Nurses Rebel Across Country

Nurses at Understaffed Hospitals Balk at Mandated Overtime

by Julia Malone, Cox News Service

October 7, 2000

WASHINGTON -- A strike at a major hospital here has become the latest
distress call from the nation's nurses, whose ranks have been stretched thin
in the era of managed health care.

In the nearly three-week-old walkout, nurses at the 900-bed Washington
Hospital Center are decrying working conditions, especially mandatory
overtime, which they say threaten patient safety and make it difficult to
care for their own families.

"We have a life," read the sign worn by Deborah O'Neill as she picketed
outside the medical complex. She said that she works four hours overtime
almost every day in the increasingly busy operating room, which maximizes
hospital revenue by running late into the evenings, weekends and holidays.

"I try not to make mistakes," she said, but she added that fatigue, coupled
with the fast pace of the operating room, invites errors. "We're rushed. It's
an assembly line," she said.

Objections to mandatory overtime have helped spark recent strikes in
Worcester, Mass., at Stanford University's two hospitals in California, and
in Nyack, N.Y. All of the disputes were settled with agreements limiting
hospitals' power to insist on extra hours.

Concerns about overtime are also beginning to surface in non-union states, as
hospitals in many parts of the country operate with 15 percent or higher
vacancies in their nursing staffs.

"We have concerns from a patient safety perspective," said Stephanie Tabone,
the Texas Nurses Association's director of practice. She said her group is
finding evidence of mandatory overtime.

"There are limits for truck drivers and pilots," she said, adding that "there
may be a need" for limiting the number of hours nurses work.

In one Texas case, Laredo's Mercy Hospital agreed last year to limit
operating room nurses to no more than 60-hour work weeks after a nurse gave
the wrong medication while she was working a 72-hour week.

Such working conditions have taken on new meaning following findings by the
Institute of Medicine that nearly 100,000 patients die each year from medical
mistakes. Errors are often linked to overworked nurses, who administer most
of the medications and provide most of the care in hospitals.

Nurses, including their largest member group, the American Nurses
Association, blame overtime as a major contributor.

However, underlying complaints about mandatory overtime is a general lament
by nurses about the state of their profession in the aftermath of managed
care, which has squeezed hospital budgets, reduced the ratios of registered
nurses, and changed the nature of their work.

"We have all watched health care in this country change from providing care
to becoming a business over the last six or eight years," said Brenda
Christian as she sat inside strike headquarters, a few blocks from Washington
Hospital Center.

"When I started nursing 15 years ago, I could spend that extra five minutes
with a patient and hold their hand, brush their hair, give a man a shave so
that he felt good in the morning and felt good about himself.

"Now, nurses cannot practice nursing. They cannot be at the bedside to give
the patient that little extra word of support or that little sign of comfort.
It's 'Quick, quick, get it going. I don't care if your patient is crying, get
her into the operating room.' "

Her hospital, which was acquired recently through by the regional group
MedStar Health, operates on a private not-for-profit basis. However, the
administration keeps a close eye on revenues, especially when it comes to
making greater use of operating facilities.

"We are in a competitive environment," said Dr. William James Howard, medical
director for the Washington Medical Center. "More and more hospitals are
going to a seven-day week."

Howard said it was a mark of success that his institution has "a very busy
operating schedule at least six days a week."

He acknowledged that the pace requires overtime in some areas of the hospital
and said the hospital was responding to the nurses' concerns. But he
dismissed nurses' claims that patient care has been compromised.

"I do contradict that," he said. "We have multiple systems to make sure that
we do not make those kinds of mistakes."

Howard asserted that the striking nurses, represented by the Washington
Nurses Association, were chiefly interested in higher salaries.

"When they say it's not the economics, it's the economics," he said of the
nurses, who now average about $62,000 in annual pay, including bonuses and
overtime.

The strikers, who are seeking a 16 percent raise over four years, insist that
money is not the sticking point in their walkout.

"I'm on the line for my patients' safety," said Agatha Westerhoff, an
operating room nurse who concluded a protest letter to her administration by
describing her own stay in the hospital:

"In my thirty-six hour stay, I saw a nurse three times," she said. One tried
to give her a medication incorrectly, she said. "I stopped her. Her response
was 'I don't feel like going to the pharmacy to get the I.V.." or intravenous
solution, Westerhoff wrote, adding that she was double-charged for many items
on her bill.

