Anesth. future outlook?

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

NRAI2001

3K Member
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2001
Messages
4,657
Reaction score
65
Talking to a few docs this weekend (including one anesth.) and they predicted that in the future it will be more difficult for anesth. to find jobs do to the increase in numbers of crna's an aa (anesth. assistant).

Since the pay of the crnas and aa's are obviously less than a real anesth. and depts, insurance, hmos, .....etc are always looking to cut costs...........what does the future look like for anesth.?
 
NRAI2001 said:
Talking to a few docs this weekend (including one anesth.) and they predicted that in the future it will be more difficult for anesth. to find jobs do to the increase in numbers of crna's an aa (anesth. assistant).

Since the pay of the crnas and aa's are obviously less than a real anesth. and depts, insurance, hmos, .....etc are always looking to cut costs...........what does the future look like for anesth.?

This is a topic that has been talked about ad nauseum. Do a search. In short, there is a shortage of providers that is projected to last at least 10 years regardless of the politics involved.

Cost cutting is across the board, not just in anesthesiology. That being said, mid to high six figure salaries are still the norm.
 
UTSouthwestern said:
there is a shortage of providers that is projected to last at least 10 years regardless of the politics involved.

What happens when supply catches up or exceeds demand? I understand that anesthesiologists make a lot because there aren't enough of them to go around right now. But which camp can pump out more each year, CRNA's or MDA's? I think CRNA's. So, if there is an oversupply of CRNA's, then I can't help but think that will drive down salaries and job ops, especially for MDA's. We can't suspend the laws of economics here. I'm very interested because it will take me almost 10 years to be done with all my training.
 
NRAI2001 said:
Talking to a few docs this weekend (including one anesth.) and they predicted that in the future it will be more difficult for anesth. to find jobs do to the increase in numbers of crna's an aa (anesth. assistant).

Since the pay of the crnas and aa's are obviously less than a real anesth. and depts, insurance, hmos, .....etc are always looking to cut costs...........what does the future look like for anesth.?


OK, I've said this before in lengthy, verbose posts.

This is the last time Jet will say this.

CRNAs WILL NEVER REPLACE ANESTHESIOLOGISTS.

PLEASE TELL ME OF A HOSPITAL IN AN URBAN/SUBURBAN AREA THAT IS WILLING TO CUT ANESTHESIOLOGISTS OUT OF THE PICTURE, RISKING LIABILITY, TO UNDERCUT SALARIES.

nuf said.
 
Taurus said:
.... So, if there is an oversupply of CRNA's,

Current graduation rates are running almost even with current retirement rates.

The biggest age bracket of CRNAs are those trained by the military in the 1960s for Vietnam. Those folks are in their late 50s and are projected to retire in droves over the next five years. Approximately 33% of all practicing CRNAs are expected to retire in the next decade.

The demand for service is expected to skyrocket when the baby boomers start entering their 60s and 70s in the coming 10-15 years.
 
Taurus said:
What happens when supply catches up or exceeds demand? I understand that anesthesiologists make a lot because there aren't enough of them to go around right now. But which camp can pump out more each year, CRNA's or MDA's? I think CRNA's. So, if there is an oversupply of CRNA's, then I can't help but think that will drive down salaries and job ops, especially for MDA's. We can't suspend the laws of economics here. I'm very interested because it will take me almost 10 years to be done with all my training.

The flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that CRNA's have/will have the same rights to practice as anesthesiologists. CRNA's typically practice under MD's, and an MD can only supervise a certain # (say 3-4). This means that even if you have 30 patients, and 30 CRNA's, you can only do 3-4 at a time. Hence assuming a minor increase, or flat growth in the population, the per capita need for anesthesiologists should increase, or at the very least, stay the same. The laws of economics do apply nicely, but not with your conclusion, if you factor in above variables.
Above is fact
Now for the reasoning/assuming/crystal-ballin part: The shortage is a result of 2 things. 1: a paucity of people applying to anesthesia in 94-98= a shortage in 98-2002. Well, you should be saying "what the hell... 2002 is long gone!!" True my friend, but the missing piece of info is #2: that just because we are getting interest, and application to anesthesia back up to par, doesn't mean that people stopped having sex in the 50's... and those baby boomers are getting into the 50's and 60's, and are needing 50-60 year old operations.
Ok, Ok I realize that the argument here is that we have become a more health-concious community, and ingesting a nice warm glass of lard before bed is a culinary faux pas, being replaced with green tea, fiber, and vitamins. Well, that's true too, but it is a relatively new trend, and the health benefits are yet to be seen in our generation (2020-30). A parallell argument is that we have got rid of the old diseases with the old barbaric surgeries. The problem is that us crazy humans have a knack at finding things that kill us, and with the increase in smoking (currently on the decrease) over the last few decades we've been blessed with cancers that people need debulked, lumpectomized, and biopsied, so the need for anesthesia in this regard should remain constant.
Man... that turned out to be longer than I thought.
 
jetproppilot said:
OK, I've said this before in lengthy, verbose posts.

