog for another day.
The picture is murkier in the second stage. While Medicaid and Medicare are very much at risk for major cuts in a compromise that the joint committee might broker (more on that below), Medicaid is completely exempt from the automatic across-the-board cuts that would be triggered if the committee fails to achieve $1.2 trillion in deficit-reduction. Medicare benefits are also largely protected: across-the-board cuts to Medicare are limited to 2 percent of the programs’ costs and can only come from cuts to providers and insurers.
This is an important victory. Inside reports suggest that Republican negotiators demanded that Medicaid be added to the mix of programs that could face cuts in the event of the trigger, but the Obama administration refused to budge on this point. Consumer advocates deserve credit: they worked tirelessly over the past few months to send a strong message to Congress and to the White House that Medicaid matters. It’s clear that Obama took that message to heart.
Now the bad news – we’re not even close to out of the woods
Relief that Medicaid will escape unscathed should across-the-board cuts be triggered must be tempered by the understanding that the trigger may not be pulled, and that committee members will consider deep cuts to Medicaid in their efforts to broker a deal.
It is difficult to predict whether the committee will succeed. On the one hand, the terms of the process were constructed specifically to put immense pressure on both parties to avoid the across-the-board cuts. If committee fails to reach a compromise, all $1.2 trillion in deficit-reduction would come from program cuts – violating Democrats’ vows to ensure revenue increases are part of any deficit-reduction package. And 50 percent of the triggered across-the-board cuts must come from the defense budget – a painful prospect for Republicans.
On the other hand, competing pressures may prevent the committee from reaching a compromise. Republicans may prefer cuts in military spending to a compromise that includes tax-increases. And if they can’t broker a deal that includes tax-increases, Democrats may prefer to allow the across-the-board cuts to be triggered since at least Medicaid and Medicare benefits are protected from those cuts.
While there is considerable debate about the likelihood that the committee will succeed, the prospects for Medicaid are grim if a deal is brokered. Having already slashed discretionary spending by nearly a trillion dollars in the first stage, it will be difficult for the committee to find more savings in those programs. That leaves revenue increases and entitlement spending as the only real options for significant deficit-reduction.
Both parties have already drawn lines in the sand around revenue increases, with Democrats insisting on including them as part of a final deal, and Republicans vowing to vote against any package that includes them. But if significant revenue increases are not part of the solution, for the committee to succeed the cuts required to Medicaid and Medicare would absolutely devastate these programs. According to a statement by Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: “The deal that President Obama and Speaker Boehner were negotiating several weeks ago would have raised Medicare’s eligibility age, raised Medicare cost-sharing charges, shifted significant Medicaid costs to states, modified cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security and other be nefit programs (and in the tax code), and instituted other entitlement savings. Those steps would have saved $650 billion to $700 billion over ten years. The joint committee would have to produce cuts twice as deep.”
And even if Democrats succeed at ensuring revenues are part of a deal, Medicaid would still likely sustain very significant cuts, such as the ones that were already on the table during earlier negotiations. Those cuts would jeopardize the health and financial security of millions of seniors, people living with disabilities, and low-income children who rely on Medicaid, and they would shift new cost burdens onto already-strained state budgets.
Making a dark picture worse, Congress needs to act this December to avert an automatic cut in Medicare doctor reimbursement rates (the “doc-fix”). While this is unrelated to the debt-ceiling negotiations, Congress will need to offset the costs of the doc-fix – about $300 billion for a 10-year fix – and they will likely look to find these savings in Medicaid and Medicare. These savings would be in addition to whatever cuts the deficit-reduction committee enacts.
Where does that leave us?
Medicaid lives to fight another day, and we should celebrate this success. But let’s celebrate while we roll up our sleeves. The fight starts anew today, and it’s not going to be easy.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Affordable Care Act Ensures Women Receive Preventive Services at No Additional Cost
Historic new guidelines that will ensure women receive preventive health services at no additional cost were announced today by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Developed by the independent Institute of Medicine, the new guidelines require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services such as well-woman visits, breastfeeding support, domestic violence screening, and contraception without charging a co-payment, co-insurance or a deductible.
“The Affordable Care Act helps stop health problems before they start,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “These historic guidelines are based on science and existing literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need.”
