- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
- Messages
- 369
- Reaction score
- 223
So, in 2010, the AANA funded a study and reported that independent CRNA practice resulted in no harm to patients.
This study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679649
They basically gathered data from medicare claims, and assumed that QZ billing was independent practice, and compared that to MD only as well as care team model. They analyzed mortality and complications rate and reported no difference in solo CRNA vs care team vs solo MD.
This is one of the principal paper that they cite when lobbying for independent practice.
We knew this paper was flawed in many different ways....and now we found one more.
A significant number of these "independent" crna practices were likely using medical supervision models. About 50% of them. The problem is that in a supervision model, CRNAs bill QZ and the supervising anesthesiologist does not bill...so medicare doesn't distinguish between medical supervision vs independent CRNA practice.
source:
http://www.anesthesiologynews.com/P...nd-Not-Representative-of-CRNA-Only-Care/35842
This study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679649
They basically gathered data from medicare claims, and assumed that QZ billing was independent practice, and compared that to MD only as well as care team model. They analyzed mortality and complications rate and reported no difference in solo CRNA vs care team vs solo MD.
This is one of the principal paper that they cite when lobbying for independent practice.
We knew this paper was flawed in many different ways....and now we found one more.
A significant number of these "independent" crna practices were likely using medical supervision models. About 50% of them. The problem is that in a supervision model, CRNAs bill QZ and the supervising anesthesiologist does not bill...so medicare doesn't distinguish between medical supervision vs independent CRNA practice.
source:
http://www.anesthesiologynews.com/P...nd-Not-Representative-of-CRNA-Only-Care/35842