"That's why I am on the line," she wrote.

© Cox Newspapers

----------------------------------------

D.C. Unionized Nurses Strike

by Derrill Holly, Associated Press

September 20, 2000

WASHINGTON (AP) - Unionized nurses at the largest private hospital in the
nation's capital went on strike Wednesday, but the facility remained open
with hundreds of replacements.

``We have 540 nonunion nurses, and 500 contract nurses on the job with more
on the way,'' said Barbara Ware, a hospital spokeswoman.

Attending physicians with privileges at the hospital are expected to help
care for their patients during the strike. Two hundred interns and residents
also remained on the job.

Although the trauma unit was temporarily closed to new patients early
Wednesday, officials denied any connection to the strike, citing overflow
from the hospital's intensive care unit as the cause.

Talks with a federal mediator continued late Tuesday night, but failed to
break impasses over several issues with MedStar Health Inc., which operates
the 907-bed hospital. No new talks were scheduled, as several hundred nurses
picketed outside the facility Wednesday.

``We put a number of issues on the table and nothing worked,'' said Sandra
Falwell, president of the District of Columbia Nurses Association. The union
represents 1,279 registered nurses at Washington Hospital Center who have
been without a contract since Sept. 10.

The union is seeking wage increases of between 22 percent and 28 percent over
three years. Management has offered 16.5 percent, citing recent settlements
between the DCNA and other area hospitals.

``They refuse to deal with the mandatory overtime issue,'' said Falwell, who
contends nurses are often required to work 50 to 60 hours a week.

Hospital officials say nurses volunteer for extra duty, except when they are
forced to stay until they are relieved during snow emergencies and other rare
occasions.

``I can count on one hand the times I've had to invoke mandatory overtime,''
said Paula Hallenbeck, a nursing supervisor who remained on the job.

Copyright © 2000 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

---------------------------------------------------

Hospital Center Nurses Strike

by Avram Goldstein, Washington Post

September 21, 2000

More than 1,200 nurses walked off their jobs yesterday at Washington Hospital
Center in a contract dispute that strikers said was triggered more by union
objections to mandatory overtime rules than by demands for higher wages.

Hundreds of D.C. Nurses Association members took to the streets at 5:30 a.m.,
chanting and carrying signs at Irving and First streets NW. They said their
primary goal was to gain greater influence over hospital policies that affect
the quality of patient care.

All day long, passing cars and trucks sounded their horns in support, and the
nurses cheered in return. It was the first strike at the region's largest
medical facility since 1978, when nurses walked out for 31 days.

Inside, city officials and hospital executives reported no significant
service disruptions. A spokeswoman for MedStar Health Inc., the
Columbia-based nonprofit that owns the 907-bed facility, said the workload
was heavier than usual.

Filling in were 625 replacement workers from across the country and 250 nurse
managers who returned to direct patient care, said Lisa Wyatt, the hospital's
vice president of public affairs.

The hospital contracted with Denver-based U.S. Nursing Corp. to provide the
replacements. That company specializes in staffing strikebound hospitals with
outside nurses during work stoppages.

"Everything is going unbelievably smoothly," Wyatt said. "One of our
physicians told the medical director that it's actually going better than
usual."

Wyatt said the hospital had 741 inpatients yesterday and that surgeons
performed about 35 operations, including 11 heart operations, in addition to
about 50 cardiac catheterizations.

"We have seen no change in terms of admitting patients here," Wyatt said. "We
want our nurses to return as quickly as possible, but we are prepared to keep
this hospital operating on a business-as-usual basis until the strike is
settled."

The striking nurses complained that management has abused its power, solving
persistent scheduling problems in the operating rooms and other units by
requiring nurses to stay on for overtime shifts. Nurses said hospital
managers do this partly because Washington Hospital Center, like hospitals
nationwide, suffers from a chronic shortage of available nurses.

"These nurses are tired," said Ramona Gonzalez, a 20-year veteran of the
hospital. "They want their benefits. They want their holiday and vacation
time."

Gonzalez said the nurses want a program restored that would allow them to
work weekends only, putting in two 12-hour shifts.

Bargaining broke off late Tuesday, and no other meetings have been scheduled,
according to officials from both sides.

The hospital has offered the nurses an aggregate raise of 16.5 percent over
three years and a limit on mandatory overtime to two shifts every six weeks.
Wyatt said the nurses want raises of 22 to 28 percent over the three years.