This is the last time Jet will say this.

CRNAs WILL NEVER REPLACE ANESTHESIOLOGISTS.

PLEASE TELL ME OF A HOSPITAL IN AN URBAN/SUBURBAN AREA THAT IS WILLING TO CUT ANESTHESIOLOGISTS OUT OF THE PICTURE, RISKING LIABILITY, TO UNDERCUT SALARIES.

nuf said.

Its not so much that the CRNAs will replace the MDAs completely bc MDAs do have more experience. But CRNAs can handle most of the routine work. I read some where that some hospitals are hiring 2 to 4 CRNAs for every MDA and the MDA main role became to suprevise 2 to 4 of the CRNAs at the same time and to step in when things started to get complicated.

Now thats 1 MDA and 4 CRNAs working in a setting where there may have been 4 MDAs. Will this be the trend? Obviously its cheaper to pay an CRNA 100k over an MDA 400k.
 
I would be shocked if there was not a continued increase in the number of surgical procedures requiring anesthesia each year. Growing population + aging baby boomers + more advanced surgical techniques = a continued rise in demand for anesthesia providers.
 
trinityalumnus said:
The biggest age bracket of CRNAs are those trained by the military in the 1960s for Vietnam. Those folks are in their late 50s and are projected to retire in droves over the next five years. Approximately 33% of all practicing CRNAs are expected to retire in the next decade.

and, who do you think they will want to get their anesthesia care from when they go into the hospital? think about that.

also, NRAI2001, we are not "MDAs". that is a made-up term. we are MDs and DOs who are trained/training to be anesthesiologists. we practice medicine, not nursing. we did not go to a special, separate, inferior kind of medical school that offers some bogus "MDA" degree. we are equivalently trained in medicine - critical thinking and decision making, as well as pathology, pharmacology, anatomy, and physiology - as our other physician counterparts. so, let's not help out the AANA and recruiters in their attempts at marginalizing our medical training.

where the real confusion is going to come is with the "Doctor of Nursing Practice" (DNP) degree. has everyone heard of this travesty yet? that's something to talk about...
 
where the real confusion is going to come is with the "Doctor of Nursing Practice" (DNP) degree. has everyone heard of this travesty yet? that's something to talk about...[/QUOTE]

What??? You can't be serious... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 
VolatileAgent said:
and, who do you think they will want to get their anesthesia care from when they go into the hospital? think about that.

also, NRAI2001, we are not "MDAs". that is a made-up term. we are MDs and DOs who are trained/training to be anesthesiologists. we practice medicine, not nursing. we did not go to a special, separate, inferior kind of medical school that offers some bogus "MDA" degree. we are equivalently trained in medicine - critical thinking and decision making, as well as pathology, pharmacology, anatomy, and physiology - as our other physician counterparts. so, let's not help out the AANA and recruiters in their attempts at marginalizing our medical training.

where the real confusion is going to come is with the "Doctor of Nursing Practice" (DNP) degree. has everyone heard of this travesty yet? that's something to talk about...

I know that anesthesiologists are real MDs and DOs.

But it is true that CRNAs are cheaper to pay for their services. Do you think there will be a move to utilize them more than anethes. bc of lower costs?
 
NRAI2001 said:
Now thats 1 MDA and 4 CRNAs working in a setting where there may have been 4 MDAs. Will this be the trend? Obviously its cheaper to pay an CRNA 100k over an MDA 400k.

Will this BE a trend?

No Dude.

Thats the way it already IS and HAS BEEN for a long time.

A significant portion of anesthetics (don't know the exact percentage so I'll defer quoting an exact percentage) are performed using the team approach model.

And a shortage of anesthesia providers still exists.
 
sevoflurane said:
where the real confusion is going to come is with the "Doctor of Nursing Practice" (DNP) degree. has everyone heard of this travesty yet? that's something to talk about...

What??? You can't be serious... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

and i quote...

The National Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculties (NONPF) and the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) have been the primary drivers of the Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) degree since 2002. Increasingly, nurse practitioner (NP) programs have been exceeding the number of academic credits considered appropriate for master's degrees. As NP practice has continued to extend into primary care including prevention and disease management of both acute and chronic conditions, additional academic credits have been added to the NP programs (Sperhac & Clinton, 2004). NONPF, in response to this trend, began exploring a doctorate in nursing practice degree. NONPF began with a Teleweb conference on a clinical nursing doctorate in 2001. NONPF's early recommendations included the creation of a practice doctorate that would prepare clinical leaders to improve individual, population, and systems level outcomes. One option within such a practice doctorate programs would be to prepare NPs as primary care providers with higher level competencies in dealing with more complex patients (NONPF, 2002).

