- Joined
- Dec 28, 2005
- Messages
- 526
- Reaction score
- 0
filthy potty mouth
Yeah, yeah...........give Sturaitis, Ford and Nath a kiss with your "clean" mouth for me, Jason.
filthy potty mouth
I wrote this a long time ago.
I bumped it for the benefit of my CA-3 colleagues who are going out on their own in a cuppla months.
Nice callno problems. keep doing what your doing. good luck to you. i hope, for your sake (and the sake of our profession), that you're right. we'll see if that's true by no later than about 2015 in my estimation.
The bottom line is that the good old days of this specialty are well behind us and the gravy train has left the station long time ago.Are worst case scenarios realism?
Are worst case scenarios realism?
The bottom line is that the good old days of this specialty are well behind us and the gravy train has left the station long time ago.
What's ahead is a struggle to redefine our role and to hold on to some of our constantly shrinking territory.
Unfortunately our leading organization has a vision of the future that is incompatible with the huge numbers of new grads being dumped on the market every year.
The ASA wants anesthesiologists to become peri-operative physicians and basically have less involvement with intra-operative management which will be dominated by mid-level providers.
That sounds great theoretically but they are forgetting that if we are less involved intra-op then there is no need for that many of us, and if we are doing the jobs of hospitalists and primary physicians then there is no reason why we should be paid more than them.
They are also forgetting that practicing perioperative medicine is not that difficult and it's a matter of time before mid-levels start claiming it as their domain as well.
This is the fundamental issue with our future, the lack of a meaningful strategy.
I am certain of that.
But, a 4:1 ACT model (rarely do I supervise 4 rooms but it does happen, more like 3 or even 2) is a pretty efficient way to run an OR
(elided)
But, for relevant docs (i.e. up to date without major skill attrition) there will be work. It will always be good work.
The salary is not the issue. The issue is that anesthesiologists are expected to assume 100% of the responsibility for the inevitable bad outcomes - which will arise specifically because they're stretched too thin - while someone else pockets the money that should have gone to pay for adequate anesthesiologist staffing.
Plankton, I've always respected your opinions/ideas/input.
It's true that our field has challenges. But, so does every field. In my current ACT model I am able to find meaningful ways of staying very relevant on a daily basis. I view myself as akin to that of an ICU doc but in the operative arena. With that, I use my medical knowledge on a daily basis, and make decisions accordingly. So do all of you.
I realize that mid-level enchroachment is everywhere. Some specialties more than others..... But, a 4:1 ACT model (rarely do I supervise 4 rooms but it does happen, more like 3 or even 2) is a pretty efficient way to run an OR. It frees the Anesthesiologist up to put efforts into those patients and procedures warranting his/her more advanced skills and training.
I know legislatively, we have big battles to fight. We can do this via our PAC. I feel the PSH, promoted by the ASA, is a fine way to go. It's an augmentation of our specialty, and I'm not seeing it as a REPLACEMENT of what we do. In any group, you could rotate the assigned PSH doc Q7 days, for example. Maybe the PSH doc carries the acute pain pager...... In a lower volume OB suite, maybe that doc carries the acute pain pager, runs the PSH duties (yet to be fully defined), and covers OB. It's not that big a deal. It will either work or it won't.
What is wrong with our field such that we are SO HYPERCRITICAL of ourselves. Sure, some healthy self-reflection is wise. But, we sell OURSELVES short all the time on these forums.
I think we get so good at what we do that we OURSELVES begin to believe it's all so routine (and indeed it CAN be) and even "easy". But, stop for a minute. Think about all of the skills that an anesthesiologist has in his/her arsenal. It's very substantial when you really reflect on it.
I just do not see the major catastrophe coming our way. Sure, reimbursements are likely to go down. Gravy train days of private planes and multiple home? Gone. Way gone. But, those of us coming up the pipeline already KNEW that.
The DEMAND for anesthesia services is INCREASING. Surely, we need to defend that demand, and we will. PACs, while imperfect, are a good place to start. Getting involved locally, and in your hospital is important to any group. But, doom and gloom? No. Opportunities? Yes.
We MISS opportunities every single day in this business. More on that perhaps later.
Yes, CRNA's (via the AANA) is a real pain in the neck. But, for relevant docs (i.e. up to date without major skill attrition) there will be work. It will always be good work.