The union, though, said it has asked for a wage increase of 20 to 22 percent
over three years, plus tighter restrictions on required overtime; only in
emergencies would nurses be forced to stay on after their shift.

Washington Hospital Center said its offer compares favorably with raises
accepted by the D.C. Nurses Association for other hospitals in the past year.
Under the expired contract, the average nurse at Washington Hospital Center
collects $60,626 a year, including base pay, bonuses and overtime.

On the picket line, nurses complained that hospital officials have refused to
give them a voice in setting hospital policies. "They're not interested in
our input or heeding our alarms," said Sharon Clark, an emergency nurse who
has worked at the hospital for 25 years.

She said the nursing shortage has forced the hospital to assign recent
nursing school graduates as supervisors and left some nurses overwhelmed with
too many patients to care for.

D.C. Health Department Director Ivan C.A. Walks said the replacement nurses
began months ago to apply for temporary licenses to practice in the District.
So far, he said, the city has issued 700 such permits.

"All the nurses are D.C. licensees and working legally," he said. Any
complaints or concerns about the quality of care in the hospital are
investigated immediately by two Health Department officials who are stationed
in the hospital, Walks said.

Clark said she bears no ill will toward the replacements. They are to be paid
an average of $2,700, plus expenses, to work five 12-hour days a week. Some
specialized nurses will get as much as $5,000.

"I'm not angry," Clark said. "I'm a little disillusioned. For [the
replacement workers], it's a personal necessity. I'm hoping they're as
competent as the nurses who are striking."

The local nurses have no strike fund, but union officials said the job action
could go on for a long time because nurses are always in demand for temporary
work--even while they strike.

"It's difficult for nurses without benefits," said union official Gwen E.
Johnson. "Staying out longer will be a financial challenge, but there are
options."

© 2000 The Washington Post Company

----------------------------------------------------

Imported Nurses Step In for Strikers

by Avram Goldstein, Washington Post

September 24, 2000

Some 1,200 striking nurses have stayed away from their jobs at Washington
Hospital Center since Wednesday, picketing and shouting for higher wages,
limits on mandatory overtime and a greater voice in hospital policy making.

But the medical facility has not missed a beat. A battalion of temporary
nurses from across the nation has converged on the hospital--the largest in
the Washington-Baltimore region--and to the delight of the medical staff, has
kept the place humming.

The 907-bed hospital had a busy week, with more than 770 patients on hand
Thursday and Friday. Yesterday, the count fell to 684, still busy for a
weekend.

The replacements work for Denver-based U.S. Nursing Corp. The privately held
company flew in nearly 650 people such as Cas Szymoniak, 30, from Birmingham,
Ala., who is assigned to a hotel and shuttled in each day to care for
patients recovering from cardiac surgery.

The company has a virtual lock on an unusual marketplace niche: It provides
replacement nurses for hospitals whose nursing staff members are on strike.
Without substitutes, the hospital would have to cut services significantly
until the strike ended. Hospitals pay U.S. Nursing for all employee expenses
and salaries, plus fees to cover operation of a central office with more than
100 staff members.

To Szymoniak and other replacement workers, many of whom come from states
where nurses are low-paid and lack union protections, the strike is an
opportunity to collect fat paychecks while providing care to patients whose
need for medical attention is nonnegotiable.

In a financially driven health system in which nurses struggle for money and
power, Szymoniak sees his temporary assignment as an act of
self-determination.

"The nurses back home are grumpy and unhappy and stuck in this life," he
said. "I'm making things work for me instead of me working for someone else."

Replacements go home with typical weekly paychecks of $2,700--far more than
they could earn at home, where the cost of living is lower than in northern
cities, where strikes are more common. In a few top specialties, they can
earn more than $4,000 a week.

When Szymoniak gets home, he figures that for the rest of the year, he will
have to work only one day a week as a contract nurse in Birmingham. That will
enable him to spend more time with his wife while paying off debts and
getting his life in order. "I won't have to work when I'm 70," he said.

But nursing unions across the nation despise U.S. Nursing and its employees.
They say the company emboldens hospital administrators to not compromise with
nurses unions and then sends in mercenaries to get through the work stoppages
that follow.

Charles Idelson, spokesman for the California Nurses Association, said U.S.
Nursing workers performed poorly at two Stanford University hospitals during
a 50-day strike that ended in July.