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514545_2

... and...

AACN again discussed the DNP publicly at the semi-annual Fall Dean's Meeting in October of 2004. At this meeting AACN requested a vote of the Deans present regarding whether to move forward with the Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) degree which would be in effect for Advanced Practice Nurses (APNs), including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, nurse midwives, and nurse anesthetists, as well as nurse administrators, by 2015.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514545_2

this is a bad, bad, BAD idea. why? this will kill nursing as a primary, terminal degree. fewer nurses will be content simply being a "nurse". less and less actual direct, caring, effective patient care will be provided by nurses (i.e., RNs) who will instead be "eyeing the prize" (just like nearly half of the critical care nurses with whom i regularly interact who, for example, already want to be CRNAs simply because of the perception of increased earning potential and greater autonomy) of climbing the degree food-chain. many of these advance trained nurses, i'm sorry to say, already are more focused on their career than they are on patient care. they are often disrespectful and insubordinate with house staff and even attendings. some even openly disobey physician orders. it is already a bad situation, with many of them (especially the younger ones) thinking they already know more about what's going on with their patients than the doctor does, and that they are going to someday be a CRNA anyway and "won't have to deal with orders from a doctor anymore" as one 23-year-old critical care nurse recently said to me. but, the physician-nurse relationship has always been - and probably always will be - a somewhat tenuous relationship with occasionally competing patient-care goals and egos (i.e., we both want what's best for our patients, but we often have different ideas on how to get there). i imagine this is the way it's always been.

but, now imagine a system where a nurse has been empowered - clinically - at the "doctorate" level to make greater, if not sole, patient care decisions. what will happen is that this will create a larger responsibility/power gradient within the healthcare team. this will destroy bachelor-level nursing as a discipline, and more and more patient care will be farmed out to individuals with lesser degrees. is that good for patient care? likewise, nurses will likely view the DNP as someone who is not much above them in training, and may be less likely to follow their orders (after all, they will be competing to get into those advanced-training spots themselves psychologically putting themselves on par with their supposed leaders). this is the breeding ground for bad intra-hospital morale. patients will become more confused about who is ultimately in charge of their care. and, the cost-effectiveness and patient benefit of this model is far from clear at this point.

yes, this is a bad, bad idea that, unfortunately, seems to be gaining steam. get active now in stopping it however you can.
 
Trying to be a doctor without having to go through medical school. That's what it all boils down to. Confuse the public and hope no one notices the difference.
 
UTSouthwestern said:
Trying to be a doctor without having to go through medical school. That's what it all boils down to. Confuse the public and hope no one notices the difference.

i think it equally comes down to the current (as well as continuing to be projected) physician shortage and the large amounts of (potential) money involved. you can thank cogme for telling people there was a physician surplus for the past twenty years, and only recently changing their tune. what a lie that was.
 
VolatileAgent said:
i think it equally comes down to the current (as well as continuing to be projected) physician shortage and the large amounts of (potential) money involved. you can thank cogme for telling people there was a physician surplus for the past twenty years, and only recently changing their tune. what a lie that was.

What it boils down to is an attempt to get a piece of that pie by expanding scopes of practice without having to train extensively, then adding a pseudo-doctoral title upon completion of training to disguise the differences. It's bypassing medical school to call yourself a doctor.

When these pseudo-doctors emerge, how many will have Dr. John Smith, Family Medicine on their white coats? How will the public know who is a physician and who is a nurse? It's a farce and attempt to bypass comprehensive training to practice MEDICINE (not nursing). Diagnosing and making therapeutic decisions on whatever scale they want to try to expand into.
 
VolatileAgent said:
and i quote...



http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514545_2

... and...



http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514545_2

this is a bad, bad, BAD idea. why? this will kill nursing as a primary, terminal degree. fewer nurses will be content simply being a "nurse". less and less actual direct, caring, effective patient care will be provided by nurses (i.e., RNs) who will instead be "eyeing the prize" (just like nearly half of the critical care nurses with whom i regularly interact who, for example, already want to be CRNAs simply because of the perception of increased earning potential and greater autonomy) of climbing the degree food-chain. many of these advance trained nurses, i'm sorry to say, already are more focused on their career than they are on patient care. they are often disrespectful and insubordinate with house staff and even attendings. some even openly disobey physician orders. it is already a bad situation, with many of them (especially the younger ones) thinking they already know more about what's going on with their patients than the doctor does, and that they are going to someday be a CRNA anyway and "won't have to deal with orders from a doctor anymore" as one 23-year-old critical care nurse recently said to me. but, the physician-nurse relationship has always been - and probably always will be - a somewhat tenuous relationship with occasionally competing patient-care goals and egos (i.e., we both want what's best for our patients, but we often have different ideas on how to get there). i imagine this is the way it's always been.

