Certification would be a poor substitute for licenses in a field as important as nursing.
‘WHEN NURSES FAIL’
Licensure is the better assurance of quality
I applaud the libertarian position of Lee McGrath that regulations can be irrational and excessive (“Licenses for nurses: There’s a better way,” Jan. 8). McGrath’s organization, the Institute for Justice, has been part of the deregulation of hair braiding, sign hanging and interstate trash hauling. But the care of patients by physicians and nurses is more serious. The Star Tribune’s 2013 series about errant nurses demonstrated the need for more-effective regulation, not deregulation.
Licensure guarantees that qualified practitioners are allowed to perform the job, while certification permits them to use the job title. Licensed practitioners who commit malpractice can lose their license. Certified practitioners who commit malpractice can change their title, continue to see patients — and perhaps receive a bad review on Angie’s List. As described, certification would be a weaker regulation driven by the craziness of competition. Angie’s List, Yelp, Facebook and Twitter can help consumers make choices, but comments within social media are often inaccurate and unfair. Frivolous claims are abundant on these sites. Competence should not be a popularity contest.
Currently, consumers have recourse by submitting complaints to regulatory boards. The regulatory process may have problems, but the solution is to strengthen it.
ALEXANDER ADAMS, Minneapolis
How the obligations grew to current levels
There has been much discussion lately about the high cost of pensions and about the difficulty that local, state and federal governments are having, and will have, to meet their promises to retirees.
I was a teacher for more than 30 years and spent many years on negotiating committees dickering over contracts with the state. Whether pensions are high or low, those who take either side should be aware of the following:
Every year there were negotiations, each side would present its “demands.” Almost always, conflict arose over salaries. And every year (this is the most important part) it was tacitly or sometimes openly acknowledged that although the state recognized the relative fairness of our salary demands, it didn’t want to meet them, or couldn’t, and therefore we would compromise: In exchange for lower wages, teachers would accept the unwritten promise that some of the difference would be made up in increased pension funds.
Now it seems as though teachers are going to take a hit on both ends.
I’m not saying this was fair, or even that it was a good negotiating tool. I am saying that the state should own up to what it did, and that people who believe they have an ax to grind in this discussion should know all the facts.
DONALD BRONSKI, Roseville
We’re getting talk instead of action
I did not expect goals of “perfect” or promises of “strategies for improvement” — words from the MNsure interim executive director and a MNsure spokeswoman in recent news stories. What I did expect is a site capable of performing basic navigational functions. In the absence of that, I expected the MNsure management team to own up to its responsibility, make realistic assessments of the site’s problems and report action steps.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.