Before health reform, too many Americans didn’t get the preventive health care they need to stay healthy, avoid or delay the onset of disease, lead productive lives, and reduce health care costs. Often because of cost, Americans used preventive services at about half the recommended rate.
Last summer, HHS released new insurance market rules under the Affordable Care Act requiring all new private health plans to cover several evidence-based preventive services like mammograms, colonoscopies, blood pressure checks, and childhood immunizations without charging a copayment, deductible or coinsurance. The Affordable Care Act also made recommended preventive services free for people on Medicare.
Today’s announcement builds on that progress by making sure women have access to a full range of recommended preventive services without cost sharing, including:
- well-woman visits;
- screening for gestational diabetes;
- human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing for women 30 years and older;
- sexually-transmitted infection counseling;
- human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening and counseling;
- FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling;
- breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling; and
- domestic violence screening and counseling.
New health plans will need to include these services without cost sharing for insurance policies with plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2012. The rules governing coverage of preventive services which allow plans to use reasonable medical management to help define the nature of the covered service apply to women’s preventive services. Plans will retain the flexibility to control costs and promote efficient delivery of care by, for example, continuing to charge cost-sharing for branded drugs if a generic version is available and is just as effective and safe for the patient to use.
The administration also released an amendment to the prevention regulation that allows religious institutions that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraception services. This regulation is modeled on the most common accommodation for churches available in the majority of the 28 states that already require insurance companies to cover contraception. HHS welcomes comment on this policy.
Previously, preventive services for women had been recommended one-by-one or as part of guidelines targeted at men as well. As such, the HHS directed the independent Institute of Medicine to, for the first time ever, conduct a scientific review and provide recommendations on specific preventive measures that meet women’s unique health needs and help keep women healthy. HHS’ Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) used the IOM report issued July 19, when developing the guidelines that are being issued today. The IOM’s report relied on independent physicians, nurses, scientists, and other experts to make these determinations based on scientific evidence.
Today’s announcement is another part of the Obama Administration’s broader effort to address the health and well-being of our communities through initiatives such as the President’s Childhood Obesity Task Force, the First Lady’s Let’s Move! campaign, the National Quality Strategy, and the National Prevention Strategy.
For more information on the HHS guidelines for expanding women’s preventive services, please visit: http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/womensprevention08012011a.html. The guidelines can be found at: http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/
To learn more about the Affordable Care Act, please visit http://www.healthcare.gov/
Cruel Isolation—California’s Prison System!!
NY Times Editorial
For many decades, the civilized world has recognized prolonged isolation of prisoners in cruel conditions to be inhumane, even torture. The Geneva Conventions forbid it. Even at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, where prisoners were sexually humiliated and physically abused systematically and with official sanction, the jailers had to get permission of their commanding general to keep someone in isolation for more than 30 days.
So Americans should be disgusted and outraged that prolonged solitary confinement, sometimes for months or even years, has become a routine form of prison management. It is inflicting unnecessary, indecent and inhumane suffering on tens of thousands of prisoners.
The issue came to the fore most recently because of a three-week hunger strike by inmates at Pelican Bay State Prison in California near the Oregon border that began on July 1 in the Orwellian Security Housing Unit, where inmates are held in wretched isolation in small windowless cells for more than 22 hours a day, some for many years.
Possessions, reading material, exercise and exposure to natural light and the outside are severely restricted. Meals are served through slots in steel cell doors. There is little in the way of human interaction. Returning to the general prison population is often conditioned on inmates divulging information on other gang members, putting themselves in jeopardy.
How inmates in these circumstances communicated to organize the protest is unclear, but it quickly spread to other California prisons. About 6,600 inmates participated at its peak. California’s huge prison system is dysfunctional in so many ways. In May, the Supreme Court found conditions at the overcrowded prisons so egregious that they violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment and ordered the state to cut its prison population by more than 30,000 inmates. The case did not address the issue of long-term solitary confinement.
