Anesthesia Economics

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Argentus

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
This question is directed towards practicing anesthesiologists and residents; given that AA's can provide essentially the same services as CRNA's and are significantly less costly, has anyone seen a situation where a MDA will use AA's instead of CRNA's ? This would seem to make a lot more economic sense, it would serve to both decrease the cost of the anesthesia services and would also increase the profit margin for the supervising MDA. Any comments are appreciated.
 
I must admit that I am really tempted to give my opinion but... 😴

CambieMD
 
HA HA HA!

Who wants to bet that this thread will be locked within the next 24 hrs starting now? Place your bets.
 
It's obvious that it's most cost effective to let CNAs do all medical care in the U.S. (NOTE: I said CNAs, or Certified Nurse Assistants, and not CRNAs.) After all, we all know that cost containment is the most important issue when it comes to healthcare. After all, pretty much everyone who goes into the hospital is going to have the same outcome regardless as to whether or not an MD, a DO, a Nurse Practitioner, a PA, an RN, an LPN, a Chiropractor, aCNA, a Podiatrist, or a Naturopath directs the healthcare. Pretty soon, this will be almost self-evident. So, we should always go for the least-expensive option because, pretty much, it's not really going to have any impact on the outcome.

So, everyone should drop out of medical school or CRNA school or PA school and become a CNA.

Just my $0.02. 👍

-Skip
 
AA's can only work in some stated I believe.. The crna organization is lobbying hardcore to squash the AAs. They do not want them to proliferate.
 
It depends on the individual state's "supervision" laws for reimbursement. Georgia and TN allow an MDA to oversee 4 CRNA rooms max. I am not sure but do not think that an MDA can oversee 4 AAs at one time, and still bill for all of them.
As far as AAs being cheaper, don't come to Georgia. The salaries and job descriptions are the same.

I am looking forward to JWK's response, he probably has a great deal to offer on this subject. Vent please don't shut this down until we all get some hard facts on this subject...
 
Argentus said:
This question is directed towards practicing anesthesiologists and residents; given that AA's can provide essentially the same services as CRNA's and are significantly less costly, has anyone seen a situation where a MDA will use AA's instead of CRNA's ? This would seem to make a lot more economic sense, it would serve to both decrease the cost of the anesthesia services and would also increase the profit margin for the supervising MDA. Any comments are appreciated.

Dont misunderstand this question as an inflammatory attempt. For those who are not directly involved in anesthesia or for those who are considering a career in the field, this is a legitimate question regardless of its sensitive nature. Any useful/contributory information is appreciated.
 
Argentus said:
This question is directed towards practicing anesthesiologists and residents; given that AA's can provide essentially the same services as CRNA's and are significantly less costly, has anyone seen a situation where a MDA will use AA's instead of CRNA's ? This would seem to make a lot more economic sense, it would serve to both decrease the cost of the anesthesia services and would also increase the profit margin for the supervising MDA. Any comments are appreciated.

Dude,

I don't know what level you are: pre-med, med student, resident, but your question is a compelling, business-savy question. I'll answer your question from a practicing anesthesiologist's point of view.
The concept is fantastic: hire anesthesia providers at half the price of CRNAs? GEEZ! What owner of a business wouldnt want to do that? Well, its a little more complicated from that. The answer to your question is loyalty.

CRNAs have essentially made my practices functional ever since I emerged from residency. Yes, their maternal society, the AANA, is militant in it's philosophy, and their leaders would like me and every other MDA on earth to be irradiated by the next nuclear bomb. But most practicing CRNAs do not preach their Jim Jone's (the preacher dude who led his entire following to death by drinking cyanide laced Kool-Aid years ago) gospel. They come to work every day at 0630, are cordial to me, my partners, and our patients, and they provide high quality anesthesia care. Yes, they demand a premium salary, but, uh, so do we.
Could I, in good faith to our surgeons and our patients, replace them with AAs? Absolutely. Do I believe AAs provide high quality anesthesia care? No doubt in my mind. Lets face it. Repetition leads to prowess, no matter who you are. Lets not be so egotistical that we believe some other group could not do our job. I've seen PAs do the majority of a CABG, sans the distal anastomoses. Don't kid yourself, folks. Let that PA do a couple hundred distals, and he/she would be competing with the heart surgeons; maybe not on a cerebral level when problems arise, but definitely on a technical level. Same with the AAs vs CRNAs.
So here I am. I've got 14 CRNAs that I enjoy working with. In order to make the transition, I'd have to tell all of them they are being replaced by lower paid professionals. Sorry, I'm not gonna do it. What do I have to gain? Lets see...about 150K total package deal for each CRNA...about 2.1 mil for CRNA salaries....so we hire 14 AAs for about 100k total package, saving 50k per position..700K...divided by four doctors..175K extra annually...sounds GREAT, RIGHT? Wrong. Heres why.
The AA concept is new. Theres not alot of them, at least in the state I live in. Could I find 14 AAs? Probably. But what about attrition? Lemme tell you, Dude, start hiring AAs in a practice that employs CRNAs and your practice will be black-balled by every CRNA within a 500 mile radius. Happened to a dude I know who was anti-CRNA and tried to establish an AA program in our state. And failed. Now, although he still employs CRNAs, I don't think its a very comfortable working environment.
Do I think there will be a competitive issue between CRNAs and AAs some day across the nation? Maybe.
But I, and thousands of other practicing MDAs are already in the game. Our CRNAs are our colleagues, and they have stood by us through shortages, high pressure cases, and administrative transitions. Yes, I, like most MDAs, disagree with many of the AANA's philosophies. But that doesnt mean we come to work with an attitude every day, since most practicing CRNAs are not militant in nature. Our relationship is symbiotic. Yes, I wish our political "leading" groups could find some middle ground, instead of the incessant "WE DONT NEED YOU!" "OH YEAH? WELL WE DONT NEED YOU EITHER!" crap.
We all have our places in the anesthesia provider arena. One can detect the militant posters on SDN, both MD and other anesthesia care providers that frequent this site. One in particular, JWK, wherever he/she is from, posts negatively about everything. Find one of his/her posts, then look at all of his/her posts. They speak for themselves. I have no room in my practice life for militant oriented individuals, be them MD, CRNA, or whatever.
Most people, MDAS, CRNAS, and AAs out in practice, are just that. They are in practice. They go to work every day, try and have a good time, and take care of patients. I choose, maybe naively, to leave the fighting to militants. I'm convinced that MDAs will never be threatened by CRNAs or AAs. There may be some evolution, but we will always have our place in the anesthesia arena.
SO, dude, theres an answer from the real world. I'm loyal to the people that make our practice work, in spite of their leader's spite against me.
Is this a controversial subject? You bet. Is this a controversial reply? Yep.
In summary, I see beyond the initial financial reward.
I'm sure some med students/residents are gonna send smoke into their home from pounding on their computer keys with vigor in negative reply to this post. Thats OK. I'm established, I'm happy, our employees are happy. I leave the boat-rocking up to you.
 
Finally! Nice post.

Off to bed as I am undergoing the knife tomorrow at 6:30 am. A little versed in the A.M. doesn't sound too bad. Night folks.
 
jetproppilot said:
Dude,

I don't know what level you are: pre-med, med student, resident, but your question is a compelling, business-savy question. I'll answer your question from a practicing anesthesiologist's point of view.
The concept is fantastic: hire anesthesia providers at half the price of CRNAs? GEEZ! What owner of a business wouldnt want to do that? Well, its a little more complicated from that. The answer to your question is loyalty.

