Michigan

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

nimbus

Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
11,887
Reaction score
20,937
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 1 users
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Nonetheless, the broader point remains true, that these insurance companies keep cutting and slashing reimbursement, and it’s getting ridiculous. At least we can rely on medicare like many other specialties... oh wait, we can’t
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Oh no $64 a unit? Cry me a river please. We're involved in emergent STEMI caths like 5% of the time, this argument is ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Are OR’s closed in Michigan due to a shortage of anesthesiologists?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Are OR’s closed in Michigan due to a shortage of anesthesiologists?

doubt it.
also IMO $64 a unit is very good rate.
big question is how much of that money actually goes to the anesthesiologist
and maybe the issue here is within his own group in terms of reimbursements for taking call

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
What kind of story is Dr Ganzi making? Patient with chest pain turned away from hospital because of no anesthesiologist? They don't need an anesthesiologist for the cardiologist to do an emergent cath. Wtff..

Caths don't really do much for most patients anyway
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users
Gotta say Im a bit surprised by some of these comments. No one is saying that anesthesiologists are in the poor house or anything, but you know that insurance companies are making out big. Instead of looking at it from a ‘cry me a river’ aspect, how about the fact that in seemingly every other job, rates and wages go up at least with inflation, while our rates remain stagnant or even decrease, year in and year out. Overhead keeps going up. Anesthesia practices have to keep paying more and more to keep the lights on with these rates that continue to drop. Look, money talks. Yes, docs are leaving the state. We don’t expect any sympathy from the public, and ANY amount of money will be more than what the average American makes. But that’s not the standard.

If a crna offers were 120K, for example, they would leave the state as well (even though 120K is superb compared to what the avg family makes!).

If Lebron James was offered 2 million a year to play ball, he wouldn’t sign (even though 2 million is more than what the....).

You get my point.

So if your state is ranked almost last in private insurance reimbursement, you can’t expect to retain many folks. Simple economics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Gotta say Im a bit surprised by some of these comments. No one is saying that anesthesiologists are in the poor house or anything, but you know that insurance companies are making out big. Instead of looking at it from a ‘cry me a river’ aspect, how about the fact that in seemingly every other job, rates and wages go up at least with inflation, while our rates remain stagnant or even decrease, year in and year out. Overhead keeps going up. Anesthesia practices have to keep paying more and more to keep the lights on with these rates that continue to drop. Look, money talks. Yes, docs are leaving the state. We don’t expect any sympathy from the public, and ANY amount of money will be more than what the average American makes. But that’s not the standard.

If a crna offers were 120K, for example, they would leave the state as well (even though 120K is superb compared to what the avg family makes!).

If Lebron James was offered 2 million a year to play ball, he wouldn’t sign (even though 2 million is more than what the....).

You get my point.

So if your state is ranked almost last in private insurance reimbursement, you can’t expect to retain many folks. Simple economics.

while i agree with your overall sentiments (we should fight for what we are worth!), the way it has been written by Dr Ganzi doesn't convey facts and data all that well. just cherry picking points to support his arguments. Half of UofM anesthesiology grads leave after finishing residency? For a top tier program like UofM, how many of them were from Michigan to begin with? How about presenting data from all of the anesthesiology programs? 100 open positions for anesthesiologists? What is the data looking like in other midwestern states, and does this rather reflect the growing need for anesthesiologists as the population gets older? Are seasoned anesthesiologists leaving their practices in droves to other states? How about graphing the average wages and earnings for anesthesiologists in every state? I need more than just a half-assed story about a heart attack patient being diverted to another hospital because there was no anesthesiologist present.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
while i agree with your overall sentiments (we should fight for what we are worth!), the way it has been written by Dr Ganzi doesn't convey facts and data all that well. just cherry picking points to support his arguments. Half of UofM anesthesiology grads leave after finishing residency? For a top tier program like UofM, how many of them were from Michigan to begin with? How about presenting data from all of the anesthesiology programs? 100 open positions for anesthesiologists? What is the data looking like in other midwestern states, and does this rather reflect the growing need for anesthesiologists as the population gets older? Are seasoned anesthesiologists leaving their practices in droves to other states? How about graphing the average wages and earnings for anesthesiologists in every state? I need more than just a half-assed story about a heart attack patient being diverted to another hospital because there was no anesthesiologist present.
Fair enough, good points. After researching this issue, what is frustrating to me is that there is so much variation with insurance company reimbursement. Even from practice to practice in a single state, reimbursement rates vary. And then from state to state, there is much variation. Indiana and Ohio have vastly different rates than in Michigan. Why?? What is even more wild, is that practices are not allowed to even ask other practices what their rates are- that is illegal for some odd reason (collusion?).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I wanna know where I can get $323/unit. $3500 for a 1 hour lap chole sounds awesome. Line up 4/day, out by noon with $16k. I would cut back to 4 days/week because $60k+/week is enough for me;). One can only dream.

Data collected by surveymonkey so maybe they just made it up.