"This corporation doesn't care about the safety of patients inside that
hospital and is only in there to make as much money as they can, as quickly
as they can," Idelson said. "Patient safety is their last concern."

State health officials in California said they found no serious problems
created by the replacements. A U.S. Nursing worker from Arizona died at her
motel after working 20 consecutive days, but a coroner ruled that she died of
natural causes.

While Washington Hospital Center nurses are demanding better working
conditions, including limits on mandatory overtime, U.S. Nursing employees
expect to work 12 hours a day every day for the first two weeks, then to cut
back to five 12-hour days a week.

So far, D.C. Health Department Director Ivan C.A. Walks's staff has cited no
failures at the hospital. "They aren't seeing anything that makes us worried
or want to step in," Walks said Friday. "I haven't heard any reports of bad
care."

Indeed, doctors at the hospital Friday were elated with what they described
as the positive and professional atmosphere. Gastroenterologist David
Morowitz praised the quality of the work done by temporary nurses in the
endoscopy department. He was even more impressed with their attitudes.

"They're not rude," Morowitz said with amazement. "I've got a technician who
says 'Thank you.' "

Hospital medical director Wm. James Howard lauded the nurses for being able
to walk into an unfamiliar setting and make things work. "It's kind of like
being the fighter pilots of nursing," he said.

U.S. Nursing employees and executives are accustomed to being condemned by
strikers, but they say the need for patient care trumps any contract dispute.

"If your mother was in this hospital and the nurses walked out, wouldn't you
want another nurse to come in and take care of her?" said David Pointer, 42,
an Alabama nurse in Morowitz's unit.

The replacements have no contact with the strikers, who are picketing a block
away from the entrances. They know the strikers resent them, but one U.S.
Nursing employee said he sees his role as enabling the unions to express
themselves without endangering public health.

"We allow them to get their point across," said Robert Sampson, 47, of
Houston, who was assigned to the emergency room.

The company maintains a roster of 20,000 registered nurses. As strikes draw
near, U.S. Nursing arranges air travel, lodging and work schedules, and the
nurses come for a few weeks or a few months and might rotate in and out. The
longest strike the company worked lasted nine months.

The company has a few married couples who work strikes together, said its
general counsel, Richard M. Green. A few workers have married after meeting
during an assignment. With or without romance, many U.S. Nursing workers see
this as an exciting break from routine.

"Most women work more than 12 hours a day," Green said. "They take care of
their children and husbands and also work. If you have a bed made for you,
you're around friends and staying in a hotel, and you're eating meals that
you don't have to prepare, working a 12-hour shift is not onerous--it is an
adventure."

© 2000 The Washington Post Company

------------------------------------------------

Editor's Note: These valiant Washington Hospital Center nurses deserve
all-out material and moral support. As in this year's other heroic strikes in
New York, Massachusetts and California, mandatory overtime and patient safety
are the central issues. For ongoing information, go to DCNA's new web site
<
http://www.dcnaonline.com> or call the strike hot line @ 202-966-2700. Email
solidarity messages to these nurses (
dcna1@cs.com), or call Yakini Martin,
Labor Advocate, DCNA, @ 202-244-2705, to arrange for material contributions.

---------------------------------------------

SEIU/1199 Launches Attack on NYSNA Bargaining Unit

October 7, 2000

President Dennis Rivera of SEIU/1199, has launched an aggressive and divisive
campaign to decertify the New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA) at
Bronx-Lebanon Hospital. He has launched this campaign not to help the RNs at
Bronx-Lebanon Hospital, but to try to force NYSNA into an affiliation
agreement.

His message to NYSNA and to the more than 33,000 RNs we represent for
collective bargaining is clear and hostile:

Join SEIU/1199. And join now -- or else!

That "or else" is a promise to raid our bargaining units at New York
hospitals, bargaining units that we have represented for decades.

This action on Mr. Rivera's part is already disrupting negotiations for a new
contract at Bronx-Lebanon. It is also forcing both SEIU/1199 and NYSNA to use
staff time and members' dues money in a struggle that can only divide and
weaken the labor movement.

The misstatements and half-truths being used in this campaign to discredit
NYSNA and divide nurses will not go unanswered. NYSNA will fight this and any
other attacks on our bargaining units.