With their health deteriorating, those inmates continuing to fast resumed eating after state prison officials met a few modest demands. Inmates in Pelican Bay’s isolation unit will get wool caps for cold weather, wall calendars to mark the passing time and some educational programming. Prison officials said current isolation and gang management policies are under review. But the protest has raised awareness about the national shame of extended solitary confinement at Pelican Bay and at high-security, “supermax” prisons all around the country.
Once used occasionally as a short-term punishment for violating prison rules, solitary confinement’s prevalent use as a long-term prison management strategy is a fairly recent development, Colin Dayan, a professor at Vanderbilt University, said in a recent Op-Ed article in The Times. Nationally, more than 20,000 inmates are confined in “supermax” facilities in horrid conditions.
Prison officials claim the treatment is necessary for combating gang activity and other threats to prison order. It is possible to maintain physical separation of prisoners without ultra harsh levels of deprivation and isolation. Mississippi, which once set the low bar for terrible prison practices, saw a steep reduction of prison violence and ample monetary savings when it dramatically cut back on long-term solitary several years ago.
Holding prisoners in solitary also is very expensive, and several other states have begun to make reductions. In any case, decency requires limits. Resorting to a dehumanizing form of punishment well known to induce suffering and drive people into mental illness is beyond them.
For more on the Hunger Strike go to: http://www.prisons.org/hungerstrike.htm
For many decades, the civilized world has recognized prolonged isolation of prisoners in cruel conditions to be inhumane, even torture. The Geneva Conventions forbid it. Even at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, where prisoners were sexually humiliated and physically abused systematically and with official sanction, the jailers had to get permission of their commanding general to keep someone in isolation for more than 30 days.
So Americans should be disgusted and outraged that prolonged solitary confinement, sometimes for months or even years, has become a routine form of prison management. It is inflicting unnecessary, indecent and inhumane suffering on tens of thousands of prisoners.
The issue came to the fore most recently because of a three-week hunger strike by inmates at Pelican Bay State Prison in California near the Oregon border that began on July 1 in the Orwellian Security Housing Unit, where inmates are held in wretched isolation in small windowless cells for more than 22 hours a day, some for many years.
Possessions, reading material, exercise and exposure to natural light and the outside are severely restricted. Meals are served through slots in steel cell doors. There is little in the way of human interaction. Returning to the general prison population is often conditioned on inmates divulging information on other gang members, putting themselves in jeopardy.
How inmates in these circumstances communicated to organize the protest is unclear, but it quickly spread to other California prisons. About 6,600 inmates participated at its peak. California’s huge prison system is dysfunctional in so many ways. In May, the Supreme Court found conditions at the overcrowded prisons so egregious that they violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment and ordered the state to cut its prison population by more than 30,000 inmates. The case did not address the issue of long-term solitary confinement.
With their health deteriorating, those inmates continuing to fast resumed eating after state prison officials met a few modest demands. Inmates in Pelican Bay’s isolation unit will get wool caps for cold weather, wall calendars to mark the passing time and some educational programming. Prison officials said current isolation and gang management policies are under review. But the protest has raised awareness about the national shame of extended solitary confinement at Pelican Bay and at high-security, “supermax” prisons all around the country.
Once used occasionally as a short-term punishment for violating prison rules, solitary confinement’s prevalent use as a long-term prison management strategy is a fairly recent development, Colin Dayan, a professor at Vanderbilt University, said in a recent Op-Ed article in The Times. Nationally, more than 20,000 inmates are confined in “supermax” facilities in horrid conditions.
Prison officials claim the treatment is necessary for combating gang activity and other threats to prison order. It is possible to maintain physical separation of prisoners without ultra harsh levels of deprivation and isolation. Mississippi, which once set the low bar for terrible prison practices, saw a steep reduction of prison violence and ample monetary savings when it dramatically cut back on long-term solitary several years ago.
Holding prisoners in solitary also is very expensive, and several other states have begun to make reductions. In any case, decency requires limits. Resorting to a dehumanizing form of punishment well known to induce suffering and drive people into mental illness is beyond them.
For more on the Hunger Strike go to: http://www.prisons.org/hungerstrike.htm
Monday, August 1, 2011
HHS Awards $71.3 Million to Strengthen Nursing Workforce!!
Grants Will Support Nursing Training, Nursing Diversity and Increasing Nursing Faculty
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today announced $71.3 million in grants to expand nursing education, training and diversity.
