? for UTSW

[joshmir]

---

Members don't see this ad.

(not sure if this got posted into the correct forum....)



Quoting UTSW:

"The AANA, however, did successfully block academic programs from increasing their reimbursement on the misguided teaching rule by preaching that academic programs would suddenly shut down their SRNA programs and double their residency program sizes, when they knew this was not only a false premise, but academically impossible with ACGME guidelines and restrictions. As I have posted previously, most programs can increase in size by only one or two residents every 4 years and only with adequate cardiac, thoracic, pediatric, intracranial, neurovascular, and obstetric case loads."


1) Why did the AANA push for this if they knew there wasn't really a threat of residencies expanding? what did they have to gain from denying academic programs $? my impression is the AANA paid a lot of money to prevent this form happening, it must have been for a reason that was clear to them...


2) From the point of view of academic chairpersons of academic anesthesia departments, what are the salient differences between training AAs and CRNAs? Do both subsidize the department equally?

3) If they became aware of #1, do you believe academic chaipersons will be more willing to transition to AA training?

as always, thanks for your insight

 

[UTSouthwestern]

Missed this post yesterday. Sorry.

On the surface, the AANA widely proclaimed that such a rule change would result in less training opportunities for SRNA's, less need for CRNA's in academic institutions, and more medical residents in these programs as stated. However, the AANA is fully aware of medical residency accreditation standards and is fully aware that residencies cannot double in size overnight, over four years, or over 40 years not counting a new residency program just getting started. Likewise, manpower issues at different institutions would not change; the reimbursement would increase. More money = better pay = better attendings = better training = better residents/fellows and SRNA's = more research opportunities.

It appears to be a move solely to keep academic programs underfunded and perhaps even an attempt to drive more programs into the red. An institution that loses its anesthesiology residency doesn't have to shut down it's CRNA training program.

Academic chairpesons should already be aware of this situation. If they are not, they are either oblivious to the obvious, or unwilling/unable to challenge the situation.

As to the financial equivalence of training CRNA's vs. AA's, I have no insight into that as my program did not have AA's.

 

[Pilot Doc]

1) Why did the AANA push for this if they knew there wasn't really a threat of residencies expanding? what did they have to gain from denying academic programs $? my impression is the AANA paid a lot of money to prevent this form happening, it must have been for a reason that was clear to them...

More $$ for MD training would probably lead to a small increase in traning programs. Or, more likely, continued underfunding will cause programs to shrink or close. CRNA job opportunities, particularly legislated expansion of scope of care, are much improved by a shortage of anesthesiologists. Keeping a financial constraint on residency training helps them.