Chloroform4Life

5+ Year Member
Mar 16, 2010
369
223
Milky Way
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

ranvier

I can't anesthetize a rumor.
10+ Year Member
Jul 17, 2006
252
132
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
But let's not forget, nurses take care of the whole patient.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users

Lurch

10+ Year Member
Sep 13, 2009
128
67
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
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


Fake it till you make it
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
About the Ads

Noyac

15+ Year Member
Jun 20, 2005
8,010
2,782
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
This has been played out for some time now. The ASA has called this to the attention of various outlets but it still comes up. It comes up because we live in a day and time were it doesn't matter if your "study" has any merit. Just do the shabby study and someone will publish it. We as a medical community have lost the control of the research community and more importantly the research publishers. Studies like this should never see print. These flaws should be uncovered before any publisher ever agrees to print it. But instead we live in an era of the Internet and anyone can publish anything to push-ups forward an agenda. It is pathetic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

FFP

SDN Gold Donor
10+ Year Member
Oct 17, 2007
9,783
12,564
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
This has been played out for some time now. The ASA has called this to the attention of various outlets but it still comes up. It comes up because we live in a day and time were it doesn't matter if your "study" has any merit. Just do the shabby study and someone will publish it. We as a medical community have lost the control of the research community and more importantly the research publishers. Studies like this should never see print. These flaws should be uncovered before any publisher ever agrees to print it. But instead we live in an era of the Internet and anyone can publish anything to push-ups forward an agenda. It is pathetic.
Not only that, but all these losers get academic promotions based on their shabby research. It's quantity, not quality, that matters nowadays. Follow the money (grants)!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Noyac

15+ Year Member
Jun 20, 2005
8,010
2,782
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Not only that, but all these losers get academic promotions based on their shabby research. It's quantity, not quality, that matters nowadays. Follow the money (grants)!
Actually, more and more "real" researchers and chairpersons are onto this scam.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Psai

This space for lease
Removed
5+ Year Member
Jan 2, 2014
11,392
23,994
ヽ(´ー`)ノ
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
To call that piece of garbage a trial is a slap in the face to all the physicians doing real research, not bull**** outcome studies that don't actually measure anything
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Chloroform4Life

5+ Year Member
Mar 16, 2010
369
223
Milky Way
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
With more and more clinical qualities being measured by medicare, I hope someone is going to do a true comparison between independent crna practice and other models.

The researcher will have to figure out which QZ billers are trully independent vs being supervised. The researcher will also have to match patients characteristics, asa class, etc. for it to be a true comparison, but its doable.

Sure, the result may backfire, but sh** can't get any worse. They brought this war to us. They forged a sh*ty weapon and have used it relentlessly to beat us down while we defend with bare hands. Now we have to forge a mightier weapon to beat them back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

IlDestriero

Ether Man
10+ Year Member
Nov 24, 2007
7,880
7,989
The ivory tower.
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
That is really true!
I don't know about other universities, but the two where I have been on the faculty use impact factor to evaluate your publications. If you're pumping out crap in the Yemeni Journal of Modern Medical Practice, The Throwaway Newsletter of Advances in Pain Management and the Online Open Access Journal of Anesthesia, you're better off sleeping in.


--
Il Destriero
 

Man o War

5+ Year Member
Apr 13, 2015
1,382
1,828
I pointed this out once to a militant CRNA I was having a conversation with, and he proceeded to totally ignore what I had just said and started blabbering on about the Cochrane review and how it's the "gold standard" for medical professionals and that body of evidence shows they are safe. I just had to walk away at that point and shake my head. No sense in arguing with stupid/intellectually lazy.
 

FFP

SDN Gold Donor
10+ Year Member
Oct 17, 2007
9,783
12,564
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I don't know about other universities, but the two where I have been on the faculty use impact factor to evaluate your publications. If you're pumping out crap in the Yemeni Journal of Modern Medical Practice, The Throwaway Newsletter of Advances in Pain Management and the Online Open Access Journal of Anesthesia, you're better off sleeping in.


--
Il Destriero
As long as they still add up those impact factors, it's still worthless. There is a lot of junk even in "Anesthesiology". The journals are becoming thicker and thicker, instead of publishing only 10 good papers or less per issue. I am not reading even the table of contents anymore, and that applies to most famous journals.

The way to make research relevant is to consider only the 3 highest IF articles a person has published in the last 10 years, or the average IF of his/her papers in the last 10 years. That way people will stop publishing junk for the sake of junk.

There are people and departments which consider research a matter of PR. The more stuff you put out, the more people will hear about you. It's almost like saying there is no bad publicity.