How Decertification Elections proceed

SEIU/1199 filed for an election at Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center on October
2. The National Labor Relations Board will set up a date for the parties to
meet to validate that enough cards have been signed by RNs who work at
Bronx-Lebanon to require an election. If there are enough cards, a date for
an election will be set. Ordinarily this date is within 8-9 weeks of the
NLRB's decision.

Copyright © 2000 New York State Nurses Association

----------------------------------------------------

Why is SEIU/1199 Attempting to Decertify NYSNA at Bronx-Lebanon?

To help the RNs? NO!
To work for better patient care? NO!
To pressure NYSNA to affiliate with SEIU/1199? YES!

This decertification campaign is an effort by SEIU/1199 to use the RNs at
Bronx-Lebanon as pawns. SEIU/1199 wants NYSNA to affiliate with them. And
they want it now! The decertification attempt - which is seriously delaying
negotiations for your new contract - is supposed to be a gun to NYSNA's head.
Affiliate with us or else!

NYSNA does not respond to such abusive tactics. Any discussion of partnering
with another union can't be done in an atmosphere of coercion.

Don't allow yourself to become a cog in 1199's plan. Decertification
campaigns destroy the spirit of cooperation between health care unions that
is necessary to fight for better working conditions and quality patient care.
They waste the dues money of unionized health care workers everywhere.

Our goal should be to fight for better contracts - not each other.

Copyright © 2000 New York State Nurses Association

---------------------------------------------------

Good Samaritan RNs Reaffirm Affiliation with CNA
Huge Vote by Nurses at Downtown Los Angeles Hospital

California Nurses Association

September 29, 2000

Registered Nurses at Good Samaritan Hospital in downtown Los Angeles sent an
emphatic message to their hospital and its anti-union consultants Thursday
night - they want safe patient care, they want a contract, and they want to
continue being represented by the California Nurses Association.

The RNs voted 287 to 164 to reaffirm their affiliation with CNA, the state's
largest organization of RNs, in a secret ballot election conducted by the
National Labor Relations Board.

"This is a victory for patient care and the community we serve," said Sharon
Chan, RN, a Coronary Care Unit nurse at Good Samaritan after the vote count.
"Nurse power. The nurses have spoken," said Myrna Madriaga, RN, a cardiac
surgical unit nurse.

The huge 64 percent margin is considered a landslide, especially in the face
of a heavy handed "no" campaign by the hospital's anti-union consultants, the
Burke Group.

It was the second time in one week that California RNs rejected the tactics
of the Burke Group in favor of union representation by CNA. On September 20,
RNs at Enloe Medical Center in Chico, Ca. voted 240 to 180 to join CNA.

"It's time for the Burke Group to stop harassing and threatening nurses,"
said CNA Executive Director Rose Ann DeMoro. "Coercive efforts to suppress
the democratic rights of nurses, or any employees, should be unacceptable
behavior in our society."

DeMoro praised the "courage and heroism of the nurses" in standing up to the
pressure. It included repeated mandatory sessions with supervisors where the
RNs were pulled away from caring for patients to be induced to vote "no" and
excessive security around the hospital intended to create an atmosphere of
tension and fear.

"Enough is enough," added critical care nurse Sussette Nacorda, RN. "We
should now move forward and work together. Enough money has been spent -
millions of dollars to fight the union. Spend that money on patient care and
bettering the working conditions for all of the hospital employees."

Community supporters also welcomed the outcome. "The hospital must now
recognize that it can run a good hospital and have a union," said Rev. Dick
Gillett, Minister for Social Justice for the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles
and a board member of Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice.

Gillett called on the administration to "embark on a new road to bring all of
the hospital staff together to do what they do best, tend to the sick and
serve the community like the great hospital it is."

Public support and the unity of the RNs was also evident in a large rally and
candlelight vigil held outside the hospital Monday night.

Good Samaritan RNs first voted to affiliate with CNA in December, 1998. But
the hospital's administration, said CNA, provoked a vote to oust CNA as the
RNs' representative after dragging its heels for months in contract
negotiations.

"Victory is sweeter the second time around," said Terri Vista-Magallanes, RN,
who works in the hospital's Intensive Care Unit. "The nurses have spoken. We
want a voice. We want CNA to represent us. We want serious negotiations, and
we expect management to take a serious lead at the bargaining table."

