Access to Anesthesia Care is Not Improved When States Eliminate Physician Supervision, Study Finds

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

Carbocation1

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
692
Reaction score
322
https://www.asahq.org/about-asa/new...ccess-to-anesthesia-care-is-not-improved-when

Anesthesiology
Newly Published on January 19, 2017
Eric C. Sun, M.D., Ph.D.; Franklin Dexter, M.D., Ph.D.; Thomas R. Miller, Ph.D., M.B.A.; Laurence C. Baker, Ph.D.

Abstract
Background: In 2001, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a rule allowing U.S. states to “opt out” of the regulations requiring physician supervision of nurse anesthetists in an effort to increase access to anesthesia care. Whether “opt out” has successfully achieved this goal remains unknown.

Methods: Using Medicare administrative claims data, we examined whether “opt out” reduced the distance traveled by patients, a common measure of access, for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty, total hip arthroplasty, cataract surgery, colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, appendectomy, or hip fracture repair. In addition, we examined whether “opt out” was associated with an increase in the use of anesthesia care for cataract surgery, colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, or esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Our analysis used a difference-in-differences approach with a robust set of controls to minimize confounding.

Results: “Opt out” did not reduce the percentage of patients who traveled outside of their home zip code except in the case of total hip arthroplasty (2.2% point reduction; P = 0.007). For patients travelling outside of their zip code, “opt out” had no significant effect on the distance traveled among any of the procedures we examined, with point estimates ranging from a 7.9-km decrease for appendectomy (95% CI, −19 to 3.4; P = 0.173) to a 1.6-km increase (95% CI, −5.1 to 8.2; P = 0.641) for total hip arthroplasty. There was also no significant effect on the use of anesthesia for esophagogastroduodenoscopy, appendectomy, or cataract surgery.

Conclusions: “Opt out” was associated with little or no increased access to anesthesia care for several common procedures.

http://anesthesiology.pubs.asahq.org/article.aspx?articleid=2598360

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I think the article was published on January 19 2017. So it's a few days old. So it's a new article.

Although most of us already know "access" rally cry is a Trojan horse for AANA and it's members to for its ultimate agenda. As clearly evidence by them not supporting MD pass through money for rural pass through program and also blocking AA legislation
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I think the article was published on January 19 2017. So it's a few days old. So it's a new article.

Although most of us already know "access" rally cry is a Trojan horse for AANA and it's members to for its ultimate agenda. As clearly evidence by them not supporting MD pass through money for rural pass through program and also blocking AA legislation
True. But I swear I've seen this study months ago; I could be wrong.
 
It is not an old study. It was just published.
I received it last week.

The follow up article should be: Midlevel Anesthesia no more cost- effective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Sounds like it's time to renew my asa membership. Very glad to see published articles being put out to combat the nonsense from the ana, especially from a new grad at a high powered place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sounds like it's time to renew my asa membership. Very glad to see published articles being put out to combat the nonsense from the ana, especially from a new grad at a high powered place.

Almost every residency program is more than willing to pay for your ASA membership fees during training. Many private practices do as well, so there really isn't any downside to being a member.
 
Top