but, now imagine a system where a nurse has been empowered - clinically - at the "doctorate" level to make greater, if not sole, patient care decisions. what will happen is that this will create a larger responsibility/power gradient within the healthcare team. this will destroy bachelor-level nursing as a discipline, and more and more patient care will be farmed out to individuals with lesser degrees. is that good for patient care? likewise, nurses will likely view the DNP as someone who is not much above them in training, and may be less likely to follow their orders (after all, they will be competing to get into those advanced-training spots themselves psychologically putting themselves on par with their supposed leaders). this is the breeding ground for bad intra-hospital morale. patients will become more confused about who is ultimately in charge of their care. and, the cost-effectiveness and patient benefit of this model is far from clear at this point.

yes, this is a bad, bad idea that, unfortunately, seems to be gaining steam. get active now in stopping it however you can.[/QUOT

There's consolation in knowing that many of us can be expert witnesses against these so called providers when they start killing patients left and right.
 
Anybody who says CRNAs wont affect demand for gas docs is having hte wool pulled over their eyes

Here's a typical scenario:

1980 Hospital: 10 MDAs on staff, 3 CRNAs

2020 Hospital: 3 MDAs on staff, 15 CRNAs



Does the hospital still hire MDAs? Yes.

Does the hospital want a full blown CRNA service? NO

Does this result in less job opps for MDAs? YES
 
MDAs will always be able to find jobs, the issue is WHAT SALARY will those jobs offer.

Suppose for a moment there was legislation which unanimously declared that CRNAs were the equals of MDAs, and that they didnt need any kind of supervision at all and had the same scope of practice as an MDA.

Now does that mean that all MDAs will be out of jobs? No, but it means they would be forced to work for a lot less money, it would result in massive wage suppression as the MDA salaries equilibrate much closer to CRNA incomes
 
MacGyver,

I think I hear your mother calling you.
 
jetproppilot said:
Will this BE a trend?

No Dude.

Thats the way it already IS and HAS BEEN for a long time.

A significant portion of anesthetics (don't know the exact percentage so I'll defer quoting an exact percentage) are performed using the team approach model.

And a shortage of anesthesia providers still exists.
65% of anesthetics are administered in care team practices.
 
MacGyver said:
MDAs will always be able to find jobs, the issue is WHAT SALARY will those jobs offer.

Suppose for a moment there was legislation which unanimously declared that CRNAs were the equals of MDAs, and that they didnt need any kind of supervision at all and had the same scope of practice as an MDA.

Now does that mean that all MDAs will be out of jobs? No, but it means they would be forced to work for a lot less money, it would result in massive wage suppression as the MDA salaries equilibrate much closer to CRNA incomes

Hey Mac,

not trying to get personal or anything,

but what level are you?

Cuz you present some compelling arguments.

Problem is they don't fit in with the private practice genre I experience every day.

Every CEO I know is more worried about liability than anything else...well...besides making $.

And assuring said CEO's anesthesiologists are well compensated is birdfeed compared to the potential litiginous threat brought on by handing over a medical profession to nurse practioners.

I don't think some of you in training realize the money being made by hospitals.

They arent about to risk WHALE profit by cutting an anesthesiologist's practice where said anesthesiologist is making half-a-mil....chump change to their institution....in order to save on salaries, but concominantly open said-institution to litiginous threats.

Doesnt make sense.

Heres a real life example for you.

I was offered a contract at a newly-opened "hospital" (read:surgery center with about ten beds) about a year ago.

Me and one of my partners went and ate a steak dinner with a cuppla the owners.

I was concerned that one of their stipulations was having an anesthesia provider in house 24-7...and the expense of that.

They laughed at my concern....and proceeded to inform me of their projected profit margin, and because of said-profit-margin, my worry was insignificant.

So, again, Mac, I ask you,

at what level are you at now?

Your posts don't deem business-savvy.

They deem fear.

The same feelings I had emerging from residency in 1996.

SAME EXACT FEARS EXISTED IN 1996.

And here I sit, in pretty good shape, for a Florida-Pilot-Copenhagen-dippin'-redneck.
 
MacGyver said:
Anybody who says CRNAs wont affect demand for gas docs is having hte wool pulled over their eyes

Here's a typical scenario:

1980 Hospital: 10 MDAs on staff, 3 CRNAs

2020 Hospital: 3 MDAs on staff, 15 CRNAs



Does the hospital still hire MDAs? Yes.

Does the hospital want a full blown CRNA service? NO

Does this result in less job opps for MDAs? YES
Dont underestimate what Mac is saying here.

It's a given that physician pay and hospital policy is GREATLY influenced by the bottom line (ultimately being controlled by HMOs/Managed Care).