The hospital has rejected proposals by the RNs regarding quality patient
care, the safe practice of nursing, recruitment and retention of nurses, and
reinforcing the RN's role as a patient advocate, said CNA negotiator Mike
Griffing. Instead, the hospital has spent untold sums on its anti-union
consultants and attorneys.

"This vote means management must take us seriously," said Chan. "We give our
patients quality care so we deserve a quality contract."

"This is a great victory for nurses," said critical care nurse Janice Childs,
RN. "It sends a clear message to management that nurses will be taken
seriously. Nurses are the backbone of any health care facility and they
deserve respect and the support of management."

"Now maybe we can get a good contract without management fighting us
anymore," said Neo-natal Intensive Care Unit nurse Denise Kennedy, RN. "We
hope they'll now bargain in good faith." Negotiations are critical to patient
safety, she added, because "until we get a contract the hospital won't be
able to effectively recruit and retain quality nurses."

"Management should stop fighting the nurses and start listening. The nurses
know what they want and they totally expressed that in the vote. With this
victory we can now advocate for our patients without fear," said Madriaga.

"Hey we made it," concluded Gles Padeo, RN. "We're stronger than ever because
we're united. They drove us to the wall, so we fought back."

Contact: David Monkawa, 888-497-7523, or Charles Idelson, 510-273-224.

-----------------------------------------------

L.A. Hospital Workers Strike

by Leon Drouin Keith, Associated Press

October 6, 2000

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Hundreds of health care workers walked off the job at a
second public hospital Friday in a show of force that could presage a walkout
by 47,000 Los Angeles County employees next week.

The latest target of the rolling strikes was Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in
Torrance, which has the county's busiest trauma center and on a normal day
has 190 emergency room visits and 1,100 outpatient visits.

``Shut the county down!'' about 200 nurses and other workers chanted outside
the hospital,

``If we're not treated right how can we treat the patients right?'' said
Victor Alcala, a registered nurse. ``If we were treated better we might be
able to do better.''

The Service Employees International Union Local 660 struck Martin Luther King
Jr.-Drew Medical Center on Thursday.

The union wants a 15.5 percent pay raise over three years and the county is
offering 9 percent. No talks are scheduled and a general strike could begin
Oct. 11.

The job action was part of a larger picture of labor unrest in the sprawling
county where nearly 10 million people depend on public services.

Transit workers remained off the job for the 21st day in a strike that has
shut down Metropolitan Transportation Authority buses and rail lines used by
450,000 people daily.

Department of Health Services spokesman John Wallace said 39 percent of 1,484
employees failed to report to work at Harbor-UCLA. The hospital prepared by
shutting down its trauma center, one of eight in the county, and rescheduled
as many surgeries as possible.

``There's been a collapsing of units but nothing that has lowered any kind of
service levels,'' Wallace said.

John Cook, a 49-year-old electrician, said it took two hours to be treated
for back trouble. He agreed with the strikers' contention that county
hospitals are badly understaffed.

``I hope they get everything they're asking for,'' he said.

Copyright 2000 The Associated Press.

------------------------------------------------

Ad blitz targets health care initiative

by Liz Kowalczyk & Raja Mishra, Boston Globe

October 7, 2000

They seem to have nothing going for them. Supporters of the health care
initiative known as Question 5 count a meager $4,433 to their name.

What's more, the health care industry and the state's biggest employers are
lined up against them. And scores of key allies have abandoned the cause - or
worse, begun to fight against it.

And yet this ragtag group of consumer activists and physicians is winning
big, according to a University of Massachusetts poll.

The survey, conducted in late September by UMass Poll, shows that 72 percent
of voters support Question 5 on the November ballot, which would guarantee
universal health care coverage for all state residents. Only 16 percent said
they opposed the initiative, reflecting a public hunger for health care
reform.

For opponents, who argue that Question 5 will drive up the cost and destroy
the quality of health care in Massachusetts, the poll results are jarring.
For months, they hoped the campaign would never even happen, and, though they
are well-funded, they are getting a late start in fighting back.

''We're terrified,'' said Larry Rasky, chairman of the PR firm The
Rasky/Baerlein Group, which is running the ''No on 5'' campaign.

The ''No'' side's attempt to eliminate this gap began in earnest with a radio
ad campaign Wednesday, and a television ad blitz Thursday. Rasky said it has
purchased numerous commercial slots on local network affiliates every day for
the next 10 days, with plans to extend the ads to Election Day. He said the
''No On 5'' group anticipates spending about $3 million on advertising and
about $1 million on other types of outreach.