CRNAs have essentially made my practices functional ever since I emerged from residency. Yes, their maternal society, the AANA, is militant in it's philosophy, and their leaders would like me and every other MDA on earth to be irradiated by the next nuclear bomb. But most practicing CRNAs do not preach their Jim Jone's (the preacher dude who led his entire following to death by drinking cyanide laced Kool-Aid years ago) gospel. They come to work every day at 0630, are cordial to me, my partners, and our patients, and they provide high quality anesthesia care. Yes, they demand a premium salary, but, uh, so do we.
Could I, in good faith to our surgeons and our patients, replace them with AAs? Absolutely. Do I believe AAs provide high quality anesthesia care? No doubt in my mind. Lets face it. Repetition leads to prowess, no matter who you are. Lets not be so egotistical that we believe some other group could not do our job. I've seen PAs do the majority of a CABG, sans the distal anastomoses. Don't kid yourself, folks. Let that PA do a couple hundred distals, and he/she would be competing with the heart surgeons; maybe not on a cerebral level when problems arise, but definitely on a technical level. Same with the AAs vs CRNAs.
So here I am. I've got 14 CRNAs that I enjoy working with. In order to make the transition, I'd have to tell all of them they are being replaced by lower paid professionals. Sorry, I'm not gonna do it. What do I have to gain? Lets see...about 150K total package deal for each CRNA...about 2.1 mil for CRNA salaries....so we hire 14 AAs for about 100k total package, saving 50k per position..700K...divided by four doctors..175K extra annually...sounds GREAT, RIGHT? Wrong. Heres why.
The AA concept is new. Theres not alot of them, at least in the state I live in. Could I find 14 AAs? Probably. But what about attrition? Lemme tell you, Dude, start hiring AAs in a practice that employs CRNAs and your practice will be black-balled by every CRNA within a 500 mile radius. Happened to a dude I know who was anti-CRNA and tried to establish an AA program in our state. And failed. Now, although he still employs CRNAs, I don't think its a very comfortable working environment.
Do I think there will be a competitive issue between CRNAs and AAs some day across the nation? Maybe.
But I, and thousands of other practicing MDAs are already in the game. Our CRNAs are our colleagues, and they have stood by us through shortages, high pressure cases, and administrative transitions. Yes, I, like most MDAs, disagree with many of the AANA's philosophies. But that doesnt mean we come to work with an attitude every day, since most practicing CRNAs are not militant in nature. Our relationship is symbiotic. Yes, I wish our political "leading" groups could find some middle ground, instead of the incessant "WE DONT NEED YOU!" "OH YEAH? WELL WE DONT NEED YOU EITHER!" crap.
We all have our places in the anesthesia provider arena. One can detect the militant posters on SDN, both MD and other anesthesia care providers that frequent this site. One in particular, JWK, wherever he/she is from, posts negatively about everything. Find one of his/her posts, then look at all of his/her posts. They speak for themselves. I have no room in my practice life for militant oriented individuals, be them MD, CRNA, or whatever.
Most people, MDAS, CRNAS, and AAs out in practice, are just that. They are in practice. They go to work every day, try and have a good time, and take care of patients. I choose, maybe naively, to leave the fighting to militants. I'm convinced that MDAs will never be threatened by CRNAs or AAs. There may be some evolution, but we will always have our place in the anesthesia arena.
SO, dude, theres an answer from the real world. I'm loyal to the people that make our practice work, in spite of their leader's spite against me.
Is this a controversial subject? You bet. Is this a controversial reply? Yep.
In summary, I see beyond the initial financial reward.
I'm sure some med students/residents are gonna send smoke into their home from pounding on their computer keys with vigor in negative reply to this post. Thats OK. I'm established, I'm happy, our employees are happy. I leave the boat-rocking up to you.

Thank you for your honest reply. It would seem to me that perhaps there is a strong finanical incentive in maintaining a balance of power between mid and upper level providers, particularly in the realm of anesthesia.
 
Jetprop, you are the best thing to happen to this board since sliced bread! Keep the awesome posts coming... 🙂
 
Argentus said:
Thank you for your honest reply. It would seem to me that perhaps there is a strong finanical incentive in maintaining a balance of power between mid and upper level providers, particularly in the realm of anesthesia.

With all due respect, Argentus, I humbly disagree with your implication that "strong financial incentive" is present particularly in the anesthesia arena.

Call me cynical, but money is a primary determinant force in most secular, and even in some religious (Benny Hann, the crook televangelist who owns a Gulfstream-5, the utopia of all business jets) arenas. Nurse practioner vs. family practice dudes. Physical therapists and their proliferating rehab facilities vs. PMNR and orthopedist docs. Ophthalmologists vs. ODs.

Nope, the balance of power between mid and upper level providers is definitely not confined to the anesthesia arena. Just the nature of everyone wanting Benjamins.
 
Argentus said:
Thank you for your honest reply. It would seem to me that perhaps there is a strong finanical incentive in maintaining a balance of power between mid and upper level providers, particularly in the realm of anesthesia.

With all due respect, Argentus, I humbly disagree with your implication that "strong financial incentive" is present particularly in the anesthesia arena.

Call me cynical, but money is a primary determinant force in most secular, and even in some religious (Benny Hann, the crook televangelist who owns a Gulfstream-5, the utopia of all business jets) arenas. Nurse practioner vs. family practice dudes. Physical therapists and their proliferating rehab facilities vs. PMNR and orthopedist docs. Ophthalmologists vs. ODs.

Nope, the balance of power between mid and upper level providers is definitely not confined to the anesthesia arena. Just the nature of everyone wanting Benjamins. P-Diddy was right. Its all about the benjamins.
 
Where's MacGuyver....I know I had his pager number around here somewhere...
 
My humble apologies in being slow to reply to this thread.

First to the OP - what gives you the impression that AA's are less costly than CRNA's? In almost all ACT practices, an AA and CRNA, with comparable experience, are paid the same. Same job description, same experience, same compensation. Period. There are a couple of groups that apparently have the idea that AA's are discount anesthetists. I'm not sure where this idea started. These groups continue to wonder why AA's are not flocking to their doors. That's why. We do the same thing in an ACT practice as CRNA's. Why would anyone think we should be paid less? Would I go to work for a practice that paid me less than a CRNA doing the same thing? Not a chance. Why would I?

To rn29306 - Unless otherwise restricted by state law, anesthesiologists may supervise up to four anesthetists at a time, whether they be AA, CRNA, or a mix. This has always been the case. 🙂

jetproppilot - You know I'll have to respectfully disagree with much of your post, but first let me refer you to this issue of the ASA Newsletter , which was devoted to AA's. It addresses several of your comments, including the potential for problems with AA's coming into a practice, and gives an excellent series of articles about AA practice.

http://www.asahq.org/Newsletters/2003/03_03/TOC_0303.html

I'm sorry you find some of my other posts to be negative. I'm only trying to defend my profession against those who speak against us and honestly don't know what they're talking about. I hardly consider myself to be militant. Politically active? Sure, why shouldn't I be? Besides my own professional organization, I'm an educational member of both the ASA and my state component society. I was at the ASA Legislative Conference in Washington, DC last week - lots of MD's, plus three AA's (would have loved to have met you if you were there). I / we are not seeking to squash an entire profession as the nurse anesthesia organizations and their more "militant" members seek to do with mine. Nor do we seek independent practice rights - we always have been and always will be part of the anesthesia care TEAM. I have peacefully co-existed for more than 25 years with my CRNA colleagues and MD employers. We all respect each other for the jobs that we do and the knowledge and skill that each of us brings to the table.

