The Surgical Home

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
That's not what I was laughing about. I found the idea of a CRNA running a group to be so ludicrous and ridiculous that the thought of it actually coming to fruition in the real world is unfathomable to me. I would put it in the same category as Bernie Sanders becoming president and implementing a 90% tax rate and pigs flying.
It's already happening everywhere. The small "cardiac" facility that I have mentioned in the past (in a non opt out state) using only CRNA's is doing so because they contract with an AMC that is basically 2 local CRNA's who have sniffed out every dental/pain/plastic office in the area. They occasionally use an MD for coverage here and there but to them its just a more expensive mouth to feed. They prefer to use their pool of prn CRNA's.
I am especially irritated that academia convinces everyone that fellowships are the answer while the marketplace is changing rapidly. That harmless year can translate into missed opportunities that may or may not exist in the future. Meanwhile, these hustlers are winning the war against physician anesthesiologists by racing to the lowest common denominator.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
It's already happening everywhere. The small "cardiac" facility that I have mentioned in the past (in a non opt out state) using only CRNA's is doing so because they contract with an AMC that is basically 2 local CRNA's who have sniffed out every dental/pain/plastic office in the area. They occasionally use an MD for coverage here and there but to them its just a more expensive mouth to feed. They prefer to use their pool of prn CRNA's.
I am especially irritated that academia convinces everyone that fellowships are the answer while the marketplace is changing rapidly. That harmless year can translate into missed opportunities that may or may not exist in the future. Meanwhile, these hustlers are winning the war against physician anesthesiologists by racing to the lowest common denominator.

Unfortunately, you are correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
IMO, the only fellowships worth doing are the ones that would allow the person to practice in what is actually a different specialty (pain, CCM) or to acquire a new skill set for the kind of job they want (getting pedi-certified to be able to do 90% pedi, or doing cardiac to learn TEE and do a ton of cardiac etc.). The latter is hugely dependent on the person and market (some people know enough TEE out of residency, and are allowed to do cardiac in community hospitals, so why waste the fellowship year?).

Would you buy a Ferrari just because everybody around is buying one? A fellowship is a huge financial hit, with no guarantee of future compensation. Almost like med school for current generations. Actually the cheaper a doc is (the less money s/he needs), the higher the chances for a future job. People with big loans should first get a decent job and pay that money back, then reconsider if they actually need a fellowship at all.

Fellowship for the sake of the diploma is not a solution to a bad market. It's just postponing the inevitable, a head in the sand for a year type of reaction. I love when people tell me "my fellowship in X at big name place Y was actually easy, but I did it for the name". Seriously?

Academics will always push their residents to get into a fellowship, so that it looks good on their annual residency report, plus they love the concept (cheap workforce, and the more people with fellowship the more restrictions they can place and the more protected their local turf seems - just look at all those unnecessary new subspecialty board certifications).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
I personally believe that if you want to continue making big money and having great hours the only way to achieve that in the future is to obtain an MBA and either start a group or move up a corporation. Otherwise, an academic job may provide a good overall lifestyle, but the salaries will be significantly less. I think it also depends on what makes you happy. If you enjoy research and teaching others in the clinical and academic setting that may be appealing. As far as private practice is concerned, we all know where it is going and what the end result will be. Now it's just a matter of where you position yourself.
 
That's not what I was laughing about. I found the idea of a CRNA running a group to be so ludicrous and ridiculous that the thought of it actually coming to fruition in the real world is unfathomable to me. I would put it in the same category as Bernie Sanders becoming president and implementing a 90% tax rate and pigs flying.

Well suspend your disbelief, pal because there are dozens of CRNA led anesthesia groups out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Well suspend your disbelief, pal because there are dozens of CRNA led anesthesia groups out there.

Sometimes I sit back and wonder how it came to this and what critical mistakes were made along the way. It must feel similar to what Romulus Augustulus must've thought when the Roman Empire finally fell.
 
Last edited:
If this PSH gains traction, will residency programs start incorporating this into the training?
 
Sometimes I sit back and wonder how it came to this and what critical mistakes were made along the way. It must feel similar to what Romulus Augustulus must've thought when the Roman Empire finally fell.