For the younger docs. Tackle your debt. If the sky falls and whatever structure pays you $225K in the future, well, it's not a horrible thing. Do we accept it or WANT it? No. But, the fact is that the BOTTOM of our likely pay scale is still a very nice living and if it gets to that, then there will likely be concurrent changes (improvements) in lifestyle such as doing that for a regular 8 hr day. Or having the ability to make $50k more covering overnight OB or some other service.
Yes, we have challenges. But, anyone suggesting that any decent anesthesiologist won't have a good job ahead of him/her in the future isn't being realistic about the opportunities in our field. You will be able to do some nice things, live in a decent area, put your kids through college, have some nice stuff etc. If you want to make more money, just like today, you can always work your a.ss off further and take more call. Or work at multiple sites to get your "hours" up. But, there will be opportunities in this biz. I am certain of that.
For the life of me, I just can't understand how patients are OK with the 4:1 model. If something goes wrong with the airway, it takes just 4 minutes until the patient is braindead.
I can't wait until people start questioning the need for 1 pilot per airplane, and come up with ways a single pilot can monitor multiple planes with "advanced software."
That's a nightmare but it's not the future I think is most likely.
...
This is the reality I live in the military and at one of my locums jobs. It's not the best possible care for patients, but on the whole it's safe enough (see the Fight Club auto recall formula), and it's tolerable for us as anesthesiologists precisely because we're not liable for anything they do.
...
Medical direction / supervision at 3:1 or worse is my nightmare.
I guess in a way, as much as all the doom and gloom on this forum is discouraging, it's probably a great thing. Hearing the worse possible scenario is a really good thing for medical students considering the specialty. Anesthesiology will no longer be a "lifestyle" specialty that students with decent step 1 scores will chose because it will provide them with a great living. Maybe this doom and gloom will weed out med students that are thinking about gas for all the wrong reasons and we'll end up with a bunch of applicants who are doing gas because they love the specialty and are willing to fight for the specialty instead of looking for a nice "lifestyle". Maybe all of this doom and gloom will benefit the specialty in the end.
Or maybe the opposite will happen and matching into gas will become so easy because all of the smart kids will go for other specialties, that underqualified students who couldn't get into anything else will start applying to gas.
Who knows.
For the life of me, I just can't understand how patients are OK with the 4:1 model. If something goes wrong with the airway, it takes just 4 minutes until the patient is braindead.
I can't wait until people start questioning the need for 1 pilot per airplane, and come up with ways a single pilot can monitor multiple planes with "advanced software."
Absolutely. All you need to do is fire some anesthesiologists.Are there even enough CRNA's to support the 4:1 model?
Exactly.Working 4:1 (to say nothing of 6:1 or 8:1) for an AMC is not good work. It is the anesthesia equivalent of a sweatshop.
The salary is not the issue. The issue is that anesthesiologists are expected to assume 100% of the responsibility for the inevitable bad outcomes - which will arise specifically because they're stretched too thin - while someone else pockets the money that should have gone to pay for adequate anesthesiologist staffing.
Ouch!Absolutely. All you need to do is fire some anesthesiologists.![]()
What I was trying to suggest is that the ACT model is probably used in about 75% of anesthetics, in a 2:1-4:1 model.
Most patients don't know anything about our role, and the majority of them think anesthesia providers are the people with syringes who inject the drugs when the doctor (the surgeon) orders them to do so.For the life of me, I just can't understand how patients are OK with the 4:1 model. If something goes wrong with the airway, it takes just 4 minutes until the patient is braindead.
I can't wait until people start questioning the need for 1 pilot per airplane, and come up with ways a single pilot can monitor multiple planes with "advanced software."
That's correct. We are part of the "OR staff". We are neither "the doctor" or "a doctor" for most patients. We are just the ones to blame and to complain to the surgeon about if anything doesn't go spa perfect, as expected by the uneducated. Of course, there are always the 10-20% exceptions, which make the job pleasant but, for most people, we are just a notch above the OR nurse.Most patients don't know anything about our role, and the majority of them think anesthesia providers are the people with syringes who inject the drugs when the doctor (the surgeon) orders them to do so.
Exactly.
4:1 is a sweat shop. That's something you electively do to yourself as a partner to make yourself wealthy. That's not something you want to do as an employee at 300k while making others wealthy. For 600+, sure, I've got plenty of running shoes.
People that think employed 4:1 is fine don't understand what a well run 4:1 practice is doing in the real world.
That's correct. We are part of the "OR staff". We are neither "the doctor" or "a doctor" for most patients. We are just the ones to blame and to complain to the surgeon about if anything doesn't go spa perfect, as expected by the uneducated. Of course, there are always the 10-20% exceptions, which make the job pleasant but, for most people, we are just a notch above the OR nurse.