AA's are not a large profession, but we are hardly new. We've been around for more than 30 years. We held graduate degrees in anesthesia long before it became common among our CRNA colleagues. As we move into more states, like Florida, there will be an adjustment period as people come to realize that not only are we not the devil-incarnate, that we are well-trained and competent providers of anesthesia care.

Will some CRNA's leave if you hire an AA? Maybe. Maybe not. Most of the time that is not the case. Why would a CRNA, working for an anesthesia care team practice with a good compensation package and lifestyle, leave a practice simply because that practice hires an AA? Really - it makes no sense, except for the politics. And I've already addressed the compensation side - you wouldn't be replacing them with cheaper help. You'd be adding to your practice a well-trained competent anesthesia provider.

I agree 100% with this comment that you made "Most people, MDAS, CRNAS, and AAs out in practice, are just that. They are in practice. They go to work every day, try and have a good time, and take care of patients." AA's don't seek to replace anyone. We just want to practice our profession to the best of our ability.

I'll leave you with a comment by Dr. Tom Price, newly elected Congressman from Georgia (thanks in part to support from the ASA-PAC) who addressed the ASA Legislative Conference last week. His message was "...if you're interested in [insert issue of choice here ], then you're interested in politics".

Being active in politics is not militant. It's important! Being a dues-paying member of a professional organization (pick one - ASA, AMA, state society, whatever) is only the start.

Oh, and Vent - thanks for leaving this thread open.
 
Jetproppilot:

jetproppilot said:
Dude,

I don't know what level you are: pre-med, med student, resident, but your question is a compelling, business-savy question. I'll answer your question from a practicing anesthesiologist's point of view.
The concept is fantastic: hire anesthesia providers at half the price of CRNAs? GEEZ! What owner of a business wouldnt want to do that? Well, its a little more complicated from that. The answer to your question is loyalty.

CRNAs have essentially made my practices functional ever since I emerged from residency. Yes, their maternal society, the AANA, is militant in it's philosophy, and their leaders would like me and every other MDA on earth to be irradiated by the next nuclear bomb. But most practicing CRNAs do not preach their Jim Jone's (the preacher dude who led his entire following to death by drinking cyanide laced Kool-Aid years ago) gospel. They come to work every day at 0630, are cordial to me, my partners, and our patients, and they provide high quality anesthesia care. Yes, they demand a premium salary, but, uh, so do we.
Could I, in good faith to our surgeons and our patients, replace them with AAs? Absolutely. Do I believe AAs provide high quality anesthesia care? No doubt in my mind. Lets face it. Repetition leads to prowess, no matter who you are. Lets not be so egotistical that we believe some other group could not do our job. I've seen PAs do the majority of a CABG, sans the distal anastomoses. Don't kid yourself, folks. Let that PA do a couple hundred distals, and he/she would be competing with the heart surgeons; maybe not on a cerebral level when problems arise, but definitely on a technical level. Same with the AAs vs CRNAs.
So here I am. I've got 14 CRNAs that I enjoy working with. In order to make the transition, I'd have to tell all of them they are being replaced by lower paid professionals. Sorry, I'm not gonna do it. What do I have to gain? Lets see...about 150K total package deal for each CRNA...about 2.1 mil for CRNA salaries....so we hire 14 AAs for about 100k total package, saving 50k per position..700K...divided by four doctors..175K extra annually...sounds GREAT, RIGHT? Wrong. Heres why.
The AA concept is new. Theres not alot of them, at least in the state I live in. Could I find 14 AAs? Probably. But what about attrition? Lemme tell you, Dude, start hiring AAs in a practice that employs CRNAs and your practice will be black-balled by every CRNA within a 500 mile radius. Happened to a dude I know who was anti-CRNA and tried to establish an AA program in our state. And failed. Now, although he still employs CRNAs, I don't think its a very comfortable working environment.
Do I think there will be a competitive issue between CRNAs and AAs some day across the nation? Maybe.
But I, and thousands of other practicing MDAs are already in the game. Our CRNAs are our colleagues, and they have stood by us through shortages, high pressure cases, and administrative transitions. Yes, I, like most MDAs, disagree with many of the AANA's philosophies. But that doesnt mean we come to work with an attitude every day, since most practicing CRNAs are not militant in nature. Our relationship is symbiotic. Yes, I wish our political "leading" groups could find some middle ground, instead of the incessant "WE DONT NEED YOU!" "OH YEAH? WELL WE DONT NEED YOU EITHER!" crap.
We all have our places in the anesthesia provider arena. One can detect the militant posters on SDN, both MD and other anesthesia care providers that frequent this site. One in particular, JWK, wherever he/she is from, posts negatively about everything. Find one of his/her posts, then look at all of his/her posts. They speak for themselves. I have no room in my practice life for militant oriented individuals, be them MD, CRNA, or whatever.
Most people, MDAS, CRNAS, and AAs out in practice, are just that. They are in practice. They go to work every day, try and have a good time, and take care of patients. I choose, maybe naively, to leave the fighting to militants. I'm convinced that MDAs will never be threatened by CRNAs or AAs. There may be some evolution, but we will always have our place in the anesthesia arena.
SO, dude, theres an answer from the real world. I'm loyal to the people that make our practice work, in spite of their leader's spite against me.
Is this a controversial subject? You bet. Is this a controversial reply? Yep.
In summary, I see beyond the initial financial reward.
I'm sure some med students/residents are gonna send smoke into their home from pounding on their computer keys with vigor in negative reply to this post. Thats OK. I'm established, I'm happy, our employees are happy. I leave the boat-rocking up to you.


I am one of the "militants" that you speak of and when I read your post I thought "why am I wasting my time?".

Two questions:

1)Do you think there's a benefit in always having MDAs always supervise CRNAs?

2) What will you do the day the CRNAs that you now employ become your competition?


I'd appreciate your reply.
 
If you're doing "micky mouse" cases in the surgery center, I don't feel that an MDA needs to supervise the CRNAs. But you do need the extra person who should be an experienced, seasoned CRNA. I ,as an MDA, used to work and get paid by a CRNA group and thought it was bunches of fun-- they paid me what I wanted and everything was hunky dory. Would work for them again in a heartbeat if the opportunity arose. Remember, it's all about the dinero. Regards, --Zippy
 
JWK said:
AA's are not a large profession, but we are hardly new. We've been around for more than 30 years. We held graduate degrees in anesthesia long before it became common among our CRNA colleagues.

Now you know I can't let you get away with that...That last sentence is political rhetoric garbage. To someone who doesn't know better, that statement is misleading. It implies that AAs have "better or more" education. Let's see, I can have a BS in whatever usually science, but even teaching or art, never touched a patient in a hospital, take 2 years of graduate work and deliver anesthesia. Nice..
So AAs have been around for 30 years.....Nurse anesthesia was est in late 1800s. Earliest records documenting anesthesia by nurse anesthetist in 1887 in St Vincent's Hosptial in Erie, Pennsylvania. The first educational preparation program for CRNAs est in 1909. In 1909, I seriously doubt there were many other "graduate" programs around. Nurse anesthesia has been an evolution for greater than 100 years as has its educational requirements. AAs show up late in the game and claim "we're the first master's educational program". Congratulations on the misleading politics by your approx 700 members. True, there still remain CRNAs who graduated from the diploma programs, but most programs now have evolved to a 31 month program instead of typical 28 month program, with further lengthening in the future.
 
jet pilot:

i have to disagree with you
you like the crna's rite now cause they help you make the cash you are making and they need your supervision
wait til the day they get full autonomy and become your competition and your salary equals theirs (with them having to go thru 10 yrs less of education)
then i will ask you how great the crna's are and how you love them
 
zippy2u said:
If you're doing "micky mouse" cases in the surgery center, I don't feel that an MDA needs to supervise the CRNAs. But you do need the extra person who should be an experienced, seasoned CRNA. I ,as an MDA, used to work and get paid by a CRNA group and thought it was bunches of fun-- they paid me what I wanted and everything was hunky dory. Would work for them again in a heartbeat if the opportunity arose. Remember, it's all about the dinero. Regards, --Zippy


If you put it that way, I guess it does not matter what happens to the field of anesthesiology in the end. Everyone is in for the money so might as well join the fun. Hearing practicing MDAs share their true motives should be an eye opener for the newbies coming into the field.