The critical point was when the profession chose to embrace CRNA's. It's foolish to train your nursing competitors. Even today the profession does it because it's gone so far done that path that it's too late to turn the ship around. Hence, it's why the profession is looking for new fertile ground to lay stake to but there's no virgin ground anymore. Everyone has made claims to every inch of medicine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
So... this is happening?

http://anesthesiologynews.com/ViewA...ology&d_id=1&i=July+2015&i_id=1203&a_id=32983

In Survey, Anesthesiologists Support Perioperative Surgical Home Model

Darren R. Raphael, MD, MBA
HONOLULU, HAWAII—There is strong agreement among respondents to a nationwide survey that anesthesiologists’ coordination of health care following the perioperative surgical home (PSH) model will help reduce health care costs by improving efficiencies and outcomes.

A recent study found that American physicians are enthusiastic about strategies that focus on quality of health care and continuity of care, rather than strategies that focus on financial reforms (JAMA 2013;310:380-389). To that end, principal investigator Darren R. Raphael, MD, MBA, and his colleagues at the University of California, Irvine, queried anesthesiologists about the concept of the PSH, the health care model that calls for an anesthesiologist-led coordination of care extending from the decision to operate until 30 days after discharge.

After development by a task force of anesthesiologists, a cross-sectional survey was emailed to 6,000 randomly chosen members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. Respondents were asked about responsibility for cost reduction, enthusiasm for cost reduction strategies, their understanding of the PSH model and comfort with new practice roles. Data were collected between March and May 2014.

As Dr. Raphael reported at the 2015 annual meeting of the International Anesthesia Research Society (abstract S-150), 883 anesthesiologists (14.7%) completed the survey (Table). The majority (75%) expressed fair or good understanding of the PSH model. More than half agreed that anesthesiologists should coordinate patient care from scheduling to hospital discharge (60%), and that coordination of preoperative (81%) and postoperative (64%) care should become standard.

Table. Demographics of Anesthesiologists Responding to Survey
Characteristics Respondents, n (%)N=883
Age, y

<30 22 (2)
30-39 180 (20)
40-49 153 (17)
50-59 340 (39)
60-69 157 (18)
≥70 31 (4)
Male 689 (78)
Regiona

Midwest 279 (32)
South 246 (28)
Northeast 187 (21)
West 128 (15)
Other 36 (4)
Practice settinga
Community hospital 433 (49)
Freestanding surgery center 312 (36)
University hospital 254 (29)
Community hospital (teaching) 210 (24)
Children’s hospital 91 (10)
Office-based anesthesia 81 (9)
Other 31 (4)
a Numbers may not add to 100% because of missing data for some questions.
Less Comfort With Post-op Period

Most respondents also expressed comfort managing preoperative (95%), intraoperative (100%) and postoperative (79%) care. “In the preoperative phase, we see a very strong response of people feeling comfortable,” said Dr. Raphael, assistant professor of anesthesiology and perioperative care at the University of California, Irvine. “Although the majority of people also express feeling comfortable managing the postoperative phase, the response is less. It’s likely that people have been out of the postoperative management game for so long that they feel uncomfortable.”

Despite any trepidation they may have had about their involvement in the full spectrum of patient care, most respondents agreed that coordination of postoperative care would improve outcomes (89%) while reducing costs (82%), hospital length of stay (81%) and readmission rate (73%). In contrast, most anesthesiologists were either somewhat or not enthusiastic about Medicare payment cuts (99%), implementing bundled payments (95%) and eliminating fee for service (92%). Slightly more than half attributed the primary responsibility for cost reduction to hospitals (57%) and insurance companies (54%). About one-fifth or fewer indicated that they felt professional societies (21%), trial lawyers (18%) and employers (17%) bear no responsibility for cost reduction.

As Dr. Raphael noted, while the PSH concept is clearly gaining traction in the minds of anesthesiologists across the country, the key to successful implementation is education. “We get calls from people saying they think PSH is a great idea, but they have no idea how to implement it,” he told Anesthesiology News. “I think that’s the key to future success: not only educating people about it, but also how to go about it.”

That responsibility, he explained, falls on the shoulders of professional societies such as the ASA. “I think our societies really have to be the force that motivates us for change. We see a great example of this in the … Perioperative Surgical Home Summit, which is jointly provided by the ASA and the University of California, Irvine, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care. It would be a tragedy to leave our colleagues to their own devices; it’s a difficult thing to do on your own.”

Nevertheless, the researchers saw the PSH as an opportunity for anesthesiologists to cement their role in the spectrum of perioperative care. “I think you have to believe, first of all, that we’re on a burning platform and there’s an urgent need to move into that space,” Dr. Raphael said. “Once we realize that, we’ll really see this as an opportunity, since we are the best-placed specialty to do this work.”

