California Nurse Anesthetists Allowed to Work Solo

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

henrylee

New Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
This might not be relevant to some, but i was wondering what peoples thoughts were to the future of anesthesia in California. I am one that would like to stay in Cali for residency and work in Socal. Is this just another barrier for general anesthesiologist for finding jobs and income?




http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/766667


California Nurse Anesthetists Allowed to Work Solo
Yael Waknine
June 29, 2012 — A ruling this week by the California Supreme Court has ended years of legal wrangling, leaving certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) free to continue providing access to care in medically underserved populations despite increasing physician concerns for patient safety.

The court upheld former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2009 decision to opt out of the 47-year-old federal Medicare facility reimbursement rule requiring physician supervision of CRNAs, denying review of a lawsuit filed by the California Medical Association opposing the ruling.

At this time, there are 40 US states with no physician supervision requirement for CRNAs written into their nursing or medical laws or regulations. Of these states, 33 do not require supervision according to state hospital licensing laws or regulations.

California is 1 of 17 states that have decided to opt out of the federal regulation requiring physician supervision to obtain reimbursement for Medicare patients undergoing anesthesia.

In 2001, the Bush administration gave state governors the right to opt out as long as they ascertained that opting out is consistent with state law, informed the state boards of medicine and nursing of their intent to opt out, and determined that opting out is in the best interest of the state's citizens.

Other states that have chosen to opt out are Iowa, Nebraska, Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Kansas, North Dakota, Washington, Alaska, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Kentucky.

The Training Issue

Jane C.K. Fitch, MD, a former nurse anesthetist, told Medscape Medical News, "I became an anesthesiologist after I realized I did not know all I needed to know to take comprehensive care of my patients." Dr. Fitch is now first vice president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists.

"The differences in length of education and training, as well as the differences in depth of knowledge, do not allow CRNAs to learn as much detail or gain as much experience and training as is needed to practice independently. That is why it is not in the best interest of patient safety to have [nurse anesthetists] practice without physician supervision," Dr. Fitch emphasized.

To administer anesthesia, bachelor-degreed registered nurses must have at least 1 year of acute care nursing experience before completing a 2- to 3-year master's degree program and passing the national CRNA board certification exam.

In contrast, anesthesiologists must first obtain a 4-year medical degree, complete a 4-year anesthesiology residency program, and pass a comprehensive oral and written exam. Subspecialization can be done through a 1- to 3-year fellowship.

However, Debra Malina, CRNA, DNSc, MBA, asserts that CRNAs are as equally capable as physicians in administering anesthesia. Malina is president of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists.

"National studies have confirmed that anesthesia care provided by CRNAs is as safe as [that] provided by anesthesiologists, and more cost-effective," Malina said in an interview with Medscape Medical News, calling the federal supervision requirement, which is not required under state law, "outdated, cumbersome, and most of all, unnecessary."

Scope of Care

In a recent news article, Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle quoted Curtis Cole, lawyer for the California Society of Anesthesiologists, as saying that the studies are misleading because "nurse anesthetists don't do the hard cases, like cardiac surgery."

Malina strongly disagrees, saying, "It is easy to prove that CRNAs provide anesthesia care for every type of surgery, regardless of physician supervision, including cardiac, transplants, brain surgery, back surgery, joint replacement, you name it. There are no limitations on what types of cases CRNAs are involved in, what types of anesthetics they can provide, the facilities where they can work, etc."

Even so, the scope of care a physician can provide can be crucial.

According to Dr. Fitch, the need for physician supervision has never been more vital because of the critical nature of anesthesia, the unpredictable responses of patients, and America's older and sicker patient population.

Most anesthesiology-related adverse events are related to a patient's comorbidities or to the specifics of the surgery or procedure, which are more knowledgably addressed by the surgeon or interventional physician, Dr. Fitch explained. Only a minority of anesthesiology-related adverse events are related to the anesthetic.

Costs and Access to Care

However, Malina asserted that the federal rule has nothing to do with patient safety and everything to do with a requirement for reimbursement, because supervision already was not required at the state level. She added that CRNAs ensure valuable access to surgical, obstetrical, trauma, and pain management services for millions of Americans in rural and other medically underserved areas.

"Taking into consideration all 3 components — access, safety, and cost-effectiveness — in an era of tremendous economic concerns, particularly with regard to our healthcare system, the ability to opt out of a needless federal requirement and put the healthcare decision making in states' hands is a very appealing option," Malina said.