I would be willing to bet my lifetime earnings that if an initiative was put on the ballot which kept anesthesiologists from hiring CRNAs, most practicing MDAs would vote against it.

I have always said that greed is the common denominator here and I am glad some of you are corroborating my assumptions.

The moral of the story is that no one really cares about what happens in the end. Everyone is out to line their pockets with as much cash as possible without a care in the world....What was I thinking?

Let's not, in the end, wonder why things are the way they are. I think we can figure the reason why by reading hearing directly from the practicing MDAs.
 
It is not economically feasible with the incredibly low reimbursement rate today to run 4 docs in say a 4 room OR, even in a surgery center. You make the most money with 4 CRNAs and the 5th wheel doc to start ivs and handle preops because surg ctrs move pts through and homey got no time for delays. You ever preop 50 -60 pts in a 8 hr. day?-- Your mind is numb and callouses spring up on your fingers like knots. I'd rather do my own cases because there is less liability but the money ain't there anymore like the glory days.
 
Hmmm...well, will the infiltration and encroachment of midlevel practitioners stop? It seems to permeate into every single specialty of medicine. I guess there is no use fighting it. Instead, we all should learn how to use it to our advantage and profit from it. I wholeheartedly agree with jp's approach and mindset. You will only be giving yourself undue stress and ulcers constantly fighting and bickering over who is the best and most qualified. Instead, hire that CRNA and/or AA and figure out how he/she can increase the productivity of your practice and make you more dinero :meanie:
 
zippy2u said:
It is not economically feasible with the incredibly low reimbursement rate today to run 4 docs in say a 4 room OR, even in a surgery center. You make the most money with 4 CRNAs and the 5th wheel doc to start ivs and handle preops because surg ctrs move pts through and homey got no time for delays. You ever preop 50 -60 pts in a 8 hr. day?-- Your mind is numb and callouses spring up on your fingers like knots. I'd rather do my own cases because there is less liability but the money ain't there anymore like the glory days.

I think it may be a good idea to flood the market with AAs and CRNAs and foster competition among them. It fits the principle of a market economy. Hell, why not start a CRNA school in the philippines or mexico and bring them by the truckloads and pay them a dime on the dollar? US hospitals already do this.
 
zippy2u said:
It is not economically feasible with the incredibly low reimbursement rate today to run 4 docs in say a 4 room OR, even in a surgery center. You make the most money with 4 CRNAs and the 5th wheel doc to start ivs and handle preops because surg ctrs move pts through and homey got no time for delays. You ever preop 50 -60 pts in a 8 hr. day?-- Your mind is numb and callouses spring up on your fingers like knots. I'd rather do my own cases because there is less liability but the money ain't there anymore like the glory days.


Why is it "not economically feasible"? Please explain. The costs to the health care system are the same either way. So it is not feasible for whom?

The "cost-effectiveness" of CRNA's has never been realized. It is a myth akin to the unicorn or bigfoot. The salaries of CRNA's are relevant only to CRNA's. Payors reimburse the same regardless of the "provider" but CRNA's just want a bigger cut - and so they lobby - and hope everyone else is stupid enough to believe in this non-existent 'cost-effectiveness'.

Yet, we will hear again and again and again about what is 'economically feasible' and what is 'cost-effective'. I challenge anyone out there to make the case WITH NUMBERS and without making huge leaps like dramatic cuts in medicare reimbursement or hospitals using subsidies from anesthesia collections to support outpatient pharmacies (or some other dept. in the red).
Go ahead, paint a scenario in which every anesthesiologist in the country is running four rooms. Won't make a difference.


Alright folks, get to it - prove your point - right here in the 'anesthesia economics' thread. I challenge you all. Making the case seems so simple, but it won't happen.


...except maybe from the perspective on the anesthesiologist - on his way to the bank!
 
MDEntropy said:
Why is it "not economically feasible"? Please explain. The costs to the health care system are the same either way. So it is not feasible for whom?

The "cost-effectiveness" of CRNA's has never been realized. It is a myth akin to the unicorn or bigfoot. The salaries of CRNA's are relevant only to CRNA's. Payors reimburse the same regardless of the "provider" but CRNA's just want a bigger cut - and so they lobby - and hope everyone else is stupid enough to believe in this non-existent 'cost-effectiveness'.

Yet, we will hear again and again and again about what is 'economically feasible' and what is 'cost-effective'. I challenge anyone out there to make the case WITH NUMBERS and without making huge leaps like dramatic cuts in medicare reimbursement or hospitals using subsidies from anesthesia collections to support outpatient pharmacies (or some other dept. in the red).
Go ahead, paint a scenario in which every anesthesiologist in the country is running four rooms. Won't make a difference.


Alright folks, get to it - prove your point - right here in the 'anesthesia economics' thread. I challenge you all. Making the case seems so simple, but it won't happen.


...except maybe from the perspective on the anesthesiologist - on his way to the bank!

One question I have is how much of a difference it would make to work by yourself vs employing CRNAs. Say I would be happy with 200k a year. What is my incentive to hire a CRNA if I am aiming for that kinda salary? Can I earn that working 50-60 hours a week on my own?
 
jetproppilot is EXACTLY why CRNAs are in the position they are in right now.

Notice his nonchalant "why cant we all get along" attitude.

Many people have called him out, stating "how will you feel about it when CRNAs become your principal competitors"?

The short answer to this is that jpp wont have to worry about it, because he will have already made his money and cashed out before that happens. Thats the way it works with all these MDA ****** who are selling the profession down the river. They dont give a damn about long term future, as long as they can hire 50 CRNAs and make an extra 100k per year they dont give a **** if the profession is hurt as a result. They will be sipping margaritas on their yacht by the time CRNAs reach sufficient critical mass to take on MDAs directly.

As I've told you guys time and time again, its these MDAs who are the serious threat to the profession. They are the ones letting CRNAs run cases totally unsupervised. They are the ones giving the CRNA lobby the ammo they need to make their case in legislatures (i.e. our MDAs already allow us to do X, Y, Z unsupervised so we might as well codify that into new state regs).

Without MDAs like jpp running rampant, CRNAs could make a lot of noise but they wouldnt have any clinical data to back up their claims that they can replace MDAs. Jpp and his MDA ilk are the ones who give the CRNAs all this clinical data. The CRNA lobby has a plastic toy gun without MDAs, but with the cooperation of jpp and his boys, they have now turned that plastic gun into a 50 caliber machine gun.
 
toughlife said:
One question I have is how much of a difference it would make to work by yourself vs employing CRNAs. Say I would be happy with 200k a year. What is my incentive to hire a CRNA if I am aiming for that kinda salary? Can I earn that working 50-60 hours a week on my own?