If we were so important, we would get requests all the time from patients referred by our former patients, as every significant physician does. Most of us, as individual anesthesiologists, are about as important to the patients as the brand of lactated ringer's. And as replaceable.
Trust me... you are replaceable... those surgeons who love you now wouldn't mind having a chimpanzee at the head of the table if the chimps were the only anesthesia providers the hospital offered.Yeah, I'd be broke if I worked based of requests, I've only had 4 requests by patients to do their cases during residency.
However, at least at my place many of the surgeons do make requests and don't view us as replaceable. At least we have that going for us.
This article makes it sounds like CRNAs are a boon to physicians. Am I reading this wrong?
So mid-levels taking care of simpler cases is definitely here to stay as we move away from the fee for service model. But why does this lead to increasing compensation for physicians? Because they get reimbursed much higher for taking care of complex cases? This article makes it sounds like CRNAs are a boon to physicians. Am I reading this wrong?
CRNAs think they can -- and they should -- also be able to take care of the complex cases without necessarily your input or support. You should just shut-up, sign the chart, and be lucky you are collecting any fee.
It's actually the opposite in anesthesia. Because the government programs pay so poorly, you get paid more for taking care of healthy young patients usually getting simple procedures. The 88yo ESRD COPD AS 20%EF with aortic arch dissection for repair on circ arrest undoubtedly has Medicare/Medicaid paying $20/unit.
If physicians are going to treat only the difficult and complicated cases then you need less physicians because 90% of daily practice is bread and butter easy stuff.From Becker's:
"4. Hospitals are emphasizing value over productivity. In order to combat increased financial pressures such as the aforementioned boost in benefit plan costs, hospitals have traditionally encouraged higher levels of productivity. However, the fee-for-service environment is becoming a thing of the past. Focusing on volume is not a silver bullet in an increasingly value-based environment, but at the same time, hospitals cannot just "let physicians do what they want in terms of productivity," Dr. Flannery says.
Therefore, in compensation plans, hospitals are incentivizing physicians to focus their energy and efforts on high-level cases instead of "churning numbers." Instead, advanced practice clinicians, such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants, are helping with simpler cases, a process that has boosted their compensation as well.
"Physicians have to practice at the top of their skill level, and that's not happening," Dr. Flannery says. "When we see physicians operating at the top of their skill level, pediatricians aren't seeing strep throat and ear infections — those are being seeing by nurse practitioners. Therefore, nurse practitioners need to operate at the top of their skill level, too. When the value goes up, compensation goes up, and it frees up time for more complicated cases for physicians"
So mid-levels taking care of simpler cases is definitely here to stay as we move away from the fee for service model. But why does this lead to increasing compensation for physicians? Because they get reimbursed much higher for taking care of complex cases? This article makes it sounds like CRNAs are a boon to physicians. Am I reading this wrong?
If physicians are going to treat only the difficult and complicated cases then you need less physicians because 90% of daily practice is bread and butter easy stuff.
So, you can't say physicians are here only to handle the rare stuff and keep producing all these new physicians and telling them they will still find jobs and get well compensated.
o.k. the pessimism on this thread is getting to the point of over the top. Guys, healthcare is changing. Who knows how it will all play out. RATES of enchroachment in anesthesia are nowhere near the rates of mid-level's moving into many other fields. Almost all major specialties are using them. They are physician extenders.
(ADDENDUM: I wrote this a cuppla years ago. Its got alotta useful information in it for you. I'm bumping it for the benefit of my CA-3 colleagues who may have missed it and are gonna be on their own in a few months.)
There is significant self-selection clouding those numbers. Weak or average applicants don't apply at the same rates strong applicants do.443/487 of US grads match cards (91%) so it doesn't seem as competitive as people make it seem.
Primary care. FP, IM, peds ... 'course, those fields seem to be beneath most on this forum in the first place, so I guess they don't count.Out of curiosity, can you name a few?
If you are good at giving anesthesia, fast, efficient, and have a good personality, then there WILL be plenty of jobs in the future giving direct care if that's where we are headed.
...
Exactly, and I think the more behind the scenes role of the anesthesiologist only exacerbates this issue. Most patients are unaware and won't know the difference if a CRNA took care of them instead of an MD. On the other hand, I don't know if any patient would be OK with seeing a nurse cardiologist instead of an MD cardiologist. But they said that about replacing bankers with ATMs/online banking and now nobody goes to a banker anymore.