Nursing workforce development programs, reauthorized by the Affordable Care Act and administered by HHS' Health Resources and Services Administration, are the primary source of federal funding for nursing education and workforce development. These programs bolster nursing education at all levels, from entry-level preparation through the development of advanced practice nurses. They also prepare faculty to teach the nation’s future nursing workforce.
“These awards reflect the critical role of nurses in our healthcare system, and our ongoing commitment to attract and retain highly-skilled nurses in the profession,” said Secretary Sebelius.
Awards include:
• Nurse Education, Practice, Quality and Retention ($10.9 million – 33 awards) Strengthens nursing education and practice capacity by supporting initiatives that expand the nursing pipeline, promote career mobility for nurses, prepare more nurses at the baccalaureate level, and provide continuing education training to enhance the quality of patient care. The Affordable Care Act modified the program to enhance its focus on activities that help improve nurse retention.
• Nursing Workforce Diversity ($3.6 million – 11 awards) Increases nursing education opportunities for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, including racial and ethnic minorities underrepresented among registered nurses. Grants support educational opportunities for students to become registered nurses and opportunities for practicing registered nurses to pursue a baccalaureate degree in nursing. The Affordable Care Act amended the program to include support for advanced nursing education preparation, diploma and associate degree nurses entering bridge or degree completion programs and accelerated nursing degree program students.
• Nurse Faculty Loan Program ($23.4 million – 109 awards) Assists registered nurses in completing their graduate education to become qualified nurse faculty. Through grants to eligible entities, offers partial loan forgiveness for borrowers that graduate and serve as full-time nursing faculty for the prescribed period of time. The Affordable Care Act increased the annual loan limit to $35,500 from $30,000 and established a priority for doctoral nursing students.
• Advanced Nursing Education Program ($16.1 million – 55 awards) Supports advanced nursing education specialty programs that educate registered nurses to become nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, nurse anesthetists, nurse-midwives, nurse educators, nurse researchers/scientists, public health nurses and other advanced nurse specialists.
• Advanced Education Nursing Traineeships ($16 million – 349 awards) Funds traineeships at eligible institutions for registered nurses enrolled in advanced education nursing programs. Traineeships prepare nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, nurse-midwives, nurse anesthetists, nurse administrators, nurse educators, public health nurses and nurses in other specialties requiring advanced education. The Affordable Care Act removed the 10 percent cap in this program that limited the amount of support that could go to nursing students pursuing doctoral degrees.
• Nurse Anesthetist Traineeships ($1.3 million – 76 awards) Supports traineeships at eligible institutions for licensed registered nurses enrolled as full-time students in their second year of a two-year nurse anesthetist master's program.
“A well-educated, highly-skilled, and diverse nurse workforce is critical to meeting future healthcare needs,” said HRSA Administrator Mary K. Wakefield, Ph.D., R.N. “These awards expand our efforts to grow a high-quality health workforce.”
Nursing workforce grants, listed by state and organization, are available at http://www.hrsa.gov/about/news/2011tables/nursingbyrecipient.html. Totals of grant awards, listed by State, are available at http://www.hrsa.gov/about/news/2011tables/nursingbystate.html. Individual grantees may receive multiple awards for different projects. For more information on HRSA’s nursing programs, visit http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/grants/nursing/index.html
The Health Resources and Services Administration is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. HRSA is the primary Federal agency responsible for improving access to health care services for people who are uninsured, isolated, or medically vulnerable. For more information about HRSA and its programs, visit www.hrsa.gov.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today announced $71.3 million in grants to expand nursing education, training and diversity.
Nursing workforce development programs, reauthorized by the Affordable Care Act and administered by HHS' Health Resources and Services Administration, are the primary source of federal funding for nursing education and workforce development. These programs bolster nursing education at all levels, from entry-level preparation through the development of advanced practice nurses. They also prepare faculty to teach the nation’s future nursing workforce.
“These awards reflect the critical role of nurses in our healthcare system, and our ongoing commitment to attract and retain highly-skilled nurses in the profession,” said Secretary Sebelius.