Thats the crux of the matter. MDA greed is why we got into this situation to begin with.

IF MDAs would simply be happy making their 250k per year, they wouldnt need CRNAS. But NOOOOOOO, making 250k per year isnt good enough for MDAs like jpp. He wants to push 350k or 500k and to make that kind of money you need to ***** the profession out to CRNAs.

Why make 250k just running your own cases, when you have "supervise" 4 CRNAs simultaneously and make 350k. Of course that usually means your "supervision" is a total sham and the CRNAs are doing their cases totally unsupervised (even in a different hospital).
 
toughlife said:
Jetproppilot:




I am one of the "militants" that you speak of and when I read your post I thought "why am I wasting my time?".

Two questions:

1)Do you think there's a benefit in always having MDAs always supervise CRNAs?

2) What will you do the day the CRNAs that you now employ become your competition?


I'd appreciate your reply.

And you are "militant" in what fashion?

Heres the answers to your questions:

1)yes

2) I love the way you phrase this question. Kinda reminds me of those irritating trial lawyers. Thats OK, my defense attorney objects to your question as leading, so you're gonna have to rephrase it. Aw, what the heck- I'll rephrase it for you. I assume you realize your question is predicting an outcome- in my book that means you're either telepathic or you're just trying to irritating.
As I've said in my previous posts, I don't feel threatened by CRNAs, and I don't see the AANA eradicating us as you suggest.

Hey MacGyver, were you abused as a child or something? Lets see- you've accused me of being greedy, leaving CRNAs unsupervised, blah blah.
Ever been to my practice? Since you don't even know where I live, does it make you feel better to post shock-value statements pointed at an individual you know nothing about? Hey, its all right. Type away.

I don't have to justify my views to you, nor do I feel the need to blast your views. Last time I checked it was OK to think independently and form viewpoints/opinions based on experiences, here in the USA.
You must still be a resident. I remember all the hype surrounding the big MD/CRNA war at my resident institution. Funny how much of a non issue it is now. If it was as threatening as you imply, why arent our CRNAs acting out? Why arent they rebelling, and TAKING OVER our contracts? I came out of residency in 1996, and from the propeganda I was fed, I hated CRNAs too. Took a few years for me to learn the real story.
That was 9 years ago, and again, there were abrasive dudes just like yourself saying the same **** you are. I'm still waiting for the CRNAs to take over our contracts, like you implied will happen. Hey, if you are so worried about it, go into something else.
 
Still going in circles? When will this ever end? And what is wrong with "why can't we all get along attitude" ? I personally like that atmosphere.
 
sevoflurane said:
Still going in circles? When will this ever end? And what is wrong with "why can't we all get along attitude" ? I personally like that atmosphere.

I'll second that
 
In all fairness, I dont see how anyone can denigrate the abilities of AA's to perform the task of administering anesthesia if they have proven themselves capable in the O.R. It seems somewhat hypocritical for CNRA's to claim that AA's do not have as much education and are hence not as qualified to administer anesthesia, because this is the exact same argument the MDA's use about the CRNA's; to which the CNRA's reply "that clinical trials have shown no difference in outcome with either anesthesia provider (MDA or CNRA)". The tenet that acceptable anesthesia can be administered by providers with a lower level of education than MDA's is the centerpiece of the CNRA argument being put forth to state legislators in order to pass laws allowing CNRA independent practicing rights. To me this is a clear precedent. If AA's get their act together and bring forth their own similar argument to lawmakers, there would be very little to stand in their way of having similar practicing rights as the CNRA's are now enjoying. In addition, should the AA's realize this opportunity and maintain their professional fees at a reasonable rate, then cooperation between MDA's and AA's would make good financial sense. Just my observations on the matter.
 
MacGyver said:
Of course that usually means your "supervision" is a total sham and the CRNAs are doing their cases totally unsupervised (even in a different hospital).

Yeah, OK Dude. Whatever you say. Its obvious you're talking way above your projected "experience" level.
 
Argentus said:
In all fairness, I dont see how anyone can denigrate the abilities of AA's to perform the task of administering anesthesia if they have proven themselves capable in the O.R. If AA's get their act together and bring forth their own similar argument to lawmakers, there would be very little to stand in their way of having similar practicing rights as the CNRA's are now enjoying. In addition, should the AA's realize this opportunity and maintain their professional fees at a reasonable rate, then cooperation between MDA's and AA's would make good financial sense. Just my observations on the matter.

We bring forth this argument constantly, but as you might imagine, nurse anesthesia organizations fight us every step of the way. It's not a matter of us "getting our act together". We ALWAYS have opposition when we seek to expand our practice into another state.

Also, please remember that AA's have never sought independent practice rights. We will always be part of the ACT concept. In practices that employ both CRNA's and AA's, you would never see a difference between the two without looking at the nametag.

We are reimbursed in the same way that CRNA's are. Because we work for anesthesia groups or hospitals, we don't set a professional fee. We don't bill independently for our services.
 
sevoflurane said:
Still going in circles? When will this ever end? And what is wrong with "why can't we all get along attitude" ? I personally like that atmosphere.

You can't imagine how much AA's would like that!
 
MacGyver said:
jetproppilot is EXACTLY why CRNAs are in the position they are in right now.

Notice his nonchalant "why cant we all get along" attitude.

Many people have called him out, stating "how will you feel about it when CRNAs become your principal competitors"?

The short answer to this is that jpp wont have to worry about it, because he will have already made his money and cashed out before that happens. Thats the way it works with all these MDA ****** who are selling the profession down the river. They dont give a damn about long term future, as long as they can hire 50 CRNAs and make an extra 100k per year they dont give a **** if the profession is hurt as a result. They will be sipping margaritas on their yacht by the time CRNAs reach sufficient critical mass to take on MDAs directly.

As I've told you guys time and time again, its these MDAs who are the serious threat to the profession. They are the ones letting CRNAs run cases totally unsupervised. They are the ones giving the CRNA lobby the ammo they need to make their case in legislatures (i.e. our MDAs already allow us to do X, Y, Z unsupervised so we might as well codify that into new state regs).

Without MDAs like jpp running rampant, CRNAs could make a lot of noise but they wouldnt have any clinical data to back up their claims that they can replace MDAs. Jpp and his MDA ilk are the ones who give the CRNAs all this clinical data. The CRNA lobby has a plastic toy gun without MDAs, but with the cooperation of jpp and his boys, they have now turned that plastic gun into a 50 caliber machine gun.

OK, out of lurk mode on this forum.

I'm a CRNA, applying to med school for 2006, and hopefully to an MDA residency one day.

Jetproppilot and I go WAY back. He and I were resident and SRNA at the same hospital at the same time (separate programs). We did several training rotations together, purely by happenstance. He and I worked together for several years after training, up until very recently. A few rambling replies to various previous posts on this thread:

1. CRNAs don't require MDA-specific supervision BY STATE LAW anywhere. AAs do require MDA-specific supervision everywhere.

2. In approximately half the states, CRNAs practice completely independently of physician supervision BY STATE LAW. The other states require a generic physician or dentist somewhere in the CRNA's chain of command, mainly due to technical details of pharmacy rules, again BY STATE LAW.