Per the Am Coll of Managed Care:

in 1980--> 9 million enrollees of managed care

400% increase by 1990 to 36 million

by 1994---> 51 million

in 2000---> 105+ million

Yes, physicians will have 'jobs'. As you can see 10 years ago, managed care was a 'nominal' concern. Things have DRASTICALLY changed. Physician reimbursement has taken a great hit as a result of these managed care companies and their influence on RVUs/reimbursement. If CEOs and the public feel that CRNAs can do the same job as an anesthesiologist (which is what the AANA does through its publications about similar outcomes by CRNAs and anesthesiologists) then it benefits them to go the 'cheaper' route.
 
As jet pointed out, MDA's make a lot of money because the profit margins are high to do anesthesia work. As any MBA can tell you, that's where the opportunities are at. You don't start a new business in a field that is cut-throat and the margins are slim. It's too hard to make a profit. You do it in an area where the margins are nice and fat. If you provide a similar service at a lower cost, then you can steal market share away from your competitors and still make a handsome profit if you price appropriately. In the healthcare field, any savvy hospital administrator should be eyeing areas where the margins are large to the provider and similar services can be provided at lower cost. It seems to me that primary care and anesthesiology are prime targets. Radiology too if they ever get that outsourcing thing to work out. However, as jet also pointed out, you can't focus just on cost-savings and ignore liability. Litigation costs would eat into your profits dramatically. Therefore, you can't staff your anesthesiolgy department with only CRNA's nor would you want to staff it with all MDA's. Smart hospital administrators are going to find the best ratio that optimizes profits for the hospital, minimizes liability, and maintains about the same level of services. Is it 4 CRNA's for 1 MDA? Dunno. This prediction would only bear out if the supply of CRNA increases. If that happens, MDA's can expect lower salaries, less job security, and harder time finding jobs.
 
Taurus said:
As jet pointed out, MDA's make a lot of money because the profit margins are high to do anesthesia work. As any MBA can tell you, that's where the opportunities are at. You don't start a new business in a field that is cut-throat and the margins are slim. It's too hard to make a profit. You do it in an area where the margins are nice and fat. If you provide a similar service at a lower cost, then you can steal market share away from your competitors and still make a handsome profit if you price appropriately. In the healthcare field, any savvy hospital administrator should be eyeing areas where the margins are large to the provider and similar services can be provided at lower cost. It seems to me that primary care and anesthesiology are prime targets. Radiology too if they ever get that outsourcing thing to work out. However, as jet also pointed out, you can't focus just on cost-savings and ignore liability. Litigation costs would eat into your profits dramatically. Therefore, you can't staff your anesthesiolgy department with only CRNA's nor would you want to staff it with all MDA's. Smart hospital administrators are going to find the best ratio that optimizes profits for the hospital, minimizes liability, and maintains about the same level of services. Is it 4 CRNA's for 1 MDA? Dunno. This prediction would only bear out if the supply of CRNA increases. If that happens, MDA's can expect lower salaries, less job security, and harder time finding jobs.


What the hell's an MDA?
 
Taurus said:
MDA = anesthesiologist (person with MD)
CRNA = nurse anesthetist



Not really...MDA=anesthesiologist only to a CRNA...I don't answer to "MDA".

"doc", "physician", "anesthesiologist", "dude"-->yes, "MDA"-->nope. 🙂
 
And all this time I thought MDA was the Muscular Dystrophy Association. Has Jerry Lewis been having telethons for anesthesiolgists all these years?
 
G0S2 said:
Medical Doctor Anesthesiologist

Every time I see MDA, I laugh at what my abbreviation will be as a DO.
 
The thing is, it's redundant. There's not 2 kinds of anesthesiologists, there's just anesthesiologists (doctors) and CRNA's (nurses). So if you want to shorten anesthesiologist, shorten it to 'docs'.

Don't shorten it to MDA, because that is a term coined by organized nursing to blur the lines. There's no MDS "MD surgeon", or MDR "MD radiologist". There's just doctors and nurses, period.
 
UTSouthwestern said:
What it boils down to is an attempt to get a piece of that pie by expanding scopes of practice without having to train extensively, then adding a pseudo-doctoral title upon completion of training to disguise the differences. It's bypassing medical school to call yourself a doctor.

When these pseudo-doctors emerge, how many will have Dr. John Smith, Family Medicine on their white coats? How will the public know who is a physician and who is a nurse? It's a farce and attempt to bypass comprehensive training to practice MEDICINE (not nursing). Diagnosing and making therapeutic decisions on whatever scale they want to try to expand into.

The ASA, AANA, HMOs, PPOs, and state laws can all say "xyz."

What's important to remember is that local hospital by-laws can always be more restrictive than "xyz" when outlining the degree of required supervision/direction. If your particular hospital/practice is located in a large city with plenty of direct competition, the free market might direct where the patient flow goes in response to your particular degree of restrictiveness.

If you're out in the boonies, you can essentially use hospital by-laws to get whatever you desire vis a vis supervision/direction.
 
Every CEO I know is more worried about liability than anything else...well...besides making $.

