Question

Frame some arguments for or against the policy of mandated minimum staffing ratios in the positive versus normative economic dichotomy.

Answer 1

For meeting the demands of the patient needs and to provide the highest quality and standard care sufficient staff with knowledge and skills adequate, knowledge and skills are needed. All the organization has to maintain a minimum staffing ratio according to the health care policy has to follow are trying to improve customer satisfaction and

*Adequate staff is needed to meet the demands of the patient. Thus the total care of the patient can be achieved by a sound planning of staff ratio.

Mandated minimum nurse-to-patient staffing ratios were legislated in California in 1999 and were implemented January 1, 2004,

If we are following this policy the implications are the economic consequences of legislation addressing normative economics - are crouched in positive economics

Arguments:

#Hospital staffing well below the floor ratio will ex[erience a rapid rise in operating expenses and lost reimbursement.

*There will be a subsequent drop in operating profit margin

*There may be difficulty in meeting the short-term obligations and solvency or long-term obligations as they become due.

#Hospital staffing well above the floor ratio have an incentive to drop nurse staffing levels depending on the cut-off point, where rreimbursement is negatively affected.

*There will be no significant change in the financial and subsequently, business activities

#This mandate was too costly for hospitals to continue operating is seen and the number of hospitals was closed after the implementation (drop in in-patient revenue and utilization issues)

#The hospital firm that may be closed due to failing business and economic activities (on both revenue and expenditure sides) and thus leads to ultimately closed this demise in the preceding years.