Dr. Fitch disagrees, noting that cost and access are frequently cited as motivations to pursue CRNA independent practice.

"Cost is not the issue because there is no difference in payment from Medicare for CRNAs or anesthesiologists. Nor is access to anesthesia services impacted, as where there is the need for surgery or a procedure requiring anesthesia, there is always a physician present," Dr. Fitch said.

"For CRNAs who want independent practice, please do what I did and prepare yourself to provide comprehensive care of your patients by becoming a physician. It is not in the best interest of patient safety to seek legislative or regulatory shortcuts to achieve that goal. The ability to practice the critical care specialty of anesthesiology should only be granted through the proper medical education and training, and not through legislation or regulation," Dr. Fitch concluded.

Members don't see this ad.
 
All states soon so it's a non-issue.
 
All states soon so it's a non-issue.

That's not true. Some states have some very strong language legally to prevent it that would have to be overturned. And not all state governments are quite so gung ho about this issue. In fact, some are downright against it.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
all states soon so it's a non issue
 
all states soon so it's a non issue

you can't be that misinformed can you?

In my state it won't happen at any point in the next 20 years. Like a less than 1% chance. The AANA isn't even close to making it an issue here.
 
Where can I find out in which states this is most likely to happen and which states it is least? I'm planning on training and living in the northeast for most of my life...are those states gonna join soon? (I'm talking PA, NJ, NY and New England)
 
guys, the nurses can lobby and legislate all they want but one thing is for certain they can't train their own. unfortunately, many anesthesiologists are too complacent and don't realize they are training their own replacements EVERYDAY. what we need to do as a society is to concentrate on STOPPING this. current anesthesia nurse graduates are woefully ill prepared to provide anesthesia FULLY supervised never mind going solo. to me the solution is simple: STOP training them (yes at the expense of working harder and making less money) and this problem will go away! supply and demand. less anesthesia providers = big demand/premium for anesthesiologists... yes, even under obamacare.
 
guys, the nurses can lobby and legislate all they want but one thing is for certain they can't train their own. unfortunately, many anesthesiologists are too complacent and don't realize they are training their own replacements EVERYDAY. what we need to do as a society is to concentrate on STOPPING this. current anesthesia nurse graduates are woefully ill prepared to provide anesthesia FULLY supervised never mind going solo. to me the solution is simple: STOP training them (yes at the expense of working harder and making less money) and this problem will go away! supply and demand. less anesthesia providers = big demand/premium for anesthesiologists... yes, even under obamacare.

The problem with that line of thinking: there aren't enough anesthesiologists to provide 1:1 care for every case in America that needs us. Like not even close. Do you have a plan to quadruple the number of residency grads each year? Because right now it's what, 1400 a year or so? Because without that, you need the CRNAs (or AAs which aren't legal in most states yet).

So stopping the education of all SRNAs doesn't help anything.

What you need to do is train them to be competent members of an ACT model. They don't need to interpret TEE. They don't need to place an interscalene catheter. They don't need to float a PA. They do need to know how to intubate somebody and basic pharmacology and physiology to take care of a patient and know when they need help.
 
Medical staff bylaws are our last line of defense. Now they want to put nurses on the medical staff which is ridiculous but don't blink or someone will **** you.
 
The problem with that line of thinking: there aren't enough anesthesiologists to provide 1:1 care for every case in America that needs us. Like not even close. Do you have a plan to quadruple the number of residency grads each year? Because right now it's what, 1400 a year or so? Because without that, you need the CRNAs (or AAs which aren't legal in most states yet).

So stopping the education of all SRNAs doesn't help anything.

What you need to do is train them to be competent members of an ACT model. They don't need to interpret TEE. They don't need to place an interscalene catheter. They don't need to float a PA. They do need to know how to intubate somebody and basic pharmacology and physiology to take care of a patient and know when they need help.
Mman, obviously stopping ALL nurse training is not feasible. I realize the projected future increase in surgeries and our ever increasing presence in other venues, endo, cath, various amb settings, etc. But, if we make an effort to close down/refuse to teach at even just a FEW of these CRNA mills over time I believe it will go a long ways in making a big impact for future job prospects and perceived value of Anesthesiologists. Can you imagine what kind of message that would send to the AANA?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Mman, obviously stopping ALL nurse training is not feasible. I realize the projected future increase in surgeries and our ever increasing presence in other venues, endo, cath, various amb settings, etc. But, if we make an effort to close down/refuse to teach at even just a FEW of these CRNA mills over time I believe it will go a long ways in making a big impact for future job prospects and perceived value of Anesthesiologists. Can you imagine what kind of message that would send to the AANA?