3. State law can always be superceded by local hospital by-laws if more restrictive, but cannot be looser than state law, when it comes to supervision.
If Dr. Big Kahuna Surgeon at a hospital in a no-supervision state demands an MDA, you can bet the hospital will have MDAs supervising the CRNAs, even though BY STATE LAW the CRNAs practice independently. If the local MDAs play their politics right (and hey, that's just part of life and I accept it) they get themselves mandated by hospital staff by-laws, even if not required by state law. CRNAs becoming direct competition at XYZ Hospital can be eliminated simply by having MDA requirements written in the by-laws. Most surgeons support that philosophy, irregardless of their correct/incorrect knowledge base of "captain of the ship" doctrine currently held in medicolegal circles.

4. The supervision ratio requirement is strictly concerned with Medicare reimbursement issues. It is not STATE LAW. The opt-out issue also falls under this category.

5. As Jetproppilot alluded to previously, the vast majority of experienced CRNAs and MDAs enjoy a cordial working relationship, where each respects the other's technical skills, book knowledge, and unique background each brings to the OR (CRNAs with the nursing perspective of patient care, MDAs with the physician perspective. Both are invaluable, and the two perspectives working together are greater than the sum of their parts.)
A senior MDA partner in my MDA/CRNA group frequently tells our SRNAs, "the safest anesthesia is not an MDA alone, it's not a CRNA alone, it's MDA and CRNA working together."

Maybe this is not the norm everywhere, but my MDAs work their asses off. They are the antithesis of lazy lounge lizards. Our workload simply could not be accomplished without an MDA/CRNA team effort.

6. I've worked in all types of anesthesia settings:
-- MDA/CRNA group at large private hospital, CRNAs on the stool, MDAs floating
-- unsupervised CRNA at a teaching university hospital
-- group practice where MDA is on his own stool as I'm on mine
-- COMPLETELY by myself on an aircraft carrier at sea, where I was the entire anesthesia department (thought which came to my mind one evening: who's going to do MY anesthesia if I should need an emergent appy??)

Objectively speaking, I'm very comfortable doing it all by myself, except perhaps CABGs and some of the more exotic regional blocks. But, there is no such thing as too much IV access, just as there is no such thing as too many heads and hands at the head of the table, especially when the brown stuff starts flowing. I feel the vast majority of anesthesia providers I work with agree.

7. Jetproppilot and his cohorts probably make 3 times what I do. Good for them. They've earned every penny, based on the duration and expense of their education and training, ultimate supervisory responsibility, inherent sub-conscious stress of their position, and (when you stop to think about it) the incredible responsibility taken on each time an anesthetic is initiated. We've become so good at what we do that it looks simple, easy, and cookbook to the outsider.

8. Main differences between CRNAs and AAs.

-- CRNAs start anesthesia training after earning a BSN and working several years in an ICU setting as an RN. Most AAs have a BS, but no patient care experience (except perhaps EMT or resp tech) when starting anesthesia training.

-- CRNAs are considered "licensed independent practitioners" in the military and are deployed by themselves to the combat areas. AAs are not utilized in the military.

-- By law, CRNAs do not require an MDA anywhere. AAs must have an MDA (not just any old physician) always "immediately available." If you have one MDA supervising AAs, and that MDA gives an AA a lunch break, the MDA is no longer "immediately available" to supervise the other AAs on the stool. Walking a very fine legal line there, especially vis a vis federal reimbursement. Not a problem if you have one MDA giving a CRNA lunch break, with other independent CRNAs still on their own stools.

9. Working at an ambulatory surgery center as the CRNA "floater," doing 50 preop assessments before 3pm. Yes, been there, done that. It's called "part of the job" and I'm free to find work elsewhere if I wished. But given how the vast vast majority of people who have ever walked the face of the earth would gladly trade their huge problems for my penny-ante annoyances, I count my blessings and thank God every night that I have the opportunity and privilege to take care of helpless, scared, hurting people in their moment of need. Even if it means going 50 preops, with smiling face and non-judgemental persona.
 
The attitudes expressed by JPP and trinityalumns are exactly those that I hope to have in starting my anesthesia residency in '06 and in practice beyond. That practice model is what we should all strive for...and this is the model that I believe is in the best interest of our patients.

Unfortunately, it is also the antithesis of what we see frequently on this MB, and in the leadership of the Nurse Anesthetist Assn, which has it's stated opinion that CRNA = MDA in terms of health care delivery. The bitter posts here on SDN are reactions to this philosophy that CRNA is simply a more cost-effectuive version of MDA. I don't let that get under my skin, but I do understand why others cringe at the notion of after four years of med school, four more of residency, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, you are ripe to be replaced by a mid-level practitioner, as highlighted in the recent US News article. This perception of midlevel=MD is growing in popularity, and needs to be refuted by those who know better. Likewise, it is up to those of us with cooler heads, and a focus on the big picture, to keep in line the most fervent advocates of our respective fields' interests.

It's great to see those who have actually been out there in the real world tipping their caps to their colleagues for a job well done. IMHO, the current balance works well, and dramatically upsetting that balance in one way or another as the business of medicine evolves can hurt all levels of practitioners, and most significantly our patients. Let's continue to work together, and value what our respective fields bring to patient care.

Best of luck in your practices and in med school!
 
MacGyver said:
jetproppilot is EXACTLY why CRNAs are in the position they are in right now.

Notice his nonchalant "why cant we all get along" attitude.

Many people have called him out, stating "how will you feel about it when CRNAs become your principal competitors"?

The short answer to this is that jpp wont have to worry about it, because he will have already made his money and cashed out before that happens. Thats the way it works with all these MDA ****** who are selling the profession down the river. They dont give a damn about long term future, as long as they can hire 50 CRNAs and make an extra 100k per year they dont give a **** if the profession is hurt as a result. They will be sipping margaritas on their yacht by the time CRNAs reach sufficient critical mass to take on MDAs directly.

As I've told you guys time and time again, its these MDAs who are the serious threat to the profession. They are the ones letting CRNAs run cases totally unsupervised. They are the ones giving the CRNA lobby the ammo they need to make their case in legislatures (i.e. our MDAs already allow us to do X, Y, Z unsupervised so we might as well codify that into new state regs).

Without MDAs like jpp running rampant, CRNAs could make a lot of noise but they wouldnt have any clinical data to back up their claims that they can replace MDAs. Jpp and his MDA ilk are the ones who give the CRNAs all this clinical data. The CRNA lobby has a plastic toy gun without MDAs, but with the cooperation of jpp and his boys, they have now turned that plastic gun into a 50 caliber machine gun.

Dude, a great personality trait to work on is to learn to talk AT or BELOW your experience and knowledge base. Not above it. Your post shows that you really, really have no clue. Just another egotistical MD resident.
 
blocks said:
The attitudes expressed by JPP and trinityalumns are exactly those that I hope to have in starting my anesthesia residency in '06 and in practice beyond. That practice model is what we should all strive for...and this is the model that I believe is in the best interest of our patients.

Unfortunately, it is also the antithesis of what we see frequently on this MB, and in the leadership of the Nurse Anesthetist Assn, which has it's stated opinion that CRNA = MDA in terms of health care delivery. The bitter posts here on SDN are reactions to this philosophy that CRNA is simply a more cost-effectuive version of MDA. I don't let that get under my skin, but I do understand why others cringe at the notion of after four years of med school, four more of residency, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, you are ripe to be replaced by a mid-level practitioner, as highlighted in the recent US News article. This perception of midlevel=MD is growing in popularity, and needs to be refuted by those who know better. Likewise, it is up to those of us with cooler heads, and a focus on the big picture, to keep in line the most fervent advocates of our respective fields' interests.