Awards include:
• Nurse Education, Practice, Quality and Retention ($10.9 million – 33 awards) Strengthens nursing education and practice capacity by supporting initiatives that expand the nursing pipeline, promote career mobility for nurses, prepare more nurses at the baccalaureate level, and provide continuing education training to enhance the quality of patient care. The Affordable Care Act modified the program to enhance its focus on activities that help improve nurse retention.
• Nursing Workforce Diversity ($3.6 million – 11 awards) Increases nursing education opportunities for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, including racial and ethnic minorities underrepresented among registered nurses. Grants support educational opportunities for students to become registered nurses and opportunities for practicing registered nurses to pursue a baccalaureate degree in nursing. The Affordable Care Act amended the program to include support for advanced nursing education preparation, diploma and associate degree nurses entering bridge or degree completion programs and accelerated nursing degree program students.
• Nurse Faculty Loan Program ($23.4 million – 109 awards) Assists registered nurses in completing their graduate education to become qualified nurse faculty. Through grants to eligible entities, offers partial loan forgiveness for borrowers that graduate and serve as full-time nursing faculty for the prescribed period of time. The Affordable Care Act increased the annual loan limit to $35,500 from $30,000 and established a priority for doctoral nursing students.
• Advanced Nursing Education Program ($16.1 million – 55 awards) Supports advanced nursing education specialty programs that educate registered nurses to become nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, nurse anesthetists, nurse-midwives, nurse educators, nurse researchers/scientists, public health nurses and other advanced nurse specialists.
• Advanced Education Nursing Traineeships ($16 million – 349 awards) Funds traineeships at eligible institutions for registered nurses enrolled in advanced education nursing programs. Traineeships prepare nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, nurse-midwives, nurse anesthetists, nurse administrators, nurse educators, public health nurses and nurses in other specialties requiring advanced education. The Affordable Care Act removed the 10 percent cap in this program that limited the amount of support that could go to nursing students pursuing doctoral degrees.
• Nurse Anesthetist Traineeships ($1.3 million – 76 awards) Supports traineeships at eligible institutions for licensed registered nurses enrolled as full-time students in their second year of a two-year nurse anesthetist master's program.
“A well-educated, highly-skilled, and diverse nurse workforce is critical to meeting future healthcare needs,” said HRSA Administrator Mary K. Wakefield, Ph.D., R.N. “These awards expand our efforts to grow a high-quality health workforce.”
Nursing workforce grants, listed by state and organization, are available at http://www.hrsa.gov/about/news/2011tables/nursingbyrecipient.html. Totals of grant awards, listed by State, are available at http://www.hrsa.gov/about/news/2011tables/nursingbystate.html. Individual grantees may receive multiple awards for different projects. For more information on HRSA’s nursing programs, visit http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/grants/nursing/index.html
The Health Resources and Services Administration is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. HRSA is the primary Federal agency responsible for improving access to health care services for people who are uninsured, isolated, or medically vulnerable. For more information about HRSA and its programs, visit www.hrsa.gov.
County Shuts down Sheriff's Baca's Bid to Manage Parolee
LOS ANGELES - The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors today chose the Probation Department to supervise state parolees instead of the Sheriff's Department.
The board turned down a proposal by the county's chief executive officer to create a hybrid agency that would draw on both departments. The state plans to begin releasing parolees Oct. 1 in jurisdictions where they were prosecuted.
The transfer of thousands of nonviolent parolees to counties is part of Gov. Jerry Brown's effort to shift some state obligations to local governments to save money.
Existing county probation officers were expected to take on the task in 57of 58 counties. But Sheriff Lee Baca argued two weeks ago that his department is already working to reduce recidivism by educating inmates in county jails and could more effectively take on the job of supervising parolees in Los Angeles County.
The board, in turn, asked the county's CEO to come up with a plan for a hybrid agency. That plan was rejected today, and the board put the Chief Probation Officer Donald Blevins in charge, even though his department has yet to develop a detailed plan for dealing with parolees.
The supervisors, required to submit a plan to the state by Sept. 1, pushed Blevins to lay out the details for them no later than Aug. 23.Starting Aug. 15, state prison officials will release packets of information on the people it plans to release.