Rasky believes that voters have not yet focused on the ballot question and
that it's too soon to draw conclusions from poll results, which are bound to
have ''very soft numbers'' this far from the November election. But he
acknowledged that the health care industry, despite its huge financial
advantages in the Question 5 fight, is worried that it's doing too little too
late.

The public is sour on HMOs. Both presidential candidates are trumpeting
reform of the system. Question 5, while only 64 words long, features a
''yes'' option couched in optimistic terms. The ''no'' side is characterized
as the status quo.

And in a particularly intriguing finding, UMass pollsters found that even
those voters with health insurance and who are satisfied with their medical
care support the ballot measure, which would usher in the most radical
restructuring of the state's health care system in a generation. Among voters
with health insurance, 70 percent supported Question 5.

''They know they have good health care, they want to extend it to others, and
they want to lock it in - even if the government has to make up the cost
difference,'' said Lou DiNatale, director of UMass Poll. ''With such a strong
level of support, the opponents have a long way to go.''

Polls taken by each side mirror the UMass results.

The ''No On 5'' group found earlier this year that 72 percent of those polled
answered `yes' to a question similar to the one that will appear on the
ballot. ''There isn't reason to think it's moved since then,'' Rasky said.

Another poll, paid for by a single physician member of the relatively
impoverished ''Yes on 5'' coalition, found the number to be 80 percent.

Rasky's group has hired national media consultant Winner/Wagner & Mandabach
of California to try to overcome these odds. The firm cut its teeth defeating
ballot measures in California, considered the ballot question capital of the
nation.

The ''No'' TV and radio spots will not explain the details of the question,
but will keep it simple by planting seeds of fear about the impact if it
passes.

In one spot, a male announcer asks ''What's being said about Ballot Question
5?'' He and a female announcer answer by quoting newspapers and political
organizations calling the question ''pure folly,'' ''badly flawed'' and
''would cost taxpayers billions.'' In another TV ad, red tape falls from the
sky onto a doctor examining a female patient.

The spots feature the tag line ''It's bad medicine for Massachusetts.''

The ''Yes on Five'' forces will likely be outspent 1,000-to-1 by the end of
the month. They are hoping the 113,000 signatures they collected to get the
question on the ballot will translate into a grass-roots network that will
counteract the media onslaught in the coming days.

''We are planning to use the grass-roots network that we have in place, which
includes thousands of doctors and nurses,'' said Andre Guillemin, campaign
director for ''Yes on 5,'' which is based in North Quincy.

The wording of Question 5 will likely aid Guillemin's side. And Rasky said he
regrets that his side did little to influence its drafting, which was done by
the state attorney g eneral's office, with input mostly from the ''Yes on 5''
side.

Registered voters will also be given an extensive 13-page explanation
covering the arguments of each side, though both sides expressed doubts that
it would be read.

Though Question 5 is short, its impact on the state's health care system
could be massive. It would mandate universal health care coverage by July
2002, leaving the details to the Legislature. It would also ban all
for-profit health care companies until universal coverage was in place.

It would also require HMOs to spend at least 90 percent of their budget on
patient care, setting a 10 percent limit on advertising, management, and
executive salaries. HMO patients would be able to pick any doctor; if the
doctor is outside the HMO's network the patient would pay a small fee. In
addition, it would enact a set of HMO controls similar to the Patient Bill of
Rights passed on Beacon Hill this summer.

That bill of rights was the Legislature's answer to Question 5. In fact, the
majority of the groups that ran the Question 5 signature campaign abandoned
the ballot question after the Patient Bill of Rights passed. They contend
that the Legislature's HMO fix is good enough.

But a small group of dissident doctors and nurses continued the campaign.
Rasky said that the health care industry failed to fight Question 5 early on.
''I think everybody thought they could dodge the bullet,'' he said.

HMO reforms languished on Beacon Hill for three years; legislators passed
them only after Question 5 garnered enough signatures to get on the ballot.
Now legislators, who would be forced by Question 5 to craft sweeping reforms
that most of them oppose, are leaning on their constituents to oppose the
ballot question.

''I was surprised and disappointed to read that a respected organization such
as the Massachusetts League of Women Voters is continuing to support Question
5,'' wrote state Senator Richard T. Moore, an Uxbridge Democrat who chairs
the Senate's Health Care Committee, in a letter to the group. ''... passage
of this measure is likely to result in health coverage for fewer
Massachusetts residents rather than for all Massachusetts residents.''