It's great to see those who have actually been out there in the real world tipping their caps to their colleagues for a job well done. IMHO, the current balance works well, and dramatically upsetting that balance in one way or another as the business of medicine evolves can hurt all levels of practitioners, and most significantly our patients. Let's continue to work together, and value what our respective fields bring to patient care.

Best of luck in your practices and in med school!

You touched on a few monetary issues above, and as the theme of this thread is economics let me give you a few bones to chew on. These thoughts probably aren't politically correct:

1. As a cardiac ICU RN for two years before CRNA school, I saw first-hand how 80 cents of every healthcare dollar in this country is spent on the last few weeks of life, simply prolonging the inevitable. Why? Family ignorance, denial, or demands that "everything be done" (of course, they're not paying for it), with the ever-present spectre of trial lawyers watching over your shoulder. Let's not forget that the whiz-bang, gee-whiz technology of modern healthcare and pharmaceuticals ain't cheap, miraculous as it is. And everyone wants the very latest, very best, cost be damned. Use something else and the lawyers will fry you.

2. I've been doing anesthesia (including school at a large, inner city university hospital) for 12 years. Excluding diabetics, the vast majority of patients wind up in the hospital due to detrimental lifestlyle and nutritional choices. For instance, I have never done a CABG on a non-smoking, non-diabetic pt. Choices which are undertaken day in and day out for decades, then the pt comes to the hospital expecting a miraculous silver bullet (oh, and they're not paying for it.)

3. The upcoming ageing of the baby boomers will stress healthcare resources like you've never seen. Eventual probability? By 2015 we're all going to be working for Uncle Sam through outright or defacto nationalized healthcare, with a sliver of the population being able to afford private healthcare on the side (look at Canada and the UK). With that being said, Uncle Sam is always looking for the lowest bidder, ie, allied non-physician providers.

4. We got ourselves into this mess during World War 2, due to strict wage controls. About the only thing civilian employers could do to give raises was in the form of benefits, and the most effective was third-party healthcare where the patient no longer paid directly out of his pocket. In the years since 1945, that has morphed into the health insurance/HMO/PPO/alphabet soup multibillion dollar industry of today, WHERE THE COMPANIES' MAIN MOTIVE IS TO MAKE A PROFIT, and the pt still has no real concept of the cost of their healthcare.

Did you know the AMA was initially against Medicare when President Johnson proposed it in 1965? Their reason: they did not want big government getting involved in healthcare. Back then, most indigent healthcare was covered through outright charity care, cost-shifting, and other reasonable accounting methods. The AMA's resistance to Medicare had nothing to do with finances. But the media raked them over the coals, accusing them of being insensitive, unfeeling, etc. The AMA caved in and you see now that they were right.

To get a glimpse of nationalized healthcare, just walk through any VA inpatient hospital. The rank-and-file employees care about their patients. The bureaucracy, however, only exists to spawn more administrative endospores which cannot be eradicated once spawned. In fact, VA scientists have recently discovered a new element: Administratium. No useful application, excess atomic mass, rapidly fissuring into more useless isotopes.

5. Tort reform would go a long way to solving some of these problems. That won't happen as long as the majority of politicians are trial lawyers.
 
trinityalumnus said:
OK, out of lurk mode on this forum.

I'm a CRNA, applying to med school for 2006, and hopefully to an MDA residency one day.

Jetproppilot and I go WAY back. He and I were resident and SRNA at the same hospital at the same time (separate programs). We did several training rotations together, purely by happenstance. He and I worked together for several years after training, up until very recently. A few rambling replies to various previous posts on this thread:

1. CRNAs don't require MDA-specific supervision BY STATE LAW anywhere. AAs do require MDA-specific supervision everywhere.

2. In approximately half the states, CRNAs practice completely independently of physician supervision BY STATE LAW. The other states require a generic physician or dentist somewhere in the CRNA's chain of command, mainly due to technical details of pharmacy rules, again BY STATE LAW.

3. State law can always be superceded by local hospital by-laws if more restrictive, but cannot be looser than state law, when it comes to supervision.
If Dr. Big Kahuna Surgeon at a hospital in a no-supervision state demands an MDA, you can bet the hospital will have MDAs supervising the CRNAs, even though BY STATE LAW the CRNAs practice independently. If the local MDAs play their politics right (and hey, that's just part of life and I accept it) they get themselves mandated by hospital staff by-laws, even if not required by state law. CRNAs becoming direct competition at XYZ Hospital can be eliminated simply by having MDA requirements written in the by-laws. Most surgeons support that philosophy, irregardless of their correct/incorrect knowledge base of "captain of the ship" doctrine currently held in medicolegal circles.

4. The supervision ratio requirement is strictly concerned with Medicare reimbursement issues. It is not STATE LAW. The opt-out issue also falls under this category.

5. As Jetproppilot alluded to previously, the vast majority of experienced CRNAs and MDAs enjoy a cordial working relationship, where each respects the other's technical skills, book knowledge, and unique background each brings to the OR (CRNAs with the nursing perspective of patient care, MDAs with the physician perspective. Both are invaluable, and the two perspectives working together are greater than the sum of their parts.)
A senior MDA partner in my MDA/CRNA group frequently tells our SRNAs, "the safest anesthesia is not an MDA alone, it's not a CRNA alone, it's MDA and CRNA working together."

Maybe this is not the norm everywhere, but my MDAs work their asses off. They are the antithesis of lazy lounge lizards. Our workload simply could not be accomplished without an MDA/CRNA team effort.

6. I've worked in all types of anesthesia settings:
-- MDA/CRNA group at large private hospital, CRNAs on the stool, MDAs floating
-- unsupervised CRNA at a teaching university hospital
-- group practice where MDA is on his own stool as I'm on mine
-- COMPLETELY by myself on an aircraft carrier at sea, where I was the entire anesthesia department (thought which came to my mind one evening: who's going to do MY anesthesia if I should need an emergent appy??)

Objectively speaking, I'm very comfortable doing it all by myself, except perhaps CABGs and some of the more exotic regional blocks. But, there is no such thing as too much IV access, just as there is no such thing as too many heads and hands at the head of the table, especially when the brown stuff starts flowing. I feel the vast majority of anesthesia providers I work with agree.

7. Jetproppilot and his cohorts probably make 3 times what I do. Good for them. They've earned every penny, based on the duration and expense of their education and training, ultimate supervisory responsibility, inherent sub-conscious stress of their position, and (when you stop to think about it) the incredible responsibility taken on each time an anesthetic is initiated. We've become so good at what we do that it looks simple, easy, and cookbook to the outsider.

8. Main differences between CRNAs and AAs.

-- CRNAs start anesthesia training after earning a BSN and working several years in an ICU setting as an RN. Most AAs have a BS, but no patient care experience (except perhaps EMT or resp tech) when starting anesthesia training.

-- CRNAs are considered "licensed independent practitioners" in the military and are deployed by themselves to the combat areas. AAs are not utilized in the military.

-- By law, CRNAs do not require an MDA anywhere. AAs must have an MDA (not just any old physician) always "immediately available." If you have one MDA supervising AAs, and that MDA gives an AA a lunch break, the MDA is no longer "immediately available" to supervise the other AAs on the stool. Walking a very fine legal line there, especially vis a vis federal reimbursement. Not a problem if you have one MDA giving a CRNA lunch break, with other independent CRNAs still on their own stools.