And assuring said CEO's anesthesiologists are well compensated is birdfeed compared to the potential litiginous threat brought on by handing over a medical profession to nurse practioners.

I don't think some of you in


You make the mistake of assuming that more CRNAs = more liability expenses. Research shows this not to be the case. CRNAs pay a lot less in malpractice coverage than MDAs do.

Of course part of the reason for that is because most CRNAs work in team practices with MDAs.

There is no evidence to suggest that all CRNA practices lead to higher litigation/liability exposure.

Besides, hospitals will be able to sidestep that issue by having at least one MDA on staff at all times. I already said that hospitals will always have at least a couple of MDAs on staff so they can maintain "plausible deniability"

"Plausible deniability" = our risk exposure hasnt changed since hiring more CRNAs because we still use the "team approach" and still have MDAs on staff.

What they dont tell you is that the number of MDAs on staff has steadily declined in favor of CRNAs

Lets also talk about profit margins. Businesses dont operate on the concept of "acceptable profit" they operate on the principle of MAXIMUM profit.

Wall Street doesnt reward companies who make 1 trillion dollars in profit if their projection was really 2 trillion. If that happens, a company's stock price PLUMMETS, despite the fact that 1 trillion in profit is a ****load.

Thats what you dont understand about MBAs. Given the choice between making profit of $X vs $X + Y, they will always choose X+Y, even if X by itself is already a very high number.

Profit in business operates by a "how high can you go" principle, NOT by a "this profit level is good enough" principle
 
MacGyver said:
You make the mistake of assuming that more CRNAs = more liability expenses. Research shows this not to be the case. ..
Correct me if I am wrong. The only 'research' I've seen that shows this is in AANA (Am Assoc. of Nurse Anesth) journals, which one can see may have some bias to say the least 😎

Unfortunately, I think hospital adminstrators are influenced by articles from that journal.
 
What is a MDA???? Is it a fellowship after a Anesthesia residency or is it a seperate specialty? OMG>>>>I'm going into my fourth year and I havent heard of the so called MDA specialty. What am I missing out on?

HELP!!@#!@Lkwejrl 🙂
 
Someone close this ******* i n g thread already please


a doctor is a doctor and a nurse is a nurse.. I dont care how many credits a nurse practicioner takes or a crna takes.. there are still nurses with nursing licenses... they can scream as loud as possible.. they are still nurses.. we are physicians with medical degree and licenses.. we are charged with the well being of patients.. not nurses.. period..
 
SleepIsGood said:
Correct me if I am wrong. The only 'research' I've seen that shows this is in AANA (Am Assoc. of Nurse Anesth) journals, which one can see may have some bias to say the least 😎

Unfortunately, I think hospital adminstrators are influenced by articles from that journal.


SleepisGood CRNA's must also carry a malpractice policy though many times the policy is paid for by the group he/she works for. However those that work independently as contractors for surgeons ect must purchase their own policy. Another thing worthy of mentioning is that an overwhelming majority of Nurse Anesthetists work for MD anesthesia groups. These groups are hiring the CRNA's and buying their policies. IF the CRNA screws up, his/her malpractice will go up. A hospital administrator once told me that most facilities administrators dont think running an anesthesia dept is worth the risk. They would rather contract that out to the lowest bidding anesthesia group and put it all on them.
 
stephend7799 said:
Someone close this ******* i n g thread already please


a doctor is a doctor and a nurse is a nurse.. I dont care how many credits a nurse practicioner takes or a crna takes.. there are still nurses with nursing licenses... they can scream as loud as possible.. they are still nurses.. we are physicians with medical degree and licenses.. we are charged with the well being of patients.. not nurses.. period..

Actually, physicians are charged with diagnosing and curing illness. It's probably the nurse's responsibility to ensure the well-being of patients.
 
Ross434 said:
Actually, physicians are charged with diagnosing and curing illness. It's probably the nurse's responsibility to ensure the well-being of patients.

A large number of the newer RNs that I deal with seem more obsessed with charting than well-being.
 
MacGyver said:
You make the mistake of assuming that more CRNAs = more liability expenses. Research shows this not to be the case. CRNAs pay a lot less in malpractice coverage than MDAs do.

Of course part of the reason for that is because most CRNAs work in team practices with MDAs.

There is no evidence to suggest that all CRNA practices lead to higher litigation/liability exposure.

Besides, hospitals will be able to sidestep that issue by having at least one MDA on staff at all times. I already said that hospitals will always have at least a couple of MDAs on staff so they can maintain "plausible deniability"

"Plausible deniability" = our risk exposure hasnt changed since hiring more CRNAs because we still use the "team approach" and still have MDAs on staff.

What they dont tell you is that the number of MDAs on staff has steadily declined in favor of CRNAs

Lets also talk about profit margins. Businesses dont operate on the concept of "acceptable profit" they operate on the principle of MAXIMUM profit.