How you decide who is worth training and who isn't? Train the ones from the mills. They are *****s and our worth will be self evident over time. Just train them appropriately to be members of an ACT. That's what they should be since they aren't medically trained and shouldn't be managing medical problems independently anyway.
 
the fact that you and i realize they are '*****s' and 'shouldn't be managing medical problems independently' has done little to stem the advance of aana's legislative influence.

look, all i'm saying is we as anesthesiologists have control over two things. 1) what we teach the nurses and 2) how many we teach. plan and simple. i agree training them appropriately is one solution we need to employ. training fewer is another. whom and how many less that's up for debate. when you have hospitals desperate to hire mds for high quality anesthesia coverage that is the end game. all this talk about which state opting-out will be moot. the 50 high performing military trained crnas can practice solo in BFE for all we care.
 
Are CRNAs educated by physicians? I thought they were educated by other CRNAs at their respective institutions.
 
Are CRNAs educated by physicians? I thought they were educated by other CRNAs at their respective institutions.

AH, you are underinformed. Unfortunately, many hospitals use SRNA's to run rooms by themselves - it's basically free labor - and it's also why so many groups have a hard time letting go, even though at some level you've got to think they know they're part of the problem. I think those docs are gradually waking up to this fact.
 
So stopping the education of all SRNAs doesn't help anything.

What you need to do is train them to be competent members of an ACT model. They don't need to interpret TEE. They don't need to place an interscalene catheter. They don't need to float a PA. They do need to know how to intubate somebody and basic pharmacology and physiology to take care of a patient and know when they need help.

HEHLLO!! KNOCK KNOCK!! Is anyone home marty?

MCFLY IS ANYONE IN THERE

crnas dont wanna do this job no longer. THEY WANNA do YOUR JOB STUPID!!!! So why would you continue to train someone who eventually wants YOUR JOB. WHy wouldnt you do everything possible to support AA legislation...
 
HEHLLO!! KNOCK KNOCK!! Is anyone home marty?

MCFLY IS ANYONE IN THERE

crnas dont wanna do this job no longer. THEY WANNA do YOUR JOB STUPID!!!! So why would you continue to train someone who eventually wants YOUR JOB. WHy wouldnt you do everything possible to support AA legislation...

Why would they want to practice independently? Will they be making the same as anesthesiologists? And if so, how are they cost effective anymore? That doesn't make any sense. If they charge/cost the same as anesthesiologists, having a lot less value given that they not only dont have the knowledge/skill that anesthesiologists do, but that they don't want to work the hours most attendings do, please someone tell me how they would be cost effective or worthwhile for hospitals to have?
 
HEHLLO!! KNOCK KNOCK!! Is anyone home marty?

MCFLY IS ANYONE IN THERE

crnas dont wanna do this job no longer. THEY WANNA do YOUR JOB STUPID!!!! So why would you continue to train someone who eventually wants YOUR JOB. WHy wouldnt you do everything possible to support AA legislation...


Stupid post.

We use AAs, quite a few of them. I can't support the legislation any further in this state because there is nothing else to improve upon.

And the CRNAs don't want MY JOB. They can't supervise rooms like I can. There is very little upward mobility for CRNAs in terms of number of jobs. They can't sit in more rooms other than displacing the minority of jobs that have MD only positions or places where AAs are.

Their goals are about money and power. That's it.
 
Your misquote of Back to the Future is a sacrilege.

D712
 
Stupid post.

We use AAs, quite a few of them. I can't support the legislation any further in this state because there is nothing else to improve upon.

And the CRNAs don't want MY JOB. They can't supervise rooms like I can. There is very little upward mobility for CRNAs in terms of number of jobs. They can't sit in more rooms other than displacing the minority of jobs that have MD only positions or places where AAs are.

Their goals are about money and power. That's it.

Doesnt that worry you? And doesnt it concern you that CRNA's are doing much of the same job you guys are doing with MDs with a little nursing degree? And I still don't get why they are getting paid almost the same as anesthesiologists. Who put those rates in place?!
 