Alex Macario, MD, MBA, told Anesthesiology News that since the country is still in the early stages of adapting the PSH, each hospital and anesthesia group will need to determine the structure and function that work best for them. “At Stanford, there are examples that illustrate how this might work,” said Dr. Macario, who is professor of anesthesia and health research and policy at Stanford University School of Medicine, in Stanford, Calif. “For instance, a preoperative evaluation clinic has existed since the early 1990s, and clinical pathways for joint replacements were first developed more than a decade ago. The department also staffs a high-risk obstetric anesthesia clinic that consults with high-risk parturients early in pregnancy so there is a plan in place for when the patient arrives on the labor and delivery floor.”

The challenge going forward, Dr. Macario added, is to properly train anesthesiologists for the entire PSH spectrum, including evidence-based medicine. “This begins with the decision for surgery and carries through to discharge,” he said. “It includes medical consultation prior to surgery—including prehabilitation to manage risk factors—as well as postoperative care on the patient wards, which historically not many anesthesiologists have undertaken.

“There are also financial challenges,” he added, “as we need to ensure that these perioperative activities are recognized by health systems as valuable and therefore compensated appropriately.”

—Michael Vlessides

The researchers reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 
If this PSH gains traction, will residency programs start incorporating this into the training?

Our program has had PSH for relatively healthy primary hips and knees going for awhile now and it's about to become an official two week rotation starting next month. Prior to this, the day call resident had to round on all these people in addition to other pts with PNCs/epidurals, codes, intubations, emergent preop/consents etc. I can't find the post where I described it before but essentially ortho does the admit, we manage everything perioperatively (pre-op optimization, block, catheter, POD1-2 fluids, electrolytes, insulin, pain meds, blood pressure meds etc), ortho does discharge orders. Sucks for the residents but I believe we've shown we get these patients out faster and with fewer inpatient consults.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
As long as ortho does not dictate periop care, except for wound care, there is nothing bad in this. This is the future; learn to live with it.
 
Actually there is something very bad... it is more work for no money!
There is as much money in it as you negotiate, like in any other job. We don't do ICU for free, either, do we?

Btw, I was referring to what the residents were doing. I think it's hugely educational, given the fact that they will meet with this **** in the future, willy-nilly. The writing is on the wall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Actually there is something very bad... it is more work for no money!
It's a good step toward moving anesthesia away from getting paid per anesthetic administered and toward a fee for overall services rendered model. It shows that anesthesiologists bring far more to the table than a CRNA if you can improve outcomes and patient satisfaction beyond simply reducing the complications of anesthesia. I'm curious how this will all play out- anesthesia was a big reason I initially decided to go to medical school, and the next few years will be critical in determining if it lives or dies. Fee for service is on the way out, and the surgical home could put anesthesia on solid ground to make a claim for their share of the pie in a post-RVU world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
It's a good step toward moving anesthesia away from getting paid per anesthetic administered and toward a fee for overall services rendered model. It shows that anesthesiologists bring far more to the table than a CRNA if you can improve outcomes and patient satisfaction beyond simply reducing the complications of anesthesia. I'm curious how this will all play out- anesthesia was a big reason I initially decided to go to medical school, and the next few years will be critical in determining if it lives or dies. Fee for service is on the way out, and the surgical home could put anesthesia on solid ground to make a claim for their share of the pie in a post-RVU world.

I think your position is based on conjecture and I don't think you understand the ramifications of this PSH. Like Plankton said previously, this is ploy to increase your workload and responsibilities with a decrease in quality of life for the pay you are getting now or less. There is no one looking out for us. There's no such thing as an improvement in lifestyle or pay for physicians when you are not your own boss. When you work for a hospital, AMC, etc. you are an employee and there is someone looking to exploit you for every ounce you are worth. This PSH is a Trojan horse. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. I think the biggest adjustment is accepting the fact that your reimbursement is constantly susceptible to being cut. If a patient gets re-admitted within 30 days regardless of the reason you are getting cut. If the patient has a less than ideal outcome for whatever reason you are getting cut. If you do a great job with a patient and something happens to the patient down the line in the hospital stay you are getting cut. That's the price you pay for moving away from fee for service.... you get raped financially. I'm just wondering how bad it will have to get before enough is enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Is there any mechanism or payment scheme to charge insurance companies a fee for a pre-operative clinic visit with an anesthesiologist?

