H.4767/S.3171, An Act requiring health care employers to develop and implement programs to prevent workplace violence, has had tremendous momentum this year and understandably so. The safety of healthcare workers is important and data shows that workplace violence in healthcare settings has been on the increase since the pandemic.
But what if some of the momentum that has propelled the bill through the legislature is based on misleading data?
In November, 2025, the House passed their version of the bill without objection. The Senate followed suit in July, 2026.
Once passed by both, the bill moved forward to a conference committee made up of three Senators and three Representatives. Their job will be to come up with a final compromise version, which must then be accepted by both the House and Senate before being sent to the Governor.
Representatives assigned to the conference committee include:
- Rep Michael S. Day
- Rep Brandy Fluker-Reid
- Rep Hannah Kane
Senators assigned to the conference committee include:
- Senator Cindy F. Friedman
- Senator Joan B. Lovely
- Senator Kelly A. Dooner
They will reportedly begin meeting in September. The bill must go to the governor before the end of the session (January 5, 2027).
But the bill has not been without controversy.
Many disability rights and other advocacy groups didn’t learn about the bill until fairly late in the legislative season. However, once it had been identified, a number of concerns were flagged.
Concerns included (but were not limited to):
- A provision making assault on a healthcare worker a felony
- Formation of a list of what would essentially be people with psychiatric or similar histories labeled as dangerous, with the list shared between police, Homeland Security and various state agencies
- Failure to involve current or former patients in the development of the bill, its ongoing evaluation or assessment of training needs
These points have been discussed extensively in past articles. However, one point that has remained largely out of the public eye is the misleading use of statistics by proponents of this bill.
Specifically, articles and advocacy statements from nurses or others seeking to push the bill through have repeatedly stated:
- A healthcare worker is assaulted in Massachusetts every 36 minutes.
- Nearly 7 out of 10 healthcare workers in Massachusetts have experienced assault during their career.
What we’ve since learned is that these statistics combine both physical and verbal aggression, often without making that fact clear. In many instances, the statistic is used as the headline with a more detailed explanation of what that means buried further down where it’s likely to be missed in a culture that often operates on sound bites. Other articles present these statements without any clarification at all. Additionally, the definitions of physical and verbal aggression appear to be vague and broad. The result is a potentially significant inflation of the public’s perception of how frequently physical assaults are actually occurring.
Roots Up Co-Founder, Sera Davidow, attempted to get access to the raw data. In July, she spoke with Mental Health & Hospital Association (MHA) Vice President of Clinical Administration, Patricia Nova. MHA and the Massachusetts Nurses Association (MNA) have generally been cited as sources of these data points. Patricia confirmed MHA’s involvement in producing the data.
In that conversation, Sera asked whether MHA had data that separated physical from verbal incidents. Patricia confirmed that it did, but said the underlying data could not be disclosed because it was “private.”
The point here isn’t that it’s okay to yell at or treat healthcare workers disrespectfully. Rather, there is significant concern that presenting these very high numbers as “assaults” has created a sense of urgency around the legislation. That urgency may have contributed to the bill moving forward without meaningful input from already marginalized groups that are likely to be among those most directly affected by changes in the law. Most notably, this includes people with psychiatric histories, as well as people with intellectual and other disabilities.
In fact, some have suggested that the efforts to increase safety for healthcare workers may actually be decreasing safety for many patients.
That said, the most unfortunate part of all this is that pushing past input from former and current patients and other advocacy groups may ultimately undermine the safety of everyone involved.
The most effective approaches to reducing violence are often those that are consistent with trauma-informed care. They seek to reduce unnecessary power struggles and avoid leaving people in vulnerable positions feeling controlled, trapped, unheard, or treated unfairly. Bringing patients and disability advocates to the table isn’t an obstacle to workplace safety. Their knowledge and experience may be essential to creating policies that actually improve conditions overall.
As advocacy resumes this September, we hope people will be willing to engage in honest conversations about these issues, including what the statistics actually show and whose voices have been missing from the process.
Because we don’t have to choose between patients and healthcare workers. It’s possible to support both.
Comments are closed