Doesnt that worry you? And doesnt it concern you that CRNA's are doing much of the same job you guys are doing with MDs with a little nursing degree? And I still don't get why they are getting paid almost the same as anesthesiologists. Who put those rates in place?!

They aren't doing anything like my job. They are intubating patients and taking care of them in the OR with me helping along the way when difficulties arise.

I'm consulting on preoperative management/testing issues. I'm deciding on operative plan. I'm following them postop and helping with ICU management and pain management issues. Our CRNAs aren't doing any invasive lines or blocks (including epidurals).

They also don't get paid the same.

Why should I be concerned about that?
 
Why should I be concerned about that?


you are dumber then he looks.

What's the matter with you?

The CRNAS are saying that, whatever it is YOU DO when you are not in the room when THEY are delivering the important anesthetic is a WASTE. They dont need you, THE SYSTEM DOESNT NEED YOU, there is NO NEED FOR ANYBODY SUPERVISING THEM. So your preop consultation to them is ****> and guess what MANY people are waking up and agreeing with them.

Should you be concerned with that?
 
They aren't doing anything like my job. They are intubating patients and taking care of them in the OR with me helping along the way when difficulties arise.

I'm consulting on preoperative management/testing issues. I'm deciding on operative plan. I'm following them postop and helping with ICU management and pain management issues. Our CRNAs aren't doing any invasive lines or blocks (including epidurals).

They also don't get paid the same.

Why should I be concerned about that?

I don't know but haven't many states opted out of the physician supervision? So they are working independently no? And they are making 150k + to start off no, with no call, and over time is time and a half? And don't they bill the same $$ for medicare?

I find it pretty appalling that you guys would train these people.
 
you are dumber then he looks.

What's the matter with you?

The CRNAS are saying that, whatever it is YOU DO when you are not in the room when THEY are delivering the important anesthetic is a WASTE. They dont need you, THE SYSTEM DOESNT NEED YOU, there is NO NEED FOR ANYBODY SUPERVISING THEM. So your preop consultation to them is ****> and guess what MANY people are waking up and agreeing with them.

Should you be concerned with that?

Wow, Darb, It's about time you quit making up names and go find yourself a mate/hobby/life. Your join date gives you away every time. When you get banned in April, a new profile opens up the same month whining about the same exact thing.

I don't know if I should "ignore" you or wait for you to get banned again.

Please visit Match.com and find a way to better occupy your time.
 
Wow, Darb, It's about time you quit making up names and go find yourself a mate/hobby/life. Your join date gives you away every time. When you get banned in April, a new profile opens up the same month whining about the same exact thing.

I don't know if I should "ignore" you or wait for you to get banned again.

Please visit Match.com and find a way to better occupy your time.
what are you talking about? this is the first time i am on this site mate.
 
I don't know but haven't many states opted out of the physician supervision? So they are working independently no? And they are making 150k + to start off no, with no call, and over time is time and a half? And don't they bill the same $$ for medicare?

I find it pretty appalling that you guys would train these people.

That's it in a nutshell. Welcome to Anesthesiology.
 
For the first time since the firm(Merritt Hawkins) began compiling data, anesthesiology was not among its 20 most-requested search assignments.
"Anesthesiology is one of the few areas in medicine where allied health professionals, in this case certified registered nurse anesthetists, are replacing physicians," said Miller. "More states are allowing them to work unsupervised.
 
you are dumber then he looks.

What's the matter with you?

The CRNAS are saying that, whatever it is YOU DO when you are not in the room when THEY are delivering the important anesthetic is a WASTE. They dont need you, THE SYSTEM DOESNT NEED YOU, there is NO NEED FOR ANYBODY SUPERVISING THEM. So your preop consultation to them is ****> and guess what MANY people are waking up and agreeing with them.

Should you be concerned with that?


They can't replace what I do. They aren't trained to. I don't train them to be able to. What a stupid state legislature enacts is not based in reality. If they passed a law that dogs should be allowed to perform surgery on people, would that mean they are able to do it as well as a surgeon? Of course not.

The battle is political.

Training them to be a part of an ACT model is irrelevant to the political battle. If you can't tell the difference, you really aren't that smart. Militant CRNAs that fight to be independent of physician oversight are stupid. They are the people who don't know what they don't know. They are dangerous. But >80% of CRNAs aren't those people. It's truly a minority. The majority of our CRNAs aren't even members of the AANA. They stopped contributing to that mess a long time ago.
 