I would not mind doing pre-ops in a clinic a couple days a month as long as I am compensated. I am confident I could do a better job than the typical clearance we get from our internists.
 
Is there any mechanism or payment scheme to charge insurance companies a fee for a pre-operative clinic visit with an anesthesiologist?

I would not mind doing pre-ops in a clinic a couple days a month as long as I am compensated. I am confident I could do a better job than the typical clearance we get from our internists.
We are going into bundled payment era, which means medicare and insurance companies will pay a certain amount of money to cover the whole surgical episode, and if you bill for extra consults or extra care because you invented the surgical home, that extra expense will have to be deducted from somewhere else. So good luck convincing other physicians (surgeons, internists, hospitalists...) that you are now going to take the money they used to get for taking care of the surgical patient.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I got that survey. If I remember correctly, the way the questions were written made it impossible to oppose PSH. I think it's a terrible idea, but my responses probably make it look like I'm in favor- that seems to have been the plan all along.
 
What are the plans of other specialties for the transition away from FFS who have historically benefited from the system - for example, high volume Derm, Optho, ENT, etc? Seems like Anesthesiology is ahead of the game, since they were one of the first to fall to mid-level encroachment.
 
Last edited:
Adaptability guys. Moves have already occurred to move away from a fee for service payment system to a value based system. Take a look at this article from the latest ASA newsletter. Those of us that still have at least 15+ years left in this field will have to find a way to make it work.
http://www.asahq.org/sitecore/conte...icleID={DE166E82-8FEE-49A9-AEC9-0FCE4294A165}
And how is the surgical home a good idea in a value based system? There is X amount of money for the entire surgical episode, so if you add more services while that X amount remains the same where is the money for our new perioperative services going to come from? We will need to eliminate other things that are currently being billed, or we just do the work for free.
I doubt that anesthesiologists or the ASA will have the spine or the political power to eliminate the roles of hospitalists or internists so we are most likely going to work for free.
How is that better?
I know they are telling the young ones that this is how you regain respect and become real doctors. In reality this is absolute BS because you never gain respect by giving away the core of your specialty. This would be equivalent to surgeons quitting operating on people and spending all their time in the office seeing patients for the NPs and PA's to do the actual surgery!
 
And how is the surgical home a good idea in a value based system? There is X amount of money for the entire surgical episode, so if you add more services while that X amount remains the same where is the money for our new perioperative services going to come from? We will need to eliminate other things that are currently being billed, or we just do the work for free.
I doubt that anesthesiologists or the ASA will have the spine or the political power to eliminate the roles of hospitalists or internists so we are most likely going to work for free.
How is that better?
I know they are telling the young ones that this is how you regain respect and become real doctors. In reality this is absolute BS because you never gain respect by giving away the core of your specialty. This would be equivalent to surgeons quitting operating on people and spending all their time in the office seeing patients for the NPs and PA's to do the actual surgery!
How are they "giving away the core of the specialty"? The PSH literature explicitly states that the intra-op role will NOT be relinquished.

I do agree that the days of doing outpatient ASA 1 GI cases are probably over... perhaps that's what you meant?
 
How are they "giving away the core of the specialty"? The PSH literature explicitly states that the intra-op role will NOT be relinquished.

I do agree that the days of doing outpatient ASA 1 GI cases are probably over... perhaps that's what you meant?
It's not only ASA 1 and GI, 90% of the daily anesthesiology practice is bread and butter straight forward cases, so do you think anesthesiologists should be involved in the intra-op care of only 10% of patients?
And if that's the case why do we need all these new anesthesiologists the residency programs are dumping on the job market every year?
If the answer is to do peri-op surgical home care then the same thing can be done for a fraction of the price by NPs and PAs.
 
It's not only ASA 1 and GI, 90% of the daily anesthesiology practice is bread and butter straight forward cases, so do you think anesthesiologists should be involved in the intra-op care of only 10% of patients?
And if that's the case why do we need all these new anesthesiologists the residency programs are dumping on the job market every year?
If the answer is to do peri-op surgical home care then the same thing can be done for a fraction of the price by NPs and PAs.
Now you know why I am doing a CCM fellowship.

Those x% of anesthetics which don't necessarily need a physician (according to the bean counters), won't get one in 10 years or so. Maybe not 90%, but I would almost bet on 50, especially in the opt-out states. Surgeons love to be surrounded by butt-kissing nurses, who do as they are told.