 
Last edited:
If everyone had insurance and your were paid $64 a unit for every case that would be good, but remember that medicare and medicade dont pay for **** to anesthesia. So if you have a bad payer mix your average $/unit will be ****. Anesthesia in particular relies on private insurance to bail us out of the ****ter as far as avg unit values.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Members don't see this ad :)
If everyone had insurance and your were paid $64 a unit for every case that would be good, but remember that medicare and medicade dont pay for **** to anesthesia. So if you have a bad payer mix your average $/unit will be ****. Anesthesia in particular relies on private insurance to bail us out of the ****ter as far as avg unit values.
What percentage is considered a bad payor mix I wonder?
 
What percentage is considered a bad payor mix I wonder?

I would say 50% CMS would be the threshold for a poor payor mix. Using the above 64/unit with (let's say) 22/unit for CMS and a 5% no insurance would come out to 41/unit. If you are solo and doing around 13000 units per year (fairly busy), would come out to 533k per year. However, you would have to subtract practice expenses and benefits. 425-450k pretax sounds reasonable based off these numbers
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
actually i was expecting something way lower than 64/unit. but then again i dont know anything about billing since all my patients are on medicaid
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
I would say 50% CMS would be the threshold for a poor payor mix. Using the above 64/unit with (let's say) 22/unit for CMS and a 5% no insurance would come out to 41/unit. If you are solo and doing around 13000 units per year (fairly busy), would come out to 533k per year. However, you would have to subtract practice expenses and benefits. 425-450k pretax sounds reasonable based off these numbers

that sounds terrible for the amount of work
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user


HB 4359 in Michigan already passed the house - the State Senate Health Policy committee is going to be having a hearing on the bill on Thursday 5/20

Consider going to MIsafecare.com and letting your state senator know about your opposition - consider sharing with friends and family if you have any in Michigan

Thanks!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
$64 is a poor rate for Blue Cross if that insurer is the group’s number 1 non CMS payer. Typically, Blue Cross is around $80-$85 per unit.

unless a group gets a subsidy from the hospital a $64 unit rate won’t cut the mustard because CMS reimburses so poorly. Typically, many groups have a 40-50 percent CMS/no insurance percentage so the blended unit needs to reach at least $45 or so to pay everyone and not require a subsidy. That’s why AMCs exist and take contracts. They get $100-$150 per unit from the payers bringing the blended unit way up. They also cut wages and dont give raises to their employees combined with a terrible benefit package.

Regardless of what you may believe salaries have been stagnant for the vast majority of physician employees in this field. Many aren’t even getting cost of living increases from the AMC. The defacto result is inflation eats into the salaries over time resulting in a pay cut every year.

if you are not getting a cost of living increase each year then your real pay is going down and over ten years this adds up to a lot of money.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users


HB 4359 in Michigan already passed the house - the State Senate Health Policy committee is going to be having a hearing on the bill on Thursday 5/20

Consider going to MIsafecare.com and letting your state senator know about your opposition - consider sharing with friends and family if you have any in Michigan

Thanks!

Any updates?
 
Any updates?
The Michigan Senate Committee held hearings over 2 days (held 2 weeks apart) on Thursday May 20 and Thursday May 27th. The second of the two dates included excellent testimony - most notably from an OR circulating nurse who made very compelling points about her personal experience watching both CRNAs and Anesthesiologists at her place of work in Grand Rapids, MI. There was also testimony from a patient who experienced postpartum hemorrhage and how she felt it was an Anesthesiologist who saved her life. The president of the MSA and the president of MSMS both also testified in person and spoke very eloquently. A retired orthopedic surgeon testified in support of the bill trying to make points that CRNAs = Anesthesiologists. A committee vote was not held at the conclusion of testimony. Alternate bills have been proposed by a committee senator - which would include licensure of AAs in Michigan (currently they can work but through through a regulatory loop hole). Also there are amendments that have been proposed and suggested that would make the proposed bill not so broad in scope. In any event, we are not sure what will occur from here. We are not sure when the committee would vote to move the bill to the Senate Floor. The governor of Michigan, when she was a legislator, voted against similar attempts to grant independent authority to CRNAs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
The Michigan Senate Committee held hearings over 2 days (held 2 weeks apart) on Thursday May 20 and Thursday May 27th. The second of the two dates included excellent testimony - most notably from an OR circulating nurse who made very compelling points about her personal experience watching both CRNAs and Anesthesiologists at her place of work in Grand Rapids, MI. There was also testimony from a patient who experienced postpartum hemorrhage and how she felt it was an Anesthesiologist who saved her life. The president of the MSA and the president of MSMS both also testified in person and spoke very eloquently. A retired orthopedic surgeon testified in support of the bill trying to make points that CRNAs = Anesthesiologists. A committee vote was not held at the conclusion of testimony. Alternate bills have been proposed by a committee senator - which would include licensure of AAs in Michigan (currently they can work but through through a regulatory loop hole). Also there are amendments that have been proposed and suggested that would make the proposed bill not so broad in scope. In any event, we are not sure what will occur from here. We are not sure when the committee would vote to move the bill to the Senate Floor. The governor of Michigan, when she was a legislator, voted against similar attempts to grant independent authority to CRNAs.
Thanks for sharing. The true intent behind the bill is so blatantly clear to all but the lawmakers. It is not about cost savings for patients or access to care. I heard the orthopedic surgeons testimony when the bill was presented in front of the house - he knows nothing about anesthesia and it is a shame that he would throw the profession under the bus - probably driven by some personal ties to CRNAs. I’m glad AA inclusion is being discussed. Hopefully this doesn’t fall on the need for a veto by Whitmer. Plz keep us posted and let us know how we can help
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Sadly - but not unexpectedly - the Senate Health Policy Committee approved HB 4359 for CRNA "independence" by a vote of 7-3. They did pass a slightly modified bill which requires a CRNA to have 3 years of experience OR a "doctorate" degree (which they all soon will be graduating with as we know and is utterly meaningless). Further the CRNA has to be a part of a "Care Team" but that's just idiotic window dressing to make the senators think they can sleep at night - the "Care Team" is not supervising the CRNA. Lastly the substitution calls for CRNAs to carry "malpractice insurance" but no explanation or requirements are elaborated in the bill.