© Copyright 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.

---------------------------------------------

Congress's Rx solution: Ottawa

by Froma Harrop, Providence Journal

October 4, 2000

THE U.S. CONGRESS has come up with a novel idea for controlling American
health costs: Let the Canadians do it.

That is the basis for a remarkable bill that would allow pharmacies and
wholesale distributors to import low-priced drugs from other countries and
sell them here. The wonderfully absurd aspect of this plan is that most of
the drugs making the round trip were developed in the United States with
considerable taxpayer subsidy.

The only thing that happens to the drugs when they pass through Canada or
other industrialized countries is that a government gets involved in setting
the price. That's why the resident of Houston may pay twice as much for
Prilosec, a heartburn drug made by AstraZeneca, as his friend in Mexico City.
And a month's supply of Fosamax, an osteoporosis drug made by Merck & Co.,
may cost $169 in Detroit but only $45 in Toronto. Some of you might ask
whether these drugs couldn't be sold at reasonable prices right here in their
homeland. Why can't the U.S. government negotiate with drug companies just as
other nations do?

Well, the idea has crossed some of our leaders' minds. President Clinton had
proposed a program whereby the federal government would bargain for fair drug
prices on behalf of the 39 million Medicare beneficiaries.

This is not a new concept. The departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs
already buy drugs in bulk.

However, conservatives in Congress denounced the idea as another thrust
toward a government takeover of health care. The federal government, they
complained, would become a monopoly purchaser of prescription drugs.

Funny, then, to see Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Senate
Majority Leader Trent Lott both blessing legislation that would let Americans
benefit from Canada's willingness to control drug prices charged within its
borders. And funny how all this happens just weeks before an election.

But let us not be overly cynical. It is true that opponents of Clinton's plan
didn't want Washington engaged in pricing our medications. But they never
said anything about Ottawa.

Chances are good that the new drug legislation will not work as planned, so
this discussion may be for naught. Wall Street analysts note that the drug
companies possess a bag of tricks for frustrating attempts to import cheaper
medications.

For starters, the pharmaceutical firms can carefully monitor the amount of
drugs sent to lower-price countries. In other words, they may just ship
enough drugs to meet domestic needs, leaving little extra to take care of the
American behemoth. (By the way, has anyone asked Canadian health officials
whether they want to be setting prescription-drug policy for the United
States?)

The companies have met similar challenges in Europe. For example, drugs in
Spain and Greece tend to cost less than the same medications in Britain and
Germany. The price differentials created a business of importing the cheaper
drugs to the north. The drug makers have successfully limited that commerce
by tightening the quantities sent to Spain and Greece.

Another tactic is to ensure that products sent abroad are ineligible for sale
in the United States. Tiny changes in the manufacturing process can do the
job. For instance, companies may decide to press the drugs into pill form at
a factory that does not have Food and Drug Administration approval.

Our laws require that drugs returning to the United States be identical to
those already sold here. Thus, a change in the size, shape or color of a pill
could also keep them out of the American market.

In fairness, some analysts predict that the drug reimportation law will
indeed bring down certain drug prices. The likely candidates are medications
used to treat such chronic problems as high cholesterol. If that does happen,
Americans may consider bringing in other medical services from abroad.

It sounds like a wild idea, but why not import entire programs that
successfully treat ailments at lower cost? They don't have to be Canada's.
Actually, the health-care systems in France, Italy and Japan are superior,
according to the World Health Organization.

Our elected leaders in Washington clearly show little appetite for defending
the health-care interests of ordinary American citizens. So, let the
Canadians do it.

Froma Harrop is a syndicated columnist and Journal editorial writer. She may
be reached by e-mail at:
froma_harrop@projo.com.

Copyright © 2000 The Providence Journal Company

-----------------------------------------------

Web Directory:

Sandy's Links: <
http://users.rcn.com/wbumpus/sandy>
Massachusetts Nurses Association: <
http://www.massnurses.org>
DC Nurses Association: <
http://www.dcnaonline.com>
NY Nurses Association: <
http://www.nysna.org>
California Nurses Association: <
http://www.califnurses.org>
Yes on Question 5: <
http://www.question5.org>

-----------------------------------------------

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has
not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making
such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this
site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond
'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.