WE don't need the new grads. The market wants them to dump our salaries, so the same big hospital systems-dominated market will keep overproducing them. Same with CRNAs. There is nothing we can do except stay competitive by gaining new skills employers would still pay us for; only time will tell which ones they will care about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Now you know why I am doing a CCM fellowship.

Those x% of anesthetics which don't necessarily need a physician (according to the bean counters), won't get one in 10 years or so. Maybe not 90%, but I would almost bet on 50, especially in the opt-out states. Surgeons love to be surrounded by butt-kissing nurses, who do as they are told.

WE don't need the new grads. The market wants them to dump our salaries, so the same big hospital systems-dominated market will keep overproducing them. Same with CRNAs. There is nothing we can do except stay competitive by gaining new skills employers would still pay us for; only time will tell which ones they will care about.

The root of this problem is the CRNAs whether anyone wants to admit this or not. I don't know who's clever idea it was to train and/or allow nurses to be trained to attempt to perform a physicians job, but it has backfired big time. The job market is saturated and these people are now the desired ones because of the cost difference. If they would've never been allowed a foot in the door in the first place, we would be having an entirely different conversation right now. I'm not saying they can perform at the level of a physician, but when the majority of the cases are a joke (ASA 1 and 2) as previously mentioned, that is a major problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Now you know why I am doing a CCM fellowship.

Those x% of anesthetics which don't necessarily need a physician (according to the bean counters), won't get one in 10 years or so. Maybe not 90%, but I would almost bet on 50, especially in the opt-out states. Surgeons love to be surrounded by butt-kissing nurses, who do as they are told.

WE don't need the new grads. The market wants them to dump our salaries, so the same big hospital systems-dominated market will keep overproducing them. Same with CRNAs. There is nothing we can do except stay competitive by gaining new skills employers would still pay us for; only time will tell which ones they will care about.

One of my concerns with CCM, especially Anes-CCM due to the scarcity of job opportunities outside of academics, is that it doesn't seem to be immune from midlevel encroachment either. My training programs CTICU (arguably the sickest folks in the hospital) is staffed by NP's at night with a CT surgeon "available" at home. It was not uncommon to come in the next morning to discover cases of mismanagement by the NP's which resulted in significant M&M either due to the NP's being too cavalier and not calling for help or occasionally due to the surgeon's not answering their phones. If an NP snuffed a sick patient it was easy for them to brush it under the rug and write it off as a complication that would have happened regardless due to the patient's critical illness. However, the administration didn't seem to mind as they certainly weren't willing to pony up the $$ to staff it with 24/7 physician in-house coverage. Similar NP mismanagement occurred frequently on the NICU floor too.
 
The root of this problem is the CRNAs whether anyone wants to admit this or not. I don't know who's clever idea it was to train and/or allow nurses to be trained to attempt to perform a physicians job, but it has backfired big time. The job market is saturated and these people are now the desired ones because of the cost difference. If they would've never been allowed a foot in the door in the first place, we would be having an entirely different conversation right now. I'm not saying they can perform at the level of a physician, but when the majority of the cases are a joke (ASA 1 and 2) as previously mentioned, that is a major problem.

Funny thing is the ASA and all their "powerful" members are leaders in the institutions that train these NURSES and will never stop training them because of all the money the SRNAs pay. The real change has to come from them and their refusal to stop training nurses who will one day come back to claim their job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Our program has had PSH for relatively healthy primary hips and knees going for awhile now and it's about to become an official two week rotation starting next month. Prior to this, the day call resident had to round on all these people in addition to other pts with PNCs/epidurals, codes, intubations, emergent preop/consents etc. I can't find the post where I described it before but essentially ortho does the admit, we manage everything perioperatively (pre-op optimization, block, catheter, POD1-2 fluids, electrolytes, insulin, pain meds, blood pressure meds etc), ortho does discharge orders. Sucks for the residents but I believe we've shown we get these patients out faster and with fewer inpatient consults.

I do a lot of what you describe in the ICU - insulin,
Pain meds, hemodynamics etc. However to do all that for these patients on the floors sounds suspiciously like my Internal Medicine days from
Internship. This really brings new meaning to the phrase "Internists of the OR."

What is ortho doing then during this perioperative time if we are the ones repleting lytes, ordering standard BP meds, ordering consults etc. I don't disagree that we can do this better than the orthopods, but is that really what the perioperative surgical home is about? Completely taking over as internists?