Wall Street doesnt reward companies who make 1 trillion dollars in profit if their projection was really 2 trillion. If that happens, a company's stock price PLUMMETS, despite the fact that 1 trillion in profit is a ****load.

Thats what you dont understand about MBAs. Given the choice between making profit of $X vs $X + Y, they will always choose X+Y, even if X by itself is already a very high number.

Profit in business operates by a "how high can you go" principle, NOT by a "this profit level is good enough" principle

1. I don't remember reading anything that PROVES that the # of Anesthesiologists on staff has declined in favor of CRNA's. Some groups are MD only, many are xCRNA's/MD, and a very small number are CRNA only, but those are typically special needs cases, ie. BFE. The number of these have been relatively constant, with only a small tweak here or there. Anyhow, I'd like to see some data backing that claim you made.

2. Businesses operate on more than just the profitability principle you stated. Sustainability is just as important, unless you think it's ok for a company to make a mint for a few years, collapse, destroy the town it was in, rob a ton of people of their pensions, ie. enron, and then restart under a different name only to repeat said destructive cycle. The fact that CRNA's are there, and will continue to fight for more autonomy is not a new concept. In fact, it was the reason anesthesiology died for a few years. It turns out that a few good lawsuits is all it took for people to realize that we do need MD's, and that the 4 CRNA/MD approach is not some abitrary #, but, in fact, the right ratio to balance case load with relative risk/patient.

Again, I'd like to see the data on the MD # declining you were discussing.
 
blocks said:
The thing is, it's redundant. There's not 2 kinds of anesthesiologists, there's just anesthesiologists (doctors) and CRNA's (nurses). So if you want to shorten anesthesiologist, shorten it to 'docs'.

Don't shorten it to MDA, because that is a term coined by organized nursing to blur the lines. There's no MDS "MD surgeon", or MDR "MD radiologist". There's just doctors and nurses, period.

Actually thats a very good point 👍 👍

There is a ban on using MDA. 👍

Seriously though hes right.
 
stephend7799 said:
Someone close this ******* i n g thread already please


a doctor is a doctor and a nurse is a nurse.. I dont care how many credits a nurse practicioner takes or a crna takes.. there are still nurses with nursing licenses... they can scream as loud as possible.. they are still nurses.. we are physicians with medical degree and licenses.. we are charged with the well being of patients.. not nurses.. period..

Yea......just close your eyes buddy 👍
 
NRAI2001 said:
Actually thats a very good point 👍 👍

There is a ban on using MDA. 👍

Seriously though hes right.

Hey, I like that.

Lets fight fire with fire concerning the MDA thing (yeah, I'm not a big fan of it either), and think like a militant AANA member.

Step one in nursing administration: Have a mandatory/urgent (read:useless) meeting.

Step two: Make sure said-meeting lasts at least 90 minutes in order to justify one's importance/existence, even though info in said meeting could've been emailed in two paragraphs to individuals and read by said individuals in 32 seconds, hence saving everyone from going to a 90 minute meeting.

Step three: Provide sign-in sheet with a paper-width wider than the typical 8 and a half inches of a normal 8.5-by-11" piece of paper, since, of course, nurse administrators are required by law to list every degree achieved past-age-three....for example,

Nancy Nierce, BK, BES, BJHS, HSG, AA, BSN, RN, TPIRFA.


BK= Bachelor of Kindergarten

BES= Bachelor of Elementary School

BJHS= Bachelor of Junior High School

HSG= High School Graduate

AA= Associate of Arts

BSN= Bachelor of Science in Nursing

RN= Registered Nurse

TPIRFA= This Practice Is Really Fuk k ing Annoying


Step Four: Schedule a followup meeting, and a followup meeting to the followup meeting. Have a meeting to determine what time the followup meeting will occur, and meet ten minutes before the followup meeting with "essential teammembers" to ensure the followup meeting addresses salient objectives of the initial, primary meeting.

Now, progress really takes a step forward with

Step Five: At the followup meeting, vote to hire a nurse-administrator-consultant to visit our hospital and make recommendations at a followup meeting to the followup meeting, concerning the utilization of the term MDA.
Ask the consultant at the followup meeting to the followup meeting to spend 2 months reviewing records and interviewing employees at scheduled meetings with said employees about the utilization of the term MDA.

Step Six: Have nurse consultant write an evaluation of the situation. Make sure to make it at least ten pages long, and make sure to not email it to important individuals. Instead, schedule a meeting for presentation of nurse-consultants evaluation.

Step seven: Write a protocol based on nurse consultants evaluation concerning The Verbal Utilization of the term MDA , even though nurse-consultant knows nothing about this specific situation, lives in another state, and has been in "the evaluated" hospital less than three weeks.
 
jetproppilot said:
Hey, I like that.

Lets fight fire with fire concerning the MDA thing (yeah, I'm not a big fan of it either), and think like a militant AANA member.

