An influence of coronavirus
At the commencement of the new decade, the planet encountered a new menace, the epidemic of coronavirus. The described infection occurred in China, and diffused throughout the globe and converted into a pandemic. COVID-19 coronavirus is a severe viral disease characterized by high fever and the appearance of SARS. Since mortality and infection from this microorganism is several times higher than that of influenza, most states have begun quarantine on their territories. The government has taken such stratagems because decreasing communication between citizens is the most practical approach towards contending the disease. Nevertheless, there are professions whose representatives cannot remain isolated, for instance, workers in the medicinal and pharmaceutical areas. To preserve people who are not quarantined and secure the health of citizens, the government should advance plural amendments to existing laws.
Health Care Worker Protection Act
Currently, committees of Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means proposed a bill H.R.6139 – COVID-19 Health Care Worker Protection Act of 2020. The bill H.R.6139 (2020) asks to “issue a temporary emergency standard that requires certain employers to develop and implement a comprehensive infectious disease exposure control plan” (para. 3). The congressmen who suggested this bill facilitate the endowment of a conventional system devised for emergencies among health care workers and other employees whose activities are conjugated with an increased risk of contamination.
Sponsors and cosponsors
The act cannot be forwarded to Congress and cannot be sanctioned without pecuniary and governmental support. The foremost sponsor of the bill is Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, a member of the Democratic Party who has been representing Virginia in Congress for over 25 years (“Robert C. “Bobby” Scott,” 2020). Forty-six lawmakers of the Democratic Party are the cosponsors of the advancement of this draft law, 20 of whom participated in the promoting campaign from the inception (“Cosponsors,” 2020). The people sustaining this project come from diverse states, from each part of the country.
The possible impact of the bill on nursing and health care delivery
The regulation of the established protocols to guarantee the invulnerability of employees can have two perspectives. On the one hand, discipline and rigorously appointed edicts will ease preventing the hazard of the epidemic and the extent of disease, which will decrease mortality and advance nursing. Considering doctors still communicate with their families and other people, they may be carriers of the virus, and they may further become indisposed themselves. Warranting the isolation of medical workers and stringent precepts of functioning in clinics will assist in preventing adverse consequences. On the other hand, limitations originated by coronavirus can influence the morale of personnel and diminish the performance of nursing and health care delivery. In the case of contravention in the conventional work method, people regularly need some time to accustom, and during a pandemic, this suspension can become significant. Nevertheless, the positive impact of authorizing the bill is unquestionably more crucial and has a more valuable result in the struggle against infection.
Supporters and opposes of the authorization
The Democratic Party presents an imperative role in establishing this document, and it should be noted that only representatives of this party are sponsors and cosponsors of this project. The Republican Party has not yet manifested its opinions about the bill, but the precise sabotage of the law exhibits their viewpoints. The parties disagree on coronavirus, while Democrats approve the installation of a particular order to protect medical workers; Republicans refrain from commenting.
Acts affected by the advanced bill
Even though the bill H. R. 6139 is an independent document that Congress produced in the circumstances of a global pandemic and emergency in the state, its inception may influence the content of some modern materials. There are prescribed amendments in the text of the document that will be made in Section 1866 of the Social Security Act (Bill H. R. 6139, 2020, “Title 1,” para. 6). The central improvement is the introduction of a new subparagraph after section (Y). Item (Y) includes the subsequent information “in case of a hospital which has an agreement in effect with an organization it shall not be determined to be out of compliance with the requirement of such subparagraph during the six months” (Social Security Act, 1935). Amendment of this subparagraph, according to bill requirements, will lead to the social assurance of hospitals and health care workers.
Probability of bill passage
The approval of this bill further influences section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. In the act discussed above, perils to health care and stipulations for medical protection for citizens are registered (Occupational Safety and Health Act, 1970). The legalization of the bill will add new pathogenic organisms to the account of threats, which will protect health care from coronavirus and other emerging infections.
Medical workers’ influence on the legislative outcome
Since representatives of the Democratic Party that introduced this bill prevail in the US congress, the possibility of enacting and authorizing the law is considerably high. Health care workers can extend this likelihood by addressing advancing petitions. Likewise, it is achievable to conduct evidence-based research that determines the necessity for the introduction of this law. Since there is currently a deficiency of resources and personnel in the medical sector, this study should be administered by a qualified third-party observer. Thus, passing the bill and approving reformations will help the country and, in particular, health workers and other areas associated with the opportunity of infection to cope with the pandemic with the scantiest loss.
References
Cosponsors. Web.
H. R. 6139, 116 Cong. (2020). Web.
Occupational Safety and Health Act. (1970). Occupational safety and health standards: State jurisdiction and plans (Standard No. 667). Web.
Robert C. “Bobby” Scott. Web.
Social Security Act. (1935). Agreements with providers of services; enrollment processes (Standard No. 1395cc). Web.