I still feel that my contribution to this concept comes in the form of critical care. I don't want primary ownership of the patients once they leave the unit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Funny thing is the ASA and all their "powerful" members are leaders in the institutions that train these NURSES and will never stop training them because of all the money the SRNAs pay. The real change has to come from them and their refusal to stop training nurses who will one day come back to claim their job.

It's the equivalent of getting a congressman or senator to do what's in your best interest when lobbyists who paid for his re-election campaign and continue to pay him off have an agenda that involves screwing you. What do you think is going to happen?
 
While I am not a supporter of PSH as it has been outlined/I understand it, I will just point out that many folks predicted that hospitalists would get killed under DRG and prospective payment. The opposite has happened. Efficient hospitalist groups are doing better than ever.

Staking the speciality's claim to the ICU is a part of the long-term solution.

Supporting pro-AA legislation is part of the solution.

Killing rural passthrough is part of the solution.

I do not see how PSH is part of the solution. What value do we add that a dedicated periop hospitalist team does not? These folks live on the floors and they know this medicine already (admittedly they will have room to grow in some aspects of management, but they can be trained to this). PSH as I understand it just sets up a turf war between internists and folks who don't want -- but are being asked to do -- internists' work. Cui bono?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
“Our core values are a commitment to treating critical illness and acute and chronic pain, and to always improve the safety and the quality of the care we provide,” he said. “Everything else is open to change.”

Every day, patients who should have lived die because they failed to receive appropriate management during perioperative care, Dr. Warner said. Physician anesthesiologists have the skill and the training to provide that management.

Most anesthesiologists will and can continue practice in the O.R.,” he continued. “All the PSH does is expand your footprint into the pre-op and post-op areas. We can lead the way to PSH or we can disappear like dinosaurs."

http://www.asahq.org/annual meeting...esthesiologists can shape the future with psh
 
Having said that, if it gets you out of the OR, I'm sure the weak and lazy of the group will be clamoring for a chance to join that team. We have a few of these people, I can't stand them, but the chief loves them. Whatever horrible bull **** taskforce, circle jerk committee, etc needs a member, these ****ers will always jump at the chance to get out of the OR, and then complain about "all the damned meetings". Yeah, STFU you donkey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Having said that, if it gets you out of the OR, I'm sure the weak and lazy of the group will be clamoring for a chance to join that team. We have a few of these people, I can't stand them, but the chief loves them. Whatever horrible bull **** taskforce, circle jerk committee, etc needs a member, these ****ers will always jump at the chance to get out of the OR, and then complain about "all the damned meetings". Yeah, STFU you donkey.
Here is the issue: There is no part of this whole project that can not be done by less qualified providers, actually it is pretty much what PAs and NPs do right now and I don't see why CRNA's can'd do it either. They all can do it for less money than anesthesiologists.
So, if it can be done by non physician providers what makes those *****s think it will help anesthesiologists in their fight?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Here is the issue: There is no part of this whole project that can not be done by less qualified providers, actually it is pretty much what PAs and NPs do right now and I don't see why CRNA's can'd do it either. They all can do it for less money than anesthesiologists.
So, if it can be done by non physician providers what makes those *****s think it will help anesthesiologists in their fight?

At the very least you could have said that AA's could do it!
 
It's not only ASA 1 and GI, 90% of the daily anesthesiology practice is bread and butter straight forward cases, so do you think anesthesiologists should be involved in the intra-op care of only 10% of patients?
And if that's the case why do we need all these new anesthesiologists the residency programs are dumping on the job market every year?
If the answer is to do peri-op surgical home care then the same thing can be done for a fraction of the price by NPs and PAs.
NPs and PAs can't provide nearly the level of perioperative care that a physician can. In most other countries, anesthesiologists manage pre- and post-op care, including critical care, for a reason.
 
939451.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
NPs and PAs can't provide nearly the level of perioperative care that a physician can. In most other countries, anesthesiologists manage pre- and post-op care, including critical care, for a reason.
That's in other countries!
Here in the good old USA the best care for the patient is the care that costs the least amount of money.
It's the insurance companies and Medicare that determine what is considered the best care for you.
 
That's in other countries!
Here in the good old USA the best care for the patient is the care that costs the least amount of money.
It's the insurance companies and Medicare that determine what is considered the best care for you.
In other countries it is also generally the government trying to cut costs to be as low as possible. The big difference here is that many of the hospitals and insurance companies function as middlemen, whereas they are often government-operated elsewhere, minimizing overhead that is consumed by each level having to take their cut for shareholders or C-level executives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top