"The state has made errors in the past and may be sending individuals to us that don't meet the `non, non, non' designation," CEO William Fujioka said. State officials have said only non-violent, non-sex offenders convicted of non-serious crimes would be paroled.
Fujioka urged Blevins to have his probation officers review the parolee information from the state as soon as possible when it is released. Supervisor Michael Antonovich suggested dropping the idea of having a hybrid agency oversee parolees.
"The Probation Department has been providing supervision and rehabilitative services to adult probationers for over a century," Antonovich said. "The department's existing infrastructure and internal expertise renders it the most suitable county agency to assume the responsibility."
The amendment would allow sheriff's deputies to work with probation officers only to identify and arrest wanted parolees. Sheriff Lee Baca said he would continue to keep the public safe from high-risk parolees. "I'm not going to ask the chief probation officer's permission, I'm just going to do it."
He also said he felt Blevins "looks upon me and my department as some kind of threat to the traditions of rehabilitation." He accused Blevins of failing to cooperate and talking behind Baca's back. Baca took his own shot at the probation chief's ability to meet deadlines, saying, "in my organization...when we say we have an emergency, that is in fact what it is."
On Thursday, union leaders representing the majority of Los Angeles County probation officers delivered a letter with a "no confidence" vote to Blevins, contending that the department is in danger of violating its agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice regarding oversight of juvenile probationers.
Two weeks ago, Supervisor Gloria Molina also raised concerns about progress on the Department of Justice agreement and said she was concerned about giving more work to a department that was already overloaded. The board unanimously agreed in a 5-0 vote to have the Probation Department take the lead.
The board turned down a proposal by the county's chief executive officer to create a hybrid agency that would draw on both departments. The state plans to begin releasing parolees Oct. 1 in jurisdictions where they were prosecuted.
The transfer of thousands of nonviolent parolees to counties is part of Gov. Jerry Brown's effort to shift some state obligations to local governments to save money.
Existing county probation officers were expected to take on the task in 57of 58 counties. But Sheriff Lee Baca argued two weeks ago that his department is already working to reduce recidivism by educating inmates in county jails and could more effectively take on the job of supervising parolees in Los Angeles County.
The board, in turn, asked the county's CEO to come up with a plan for a hybrid agency. That plan was rejected today, and the board put the Chief Probation Officer Donald Blevins in charge, even though his department has yet to develop a detailed plan for dealing with parolees.
The supervisors, required to submit a plan to the state by Sept. 1, pushed Blevins to lay out the details for them no later than Aug. 23.Starting Aug. 15, state prison officials will release packets of information on the people it plans to release.
"The state has made errors in the past and may be sending individuals to us that don't meet the `non, non, non' designation," CEO William Fujioka said. State officials have said only non-violent, non-sex offenders convicted of non-serious crimes would be paroled.
Fujioka urged Blevins to have his probation officers review the parolee information from the state as soon as possible when it is released. Supervisor Michael Antonovich suggested dropping the idea of having a hybrid agency oversee parolees.
"The Probation Department has been providing supervision and rehabilitative services to adult probationers for over a century," Antonovich said. "The department's existing infrastructure and internal expertise renders it the most suitable county agency to assume the responsibility."
The amendment would allow sheriff's deputies to work with probation officers only to identify and arrest wanted parolees. Sheriff Lee Baca said he would continue to keep the public safe from high-risk parolees. "I'm not going to ask the chief probation officer's permission, I'm just going to do it."
He also said he felt Blevins "looks upon me and my department as some kind of threat to the traditions of rehabilitation." He accused Blevins of failing to cooperate and talking behind Baca's back. Baca took his own shot at the probation chief's ability to meet deadlines, saying, "in my organization...when we say we have an emergency, that is in fact what it is."
On Thursday, union leaders representing the majority of Los Angeles County probation officers delivered a letter with a "no confidence" vote to Blevins, contending that the department is in danger of violating its agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice regarding oversight of juvenile probationers.
Two weeks ago, Supervisor Gloria Molina also raised concerns about progress on the Department of Justice agreement and said she was concerned about giving more work to a department that was already overloaded. The board unanimously agreed in a 5-0 vote to have the Probation Department take the lead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)