Criticizing research should be considered even better than research, for academic promotion purposes. The main reason we have all this garbage today is that people are not motivated to acquire strong statistical knowledge and start ripping 80% of the current authors/papers a new one. That's why most "scientists" have never heard of Ioannidis.

Of course, the latter does not bring grants, or friends. Hence the emperor still has no clothes, but everybody is in awe of him.

Also, if somebody's "research" is later disproved, it should be treated as research malpractice, for life.

tl; dr: The medical research community should start focusing on quality, and punish pure quantity. Research should not be done by ambitious average minds purely for the sake of promotion. We should have ten times fewer and ten times better quality publications.
 
Last edited:
About the Ads

Hawaiian Bruin

Breaking Good
15+ Year Member
Mar 13, 2003
2,178
1,192
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Rather than whining about this drivel masquerading as "research", people out there should stop using QZ for anesthetics in which an anesthesiologist is involved.

It's so much easier than meeting TEFRA requirements. I get it. The economic pressure to use it is great. But it results in crap like this.
 

IlDestriero

Ether Man
10+ Year Member
Nov 24, 2007
7,880
7,989
The ivory tower.
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I think we bill that way, as nobody cares if we go to the CRNA extubations, though the majority of us go to every one. Maybe not a deep LMA removal. If you told the resident to extubate without you I think alarms would sound. I will find out.


--
Il Destriero
 

Hawaiian Bruin

Breaking Good
15+ Year Member
Mar 13, 2003
2,178
1,192
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Widespread QZ billing allows these shoddy papers that are letting them win the PR battles.

Our public defense in the PR war cannot rest on the semantics of QZ billing, because nobody outside of anesthesia will understand or care.

Minimizing inappropriate QZ billing is a must.
 

Planktonmd

Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
Nov 2, 2006
7,145
2,593
The South
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
QZ is a way to get the most billing without having to do all the stupid things required for true direction and even allows exceeding the magic number of 4 rooms if needed. It never meant that CRNAs are truly practicing solo.
Don't expect QZ to go away anytime soon especially where AMCs are running the show.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Hawaiian Bruin

Breaking Good
15+ Year Member
Mar 13, 2003
2,178
1,192
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I understand that, Plank. Just saying that for as long as this is common, it hands them the rope they'll use to hang us.

"Facts are meaningless. They can be used to prove anything." - Homer Simpson
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

soorg

Board-certified maniac
10+ Year Member
Aug 7, 2008
206
129
I don't understand how CRNAS are allowed to bill for themselves using the QZ modifier? Also, what exact things are needed to show medical direction? Can someone explain?
 

Arch Guillotti

Senior Member
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
15+ Year Member
Aug 9, 2001
8,562
3,640
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I don't understand how CRNAS are allowed to bill for themselves using the QZ modifier? Also, what exact things are needed to show medical direction? Can someone explain?

TEFRA, the QZ modifier and the 7 requirements for medical direction have all been discussed previously. Try a search of the forum and you will find loads of information.
 

OneFellSwoop

10+ Year Member
Sep 8, 2008
83
113
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I think we bill that way, as nobody cares if we go to the CRNA extubations, though the majority of us go to every one. Maybe not a deep LMA removal. If you told the resident to extubate without you I think alarms would sound. I will find out.


--
Il Destriero

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the spirit of your post, but TEFRA doesn't require present for extubation so you wouldn't need to do that to avoid QZ billing. It requires emergence (which has already been legally ruled as a continuum and technically continues into PACU) and critical parts of the case. The legal (not necessarily clinical) precedent has yet to be set for extubation counting as critical portion of case. However whistle blower cases have alluded to this as a possibility. Lastly, I extubated all the time after CA1 (and late CA1) without an attending and that was within the last 5 years.

If someone has information to the contrary I'm all ears.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
 

IlDestriero

Ether Man
10+ Year Member
Nov 24, 2007
7,880
7,989
The ivory tower.
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Maybe you're ok with your sick kids getting extubated with only a CRNA or resident present, I think that's a dangerous period and put the coffee down for 5 minutes. My partners seem to agree.


--
Il Destriero
 

Arch Guillotti

Senior Member
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
15+ Year Member
Aug 9, 2001
8,562
3,640
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Maybe you're ok with your sick kids getting extubated with only a CRNA or resident present, I think that's a dangerous period and put the coffee down for 5 minutes. My partners seem to agree.


--
Il Destriero
I can understand that. I was referring to an average adult case.
 
About the Ads
This thread is more than 4 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.