Skip to main content
. 2021 Sep 9;59(10 Suppl 5):S463–S470. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001614

TABLE 2.

Difference-in-difference Estimates of the Effect of Nurse Staffing Legislation on Hospital Staffing

Hours Per Patient Day
Model 1 Model 2
Difference-in-difference Estimates Total Licensed Nurse Registered Nurse Licensed Practical Nurse Nurse Assistive Personnel Total Licensed Nurses Registered Nurse Licensed Practical Nurse Nurse Assistive Personnel
Staffing mandate (CA) 1.022*** (0.123) 0.996*** (0.114) 0.024 (0.030) 0.224** (0.070)
Staffing committee (CT, NV, OH, TX, WA) −0.060 (0.065) 0.003 (0.059) −0.076*** (0.022) −0.070 (0.037) 0.027 (0.065) 0.086 (0.059) −0.073*** (0.022) −0.037 (0.038)
Public reporting (NJ, NY, RI, VT) 0.277** (0.102) 0.150 (0.094) 0.115*** (0.025) 0.095 (0.061) 0.366*** (0.103) 0.260** (0.094) 0.117*** (0.025) 0.119 (0.061)

Coefficients and the corresponding SEs are presented. Coefficients represent the difference-in-difference estimates in staffing between treatment and comparison hospitals before and after implementation of staffing legislation. Model 1 includes the state that legislated staffing mandate (ie, the state of California). Model 2 excluded the state of California. All models controlled for hospital size, ownership status, teaching status, metropolitan location, percent inpatient days covered by Medicare, percent inpatient days covered by Medicare, state-level employment, state right-to-work status, market competition, technology index, and year and hospital fixed effects. SEs were clustered at the hospital level. Total licensed nurse is the sum of registered nurse and licensed practical/vocational nurse, excluding nurse assistive personnel. See the Appendix Table 2 (Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/MLR/C315) for full regression results.

CA indicates California; CT, Connecticut; NJ, New Jersey; NV, Nevada; NY, New York; OH, Ohio; RI, Rhode Island; TX, Texas; VT, Vermont; WA, Washington.

**

P<0.01.

***

P<0.001.