That's it in a nutshell. Welcome to Anesthesiology.

Why do you guys train them? and who set their wages so high? If it was anesthesia, then you guys are beyond dumb I'm sorry. I don't think it makes sense that you guys would pay them so much that they make more than you for far less training and knowledge. Why don't you guys make them salaried and force them to take call, etc? Aren't you shooting yourselves in the foot?
 
Mman, i work at an all md practice. luckily, i don't need to rely on nurses to augment my income. i am probably more insulated from mid-level encroachment than most by virtue of where i work: affluent neighborhood, patients/surgeons that demand the best and willing to pay for it. with that said, even i dont have such a complacent and smug attitude. unfortunately, your perception (shared by many others out there) of this 'non problem' will not serve the future of this specialty. we need to be vigilant.

"... >80% of CRNAs aren't those people. It's truly a minority. The majority of our CRNAs aren't even members of the AANA. They stopped contributing to that mess a long time ago."

How many CA anesthesiologists FELT the same way before opt-out?? The AANA is one of the most powerful, influential, and well-funded lobbies out there. If you really think most CRNAs don't care about/support their national society then i just don't know what else to say.
 
Mman, i work at an all md practice. luckily, i don't need to rely on nurses to augment my income. i am probably more insulated from mid-level encroachment than most by virtue of where i work: affluent neighborhood, patients/surgeons that demand the best and willing to pay for it. with that said, even i dont have such a complacent and smug attitude. unfortunately, your perception (shared by many others out there) of this 'non problem' will not serve the future of this specialty. we need to be vigilant.

"... >80% of CRNAs aren't those people. It's truly a minority. The majority of our CRNAs aren't even members of the AANA. They stopped contributing to that mess a long time ago."

How many CA anesthesiologists FELT the same way before opt-out?? The AANA is one of the most powerful, influential, and well-funded lobbies out there. If you really think most CRNAs don't care about/support their national society then i just don't know what else to say.

All due respect, if you're in an insultated, affluent all-MD practice, then you really have no real-world basis for your opinion. Mman is, and he is correct.

The AANA is indeed one of the most influential lobbies out there. Trust me, I've been fighting with them for more than 30 years with AA practice issues, and there is nothing they won't stoop to, and nothing they won't do, to further their cause. The truth is the furthest thing from their minds - it's simply not important to them.

However, the fully-independent practice, pain-management promoting, we're everything an MD is and then some CRNA is a minority, albeit an extremely vocal minority. Many CRNA's who practice in ACT-type practices feel marginalized and ostracized from their professional organization, and these more vocal CRNA's openly ridicule their colleagues who don't practice the way they think they should. Many CRNA's have indeed stopped being members of the AANA because of this - they feel that they are not being represented and that an ever-increasing amount of their dues money each year is going for politically oriented purposes to promote an agenda that they don't favor.

I'm not saying for a second that anesthesiologists should let their guard down with their politics. But you have to fight the fights that matter, and the way you do that is by demonstrating WHY you are a superior choice compared to them, which is what Mman is trying to point out to you.
 
Mman, i work at an all md practice. luckily, i don't need to rely on nurses to augment my income. i am probably more insulated from mid-level encroachment than most by virtue of where i work: affluent neighborhood, patients/surgeons that demand the best and willing to pay for it. with that said, even i dont have such a complacent and smug attitude. unfortunately, your perception (shared by many others out there) of this 'non problem' will not serve the future of this specialty. we need to be vigilant.

"... >80% of CRNAs aren't those people. It's truly a minority. The majority of our CRNAs aren't even members of the AANA. They stopped contributing to that mess a long time ago."

How many CA anesthesiologists FELT the same way before opt-out?? The AANA is one of the most powerful, influential, and well-funded lobbies out there. If you really think most CRNAs don't care about/support their national society then i just don't know what else to say.


I am very concerned. I'm just not concerned with the same things as some people in this thread. I am concerned with the politics and the legislative battle. I am not threatened by an SRNA, the majority of whom can't even describe the mechanism of action of drugs they use every day.

You need to know what to be afraid of. Some people don't understand the legal battles and are afraid of the wrong things. I like CRNA mills. They keep CRNA salaries down for us. They also contribute to having crappier and crappier CRNAs around to give them all a bad name.
 
I am very concerned. I'm just not concerned with the same things as some people in this thread. I am concerned with the politics and the legislative battle. I am not threatened by an SRNA, the majority of whom can't even describe the mechanism of action of drugs they use every day.

