the article is full of obfuscations.
1. "Physician anesthesiologists" as a term used. i hate that term. imo, the correct term is Anesthesiologists. (the ASA does use physician anesthesiologists)
2. comment on "only anesthesia professionals required to attain clinical experience prior to entering an educational program" is a lie. Anesthesia residents have to do 1 year of internship before entering into anesthesia residency training.
3. " All CRNAs are board certified, while only 75 percent of physician anesthesiologists are board certified, according to the Anesthesia Quality Institute (AQI) report titled Anesthesia in the United States 2013." is that because the pass rate for CRNAs is 100%, and not 75% for anesthesiologists?
4. the study: "Landmark research, however, has confirmed that anesthesia is equally safe regardless" - was a retrospective review 1999-2005 by CMS of 13 rural states that looked at data at rural hospital (non-ASC) sites before and after opting out of having to have CRNAs supervised by anesthesiologists. written in 2010. multiple reasons given on trimming patient data. that was almost 20 years ago.
5. both the ASA and AANA state that their "faction" has more training. the AANA uses more obfuscation to state that their 9400 hours of training is superior than the 12000 hours of anesthesiology. in fact, the AANA complains that the ASA figures include undergraduate degree. yet their stated 8 years of CRNA training also includes a bachelor. of nursing degree. which is apparently far superior to any degree necessary to even get in to medical school, believe it or not....