Step one in nursing administration: Have a mandatory/urgent (read:useless) meeting.

Step two: Make sure said-meeting lasts at least 90 minutes in order to justify one's importance/existence, even though info in said meeting could've been emailed in two paragraphs to individuals and read by said individuals in 32 seconds, hence saving everyone from going to a 90 minute meeting.

Step three: Provide sign-in sheet with a paper-width wider than the typical 8 and a half inches of a normal 8.5-by-11" piece of paper, since, of course, nurse administrators are required by law to list every degree achieved past-age-three....for example,

Nancy Nierce, BK, BES, BJHS, HSG, AA, BSN, RN, TPIRFA.


BK= Bachelor of Kindergarten

BES= Bachelor of Elementary School

BJHS= Bachelor of Junior High School

HSG= High School Graduate

AA= Associate of Arts

BSN= Bachelor of Science in Nursing

RN= Registered Nurse

TPIRFA= This Practice Is Really Fuk k ing Annoying


Step Four: Schedule a followup meeting, and a followup meeting to the followup meeting. Have a meeting to determine what time the followup meeting will occur, and meet ten minutes before the followup meeting with "essential teammembers" to ensure the followup meeting addresses salient objectives of the initial, primary meeting.

Now, progress really takes a step forward with

Step Five: At the followup meeting, vote to hire a nurse-administrator-consultant to visit our hospital and make recommendations at a followup meeting to the followup meeting, concerning the utilization of the term MDA.
Ask the consultant at the followup meeting to the followup meeting to spend 2 months reviewing records and interviewing employees at scheduled meetings with said employees about the utilization of the term MDA.

Step Six: Have nurse consultant write an evaluation of the situation. Make sure to make it at least ten pages long, and make sure to not email it to important individuals. Instead, schedule a meeting for presentation of nurse-consultants evaluation.

Step seven: Write a protocol based on nurse consultants evaluation concerning The Verbal Utilization of the term MDA , even though nurse-consultant knows nothing about this specific situation, lives in another state, and has been in "the evaluated" hospital less than three weeks.


LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jet, as a nurse I only have one thing to reply.............you a pretty much right on the fukkin nose! That **** goes on far too much. I think many people use it to justify there salary and existence. It's the "peter principle". Some people spend far too much time thinking about the policies than thinking about doing a good job. Of course, I work for a MD that takes that policy bs to the nth level. Beauracracy sucks! As far as the acronyms...come on, they worked for them, just as you have, and have the right. Do I do it..nah. Do I think some people get ridiculus with it...sometimes.
 
VolatileAgent said:
no, it means "Made-up Dumb Ass" term (by the AANA and job recruiters).


I have never seen the abbreviation MDA on any AANA literature for the past few years. I dont know if they used it in the past. I was specifically instructed in CRNA school not to use the abbreviation. However I see it in job adds all the time. Eg. Looking for experienced CRNA to work in expanding practice. Great group consisting of 10 crna's and 5 MDA's. blah blah blah.

Lets not get into the blame game here. No one knows who first used the abbreviation. The impt thing is for you guys to express your dislike of the term and to discourage other practitioners and recruiting firms from using it. Im sure recruiting firms would stop using it, especially if asked by their clients. These people will do anything to recruit and keep clients. I do every once in a while however see an Anesthesiologist using the term refering to themselves or associate MDs.
 
4 CRNA's to 1 MDA. I don't think so. I live in a rural community of roughly 10,000. The closest MDA is 50 miles away. In other words, not all CRNA's need to work under a Dr. It varies according to state and probably to the hospital census.
 
mitch8lem said:
4 CRNA's to 1 MDA. I don't think so. I live in a rural community of roughly 10,000. The closest MDA is 50 miles away. In other words, not all CRNA's need to work under a Dr. It varies according to state and probably to the hospital census.

What do CRNA's have to do with the Muscular Dystrophy Association?

Or are they part of the Missile Defense Agency?

Minnesota Department of Agriculture?

The Mobile Data Association?

Please explain. I just don't understand.
 
mitch8lem said:
4 CRNA's to 1 MDA. I don't think so. I live in a rural community of roughly 10,000. The closest MDA is 50 miles away. In other words, not all CRNA's need to work under a Dr. It varies according to state and probably to the hospital census.

Probably through various studies pointing at the ratio as the most efficient (cost wise and practically). Dont know if thats the right number.

I know in my health management course they emphasized that the newer more efficient models of a primary care practice include 2 to 3 PAs per physician. Probably similar with Anesths (dont call them MDAs again, seriously) and CRNAs.
 
cloud9 said:
What do CRNA's have to do with the Muscular Dystrophy Association?

Or are they part of the Missile Defense Agency?

Minnesota Department of Agriculture?

The Mobile Data Association?

Please explain. I just don't understand.

ahaha
 
Top