You need to know what to be afraid of. Some people don't understand the legal battles and are afraid of the wrong things. I like CRNA mills. They keep CRNA salaries down for us. They also contribute to having crappier and crappier CRNAs around to give them all a bad name.

Crappy CRNAs are indeed the reality of those SRNA mills.
 
i understand what u guys are saying but even a crappy/dangerous crna becomes a little less crappy/dangerous with each successive year in practice. after 5-10-15 yrs you have a BUNCH of not so crappy/dangerous crnas. yes, they will never be a physician but armed with their new found knowledge/experience they are sure become more en-brazened over time.

i understand the projected need for future anesthesia providers but why do we need to train so many?? just so Mman can hire them cheaper? instead of making 600,000+ how about making a little less and hire a couple of mds instead?

"...But you have to fight the fights that matter, and the way you do that is by demonstrating WHY you are a superior choice compared to them, which is what Mman is trying to point out to you."

fair enough. but why do i even need to demonstrate that i am superior? this is painfully evident by virtue of education/training to both you and i. the mere fact that people are even making this comparison is incredibly degrading. by training more and more nurses we are only pouring fuel to the fire no matter how 'untouchable' we think we are.
 
I am very concerned. I'm just not concerned with the same things as some people in this thread. I am concerned with the politics and the legislative battle. I am not threatened by an SRNA, the majority of whom can't even describe the mechanism of action of drugs they use every day.

You need to know what to be afraid of. Some people don't understand the legal battles and are afraid of the wrong things. I like CRNA mills. They keep CRNA salaries down for us. They also contribute to having crappier and crappier CRNAs around to give them all a bad name.

I will break it down for you.

The more crna get legislative independence, the less supervising you will be doing, the less work for you. THe only work that will be for y ou will be working as a CRNA. AT crna wages. All crnas have to be a member of the AANA otherwise they are not certified. All crnas want to be independent. I cant believe you dont know this already. THEY ARE THE ENEMY.... You are at battle every single day. There is NO resting. THey are NOT YOUR FRIENDS
 
I will break it down for you.

The more crna get legislative independence, the less supervising you will be doing, the less work for you. THe only work that will be for y ou will be working as a CRNA. AT crna wages. All crnas have to be a member of the AANA otherwise they are not certified. All crnas want to be independent. I cant believe you dont know this already. THEY ARE THE ENEMY.... You are at battle every single day. There is NO resting. THey are NOT YOUR FRIENDS

CRNAs do not have to be members of the AANA to be certified. They can use the AANA for continuing ed credits, but they don't have to. Learn the facts.

Besides, my CRNAs are my employees with a longterm hospital contract. If our state opted out (which isn't happening) I could supervise them at any ratio I wanted. They can't offer the services to the hospital that we do. They can't run the acute pain service. They can't run a chronic pain clinic. They can't provide ICU coverage.

I'm not at WAR with the average CRNA. I'm at war with the political agenda of the AANA. The 2 are separate issues and you make a mockery of it by not understanding it.
 
i understand the projected need for future anesthesia providers but why do we need to train so many?? just so Mman can hire them cheaper? instead of making 600,000+ how about making a little less and hire a couple of mds instead?

I couldn't hire MDs to run MD only if I wanted to. There aren't enough out there. I live in relative BFE where few people dream of living and working. So that pipe dream is irrelevant and can't be done. Any other ideas? We already utilize AAs.
 
I couldn't hire MDs to run MD only if I wanted to. There aren't enough out there. I live in relative BFE where few people dream of living and working. So that pipe dream is irrelevant and can't be done. Any other ideas? We already utilize AAs.

In this job market? You would be flooded with CVs if and when you decide to hire an MD.
 
In this job market? You would be flooded with CVs if and when you decide to hire an MD.

I doubt it. At the end of the day, an undesirable remote location is undesirable to most physicians. There are a limited number of places I would consider living and raising a family. I passed up >$100k/yr to avoid living in a few places that many would consider fairly desirable. Money is only one of several factors.
 
In this job market? You would be flooded with CVs if and when you decide to hire an MD.

Hiring "an MD" wouldn't do anything to change our practice model. We are hiring. We've been hiring. Getting somebody to sign on the dotted line is a little different than getting a CV emailed to you. In the last 2 years we've interviewed about 12 people, offered positions to 4, and hired 0.
 
Top