Globalization has made chances abound, like having social media or online casinos. Doctors, engineers, scientists, and other university-educated professionals leave the nation to work elsewhere; others believe Canada is the ideal location to be given its advantages, particularly in terms of healthcare, which is crucial for immunocompromised persons. These constitute knowledge workers. Nurses should therefore be properly paid for their important contribution to society. Research indicates, however, that the government undervalues nurses, which results in “brain drain,” or the movement of highly qualified professionals from underdeveloped to industrialized nations. It has caused concern for many nations, especially emerging ones that feed more affluent ones. This phenomena has been closely investigated since the 1970s, when employing medical staff from private institutions abroad became trendy. It has changed and has taken front stage as a big issue. Should the government remove emergency restrictions, medical professionals might be driven to go outside due to shortcomings in the 3rd world healthcare system. The term “Brain Drain” suggests that global mobility offers both advantages and disadvantages. Source countries, who feel they have not been fairly reimbursed for the net contributions made by their people to recipient governments, often bear the majority of losses. Hart describes the High Skill mobility (HSM) as the mobility of highly educated and highly talented people who, should they stay, may help to strengthen the economy. Controversial is “Brain Drain; some analysts would rather see “High Skill Migration.” It is difficult to separate high-skill migration from general or low-skill migration. No one criterion can be used globally to determine extraordinary ability. Not all migrants equally lose human capital. The only way general migration differs from HSM, often known as “Brain Drain,” is that human capital, knowledge, and skills follow the migrant.
Experts worry about how migration trends influence nurse migrants’ home countries as the US healthcare system, which employs the most professional nurses in the world, “exerts a strong pull in global nurse resources.” Policy discussions have also spoken of the threats of “brain drain,” the exodus of qualified nurses from underprivileged areas. These issues don’t help to explain how U.S. nursing shortages impact home countries of migrant nurses. The brain drain story presents emigration as a big issue in poor countries, but it ignores the fact that many countries that send migrants today see it as an economic tool to maximize future remittances.
Studies have also connected the hiring of foreign nurses by American hospitals to the development of the nursing program in the Philippines. Private universities and institutions let immigrants seize possibilities abroad. The success of US immigrants has led Filipino families to spend more on higher education as a means of immigration, hence increasing the demand for nursing degrees. Such initiatives as a “supply response” to world needs and a substitute for government efforts to prevent nurses from leaving their nation have been commended by international leaders as being efficient.
Talented individuals leave their nations, leading to brain drain. By depriving the countries of origin from realizing the benefits of their human capital investment and from speedier growth, this phenomena can harm such countries. This research exposes the misinterpretation of money and technology, therefore amplifying the negative consequences of brain drain. Investing in human capital makes sense and is possible in a free market. State intervention in education fuels systematic brain drain and misallocation of human resources. This suggests that brain drain management may be addressed by the government in charge of the workforce—that of running public and private hospitals or governing the country. Although the employees are committed to find a solution, they would rather follow the herd because, as long as they pay, chances that would most profit them—regardless of the outcomes—always seem to be the ideal ones to take.
The “Brain Drain” damages affluent countries. Skilled workers feel threatened by the flood of trained labor in many developed countries as they fight with immigrants for jobs. As noted, developed countries are implementing immigration laws stressing recruiting and keeping a highly educated and talented workforce, which would cause concern. Many times, prospective students live, study, and work in industrialized countries before never returning home.
Health worker migration to other nations compromises the workforce in health and safety. Particularly in middle- and low-income nations, several medical and social organizations have addressed brain drain. Long advocates of LMIC education, information sharing, and capacity building have included academic institutions, professional organizations, and concerned medical practitioners. Emphasizing the need of returning home to apply what they have learned, ASCO, Breast Health Global Initiative, European Society for Medical Oncology, WHO, and many other American and European academic institutions have developed educational programs for and in cooperation with LMIC physicians and medical teams. The policies highlight the need of one using their profession in their own nation and provide many justifications for this. They observed that authorities and health organizations from LMICs had pursued professional on-site training. Additionally acting to protect nurses and other health professionals are the UN, WHO, and local governments. The COVID-19 epidemic has made the world reassess its policies because of its complexity. High-income countries have a great impact on helping middle-income and low-income countries flourish in the health and safety sector; this helps the labor movement from the former to the latter to communicate and enhance policies and systems.
