Members of the senate have listened to the testimony and they have all the reasons to believe that its contents are not further from the truth. It is true that this house has a lot to do and it promises to implement measures as prescribed. The Senate members here present believe that a grater part of the proposed issues are achievable and very core to the improvement of the heath sector in this nation. But, this house begs to differ with some of the proposed views in the testimony.
It is good to begin by quoting one major philosopher, Socrates, who said that communities should only listen to those who know and have the expertise (Klinger, 1988). This house believes that it has a responsibility to recognize that a physician is not a Nurse Practitioner and a Nurse Practitioner cannot be a physician. These two entities remain distinct and professionally separate. It can be argued and justifiably so that the two professions consist of individuals with different intellectual dispositions and professional expertise as well. In the footsteps of Socrates the Senate members here present will treat Nurse Practitioners as ends in themselves and distinct from the physicians. Not only will this house solicit the services of the physicians from what it knows or believes they can do but will compensate them as this house believes they deserve in terms of their level of profession and skills. The same case applies to the Nurse Practitioners in that this house believes they can only dispense services as prescribed in the law and in their level of expertise, no more, no less. This means that their reimbursement will remain authentic and it will be implemented according to their skills, expertise and input.
Further to the statement above, this house wishes to reiterate that it does not wish to elevate the physicians at the expense of the Nurse Practitioners such that it looks as if this house does not value their services. In fact, the Senate members here present will bear witness that soon all Nurses will get an increment, and a big one, but will not be linked to the fee schedule of the physicians. All the breakdowns will be evaluated accordingly and as authentic matters so to speak. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is long overdue and no doubt that it needs some review both in its wording and its core objective.
Therefore, this house shall base its review on the reimbursement issue on the following principles:
a) Technical know how of the health practitioners
b) Academic History and achievement
c) Performance and input
It is unfortunate that this house still believes that the Nurse Practitioners cannot get equal reimbursement as that of the physicians. This is as a matter of the four mentioned principles above. Well, inasmuch as this nation would like to reimburse the Nurse Practitioners it cannot be like it is a competition between Nurses and doctors as in the case of “us versus them”. The Senate does not intend to create a crisis or a show of might between the two professions whatsoever. This house also believes that just as how the nursing practice is improving so does the one for doctors. Is it not so that physicians also would like an increase in their reimbursement schedule?
The Senate believes that doctors have a deeper understanding (Agatha, 2010) in health practice but they should never undermine the role of the nurses. They should serve together as if they have a symbiotic relationship and mutual integration (Agatha, 2010).
With those few remarks this Senate promises to review the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 but with the authenticity it deserves. In deed, the two matters shall be treated as separate and distinct. The Senate shall not make a mistake to compare the reimbursement schedule of the Nurse Practitioners to that of the physicians.
Klinger, J (1988). Professional Competence. Journal of Philosophy, vol. 5 (pp.23-29)
Agatha, M (2010). Globalization in the Health Sector. Journal of Health & Medical
Practice, vol. 2 (pp.13-24)