By JEFF GOLDSMITH

In his wonderful and pragmatic new book, A Giant Leap, Dr. Robert Wachter cautions his professional colleagues that simply confiscating potential administrative and clinical staffing savings created by AI could foster a whirlwind of negative consequences for healthcare enterprises.

Nowhere is the explosive potential for reaction to AI incursions into care delivery greater than in nursing, hospitals’ largest single professional expense category. Hospitals employ more than 1.8 million Registered Nurses (RNs) and another 400 thousand non-RN nursing personnel. RNs alone are more than 30% of the hospital salaried workforce, and more than 40% of overall staff costs.

Nursing productivity is a central issue in overall hospital performance, and a key intervening variable both in clinical quality and patient satisfaction. So the capacity of AI to improve nursing productivity will be a core issue in determining AI’s effect on overall hospital operating performance.

There is clearly room for improvement. Studies have shown that nurses spend only 25-30% of their work hours in direct patient care activities. AI’s potential for alleviating the huge administrative burden damaging nursing productivity might be the biggest benefit AI could provide. AI could materially increase nursing time at the bedside, increasing both patient and nursing satisfaction.

However, AI could also reduce hospitals’ nurse headcount, a factor which could, in turn, reduce nursing union membership, the largest and fastest growing single category of hospital employees’ union membership. Almost 18% of all hospital employed RNs are members of labor unions (AFSCME, AFT Healthcare, National Nurses Union, etc. and their local affiliates). Union dues from nurses represent hundreds of millions in annual income to the unions that represent them.

Nursing unions’ most visible public policy initiative, which appeared first in California twenty years ago, was getting its state legislature to mandate nurse to patient staffing ratios in hospitals. These were designed to compel hospitals to hire more nurses with the intention of improving patient safety. What the ratios actually did was throw more nursing bodies at broken processes and systems. These laws had the important collateral benefit of assuring a “guaranteed income” in union dues from more nurses employed by hospitals subject to these ratios!

Formal (though less comprehensive) mandates for nurse staffing ratios have since spread to Oregon, Massachusetts and New York, with legislation pending in Maine, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. Michigan, Minnesota and Washington State. The research on the intended qualitative benefits of California’s state-mandated ratios confirm the expected benefits to patients, though the studies relied upon correlational analyses vs. states without the ratio mandate, not pre- and post- studies of the ratios’ effects on patient care.

Other studies concluded that the ratios pushed up both RN numbers and compensation vs other job categories as well as damaging hospitals’ operating margins relative to states lacking the mandates. The point-counterpoint of these studies gives one a sense of an issue rapidly becoming politicized.