From Gongwer News Service - Michigan:

Sen. John Bizon on Thursday said he could not support a House bill voted out of the Senate Health Policy and Human Services Committee Trackas it would lower the level of care for Michigan residents receiving surgical anesthesia while also adding the measure is "crazy" and "insane."

HB 4359 would modify the scope of practice for certified registered nurse anesthetists. Under the bill, a CRNA would be able to develop a plan of care, perform all patient assessments, procedures and monitoring to implement that plan as well as provide the authority to administer prescription drugs or controlled substances.

It was the subject of divided testimony during a previous meeting of the committee (See Gongwer Michigan Report, May 27, 2021), which reported the bill Thursday with S-3 substitute 7-3. Sen. Kim LaSata (R-Bainbridge Township) and Sen. Sylvia Santana (D-Detroit) joined Mr. Bizon in voting no.

While it passed the House in late March, HB 4359 saw groups divided on the bill as the chamber prepared for a vote (See Gongwer Michigan Report, March 23, 2021).

Before the committee voted to report HB 4359, Mr. Bizon, a Republican from Battle Creek and a retired physician, said that the sponsors and various committees have worked with advocates on both sides but have yet to gain input from the residents of Michigan. As a Senate committee that is a gatekeeper of pending health policy, Mr. Bizon said reporting and passing this bill would fail them.

"When applied to level one trauma centers, which this does, it can only be described as being insane to get rid of an anesthesiologist, for someone who is trauma one level patient, that has significant trauma, is crazy," Mr. Bizon said. "Lowering the bar to the lowest common denominator may be great for profits, but it is terrible for the care of our constituents. Nurses are not doctors. Their training differs and the courts agree and hold the professions to a different professional standard and different professional liability."

Requiring malpractice insurance, as the bill prescribes, does not change the fact that the problems addressed by the bill, and Mr. Bizon said that could be better handled through the wider use of telemedicine.

"This is one of the lessons that we have learned and that we are moving to in all other fields of medicine, except apparently in anesthesia," he said. "We have learned how to work better oftentimes from home, and we should learn from our experiences with this pandemic and push forward with good policy for our citizens. This current version of the bill is not that. Telemedicine could address access even in rural communities and make it much easier to extend the reach of medicine throughout the entirety of this state."

In a statement, the Michigan Society of Anesthesiologists shared Mr. Bizon's sentiments.

"We are deeply disappointed the Senate Health Policy and Human Services Committee Trackignored patient safety concerns and advanced irresponsible legislation that will dismantle anesthesia care teams and put lives at risk," said Dr. Neeju Ravikant, president of the Michigan Society of Anesthesiologists. "House Bill 4359 jeopardizes the health and safety of Michigan patients, provides zero cost savings to taxpayers and threatens to increase health care costs at a time when Michiganders can least afford it. We urge the full Senate to wake up and see HB 4359 for what it is: dangerous and reckless legislation that will compromise patient safety and make it harder for doctors with the training and expertise to respond to life-threatening emergencies to do their jobs."

Dr. Pino Colone, president of the Michigan State Medical Society, in a statement also said the vote undermines patient care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Typical. The downward spiral of the speciality of anesthesiology into the abyss of mediocrity continues....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
HB 4359 passed out of the full senate 31-4 after several last minute amendments were made to the bill
It's still a horrible bill
It was made less worse to make the legislators able to sleep at night with a false sense of security

*The words "sole and independent" were removed to describe a CRNA's authority - though it does state they can provide anesthesia "without supervision"

*there is language that a CRNA has to be "collaboratively participating" with other health care professionals on the team

*there needs to be a "qualified health professional" immediately available in person or via telemedicine to deal with clinical concerns

*there is language that a CRNA can not be doing pain medicine unless supervised by a physician

The bill will have to go back to the house where i'm sure it will pass and then onto the gov for her to sign

Sad day for sure
 
*there needs to be a "qualified health professional" immediately available in person

so does that acknowledge that the CRNA is not a qualified health professional?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
I don’t understand the malpractice requirement except as a kickback to insurance companies… like the people should be reassured that someone will be able to pay for their inevitable injuries by letting amateur hour run the show? Do these senators expect to be taken care of by crnas?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top