9. Working at an ambulatory surgery center as the CRNA "floater," doing 50 preop assessments before 3pm. Yes, been there, done that. It's called "part of the job" and I'm free to find work elsewhere if I wished. But given how the vast vast majority of people who have ever walked the face of the earth would gladly trade their huge problems for my penny-ante annoyances, I count my blessings and thank God every night that I have the opportunity and privilege to take care of helpless, scared, hurting people in their moment of need. Even if it means going 50 preops, with smiling face and non-judgemental persona.


So why go to med school if you are already doing well?
 
toughlife said:
So why go to med school if you are already doing well?

Because medical school/medicine isn't always about the almighty dollar? :idea:
 
Another fructified thread! Success! I'm waiting for the infantile low blows to come flying out now. Exasperatingly, I can actually see Macgyvers threads now because you guys quote him.

The achilles heel of the ignore function.
 
Without a doubt we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Medicare. As the boomers creep towards retiement age, Medicare reimbursement will continue to shrink, and midlevel involvement will increase as a means to reduce costs. Of course, I have read that physician salaries represent less than 5% of total health care expenditures, but most doc's salaries are not allowed the same free market flexbility as are say, pharmaceutical cvosts, etc.

So we "rich" docs (the policy makers don't usually tend to take into account my $200K debt load) are ripe for the plucking, and unfortunately specialties like anesthesia will likely be hit significantly, especially when you consider the average age of surgical pts in 2015. Cardiac anesthesia will likely go the way of CT surgery in the future, I was told by more than 1 top program chair on the interview trail to reconsider my interest in cards anesthesia because of the future outlook. Damn good thing I didn't get into medicine OR anesthesia for the money.

Gotta have the love of the game!


trinityalumnus said:
You touched on a few monetary issues above, and as the theme of this thread is economics let me give you a few bones to chew on. These thoughts probably aren't politically correct:

1. As a cardiac ICU RN for two years before CRNA school, I saw first-hand how 80 cents of every healthcare dollar in this country is spent on the last few weeks of life, simply prolonging the inevitable. Why? Family ignorance, denial, or demands that "everything be done" (of course, they're not paying for it), with the ever-present spectre of trial lawyers watching over your shoulder. Let's not forget that the whiz-bang, gee-whiz technology of modern healthcare and pharmaceuticals ain't cheap, miraculous as it is. And everyone wants the very latest, very best, cost be damned. Use something else and the lawyers will fry you.

2. I've been doing anesthesia (including school at a large, inner city university hospital) for 12 years. Excluding diabetics, the vast majority of patients wind up in the hospital due to detrimental lifestlyle and nutritional choices. For instance, I have never done a CABG on a non-smoking, non-diabetic pt. Choices which are undertaken day in and day out for decades, then the pt comes to the hospital expecting a miraculous silver bullet (oh, and they're not paying for it.)

3. The upcoming ageing of the baby boomers will stress healthcare resources like you've never seen. Eventual probability? By 2015 we're all going to be working for Uncle Sam through outright or defacto nationalized healthcare, with a sliver of the population being able to afford private healthcare on the side (look at Canada and the UK). With that being said, Uncle Sam is always looking for the lowest bidder, ie, allied non-physician providers.

4. We got ourselves into this mess during World War 2, due to strict wage controls. About the only thing civilian employers could do to give raises was in the form of benefits, and the most effective was third-party healthcare where the patient no longer paid directly out of his pocket. In the years since 1945, that has morphed into the health insurance/HMO/PPO/alphabet soup multibillion dollar industry of today, WHERE THE COMPANIES' MAIN MOTIVE IS TO MAKE A PROFIT, and the pt still has no real concept of the cost of their healthcare.

Did you know the AMA was initially against Medicare when President Johnson proposed it in 1965? Their reason: they did not want big government getting involved in healthcare. Back then, most indigent healthcare was covered through outright charity care, cost-shifting, and other reasonable accounting methods. The AMA's resistance to Medicare had nothing to do with finances. But the media raked them over the coals, accusing them of being insensitive, unfeeling, etc. The AMA caved in and you see now that they were right.

To get a glimpse of nationalized healthcare, just walk through any VA inpatient hospital. The rank-and-file employees care about their patients. The bureaucracy, however, only exists to spawn more administrative endospores which cannot be eradicated once spawned. In fact, VA scientists have recently discovered a new element: Administratium. No useful application, excess atomic mass, rapidly fissuring into more useless isotopes.

5. Tort reform would go a long way to solving some of these problems. That won't happen as long as the majority of politicians are trial lawyers.
 
I am back and almost 24 hours have passed since my last post. I want to steer this thread back towards economics. I beg you all, again, to make the case for CRNA cost-effectiveness. BUT, you must make the case WITH NUMBERS (even though the numbers may be hypothetical).

C'mon folks, lets see it.
 
toughlife said:
So why go to med school if you are already doing well?

I've copied, below, my reply to that exact same question posed on a different forum:

>>> Thanks to everyone who replied to my original post, which started this thread.
To answer the questions posed in the interim:

(a) Med School Debt: I've got 16 years combined active duty and reserve military service. I've already contacted the motherhouse in Washington DC about a military scholarship for med school, and the age waiver is almost automatic based on my prior service.

(b) Work as a CRNA for a few more years and retire young: the word "retire" is not in my personal vocabulary. Without trying to sound preachy, I have a very strong religious foundation to my life and my goals. I don't feel I was given my particular gifts to retire early, when there are people out there in need of my services. Want a scary read? The retirement versus new grad rate of both CRNAs and anesthesiologists is not pretty from the general public's view. It's great from the anesthesia job security view. With the ageing of the baby boomers, demand for services is projected to skyrocket over the next two decades.

(c) Just take the path of least resistance and remain a CRNA / why med school?:
For lack of a better word (and please forgive if this sounds conceited) I'm stagnant. I need further academic and professional challenge/stimulation, expanded scope of responsibility and practice, and because it's what I believe I'm called to pursue. If I'm wrong, the door won't open.

My ideal scenario: get accepted for 2006 with military scholarship in hand, switch from reserves to fulltime active duty, and complete a military medical career taking care of our troops. The military routinely gives career age waivers to physicians up to age 70.
 
trinityalumnus said:
I've copied, below, my reply to that exact same question posed on a different forum:

>>> Thanks to everyone who replied to my original post, which started this thread.
To answer the questions posed in the interim:

(a) Med School Debt: I've got 16 years combined active duty and reserve military service. I've already contacted the motherhouse in Washington DC about a military scholarship for med school, and the age waiver is almost automatic based on my prior service.

(b) Work as a CRNA for a few more years and retire young: the word "retire" is not in my personal vocabulary. Without trying to sound preachy, I have a very strong religious foundation to my life and my goals. I don't feel I was given my particular gifts to retire early, when there are people out there in need of my services. Want a scary read? The retirement versus new grad rate of both CRNAs and anesthesiologists is not pretty from the general public's view. It's great from the anesthesia job security view. With the ageing of the baby boomers, demand for services is projected to skyrocket over the next two decades.

(c) Just take the path of least resistance and remain a CRNA / why med school?:
For lack of a better word (and please forgive if this sounds conceited) I'm stagnant. I need further academic and professional challenge/stimulation, expanded scope of responsibility and practice, and because it's what I believe I'm called to pursue. If I'm wrong, the door won't open.

My ideal scenario: get accepted for 2006 with military scholarship in hand, switch from reserves to fulltime active duty, and complete a military medical career taking care of our troops. The military routinely gives career age waivers to physicians up to age 70.

Thanks for the reply. Good luck to you and it's good to know the military is open to having older docs working there.
 
Good luck, I'm sure you'll do well....keep posting here, you have a unique perspective. 👍
 
Top