Rut Roh

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Nationalized healthcare is already being spoken about among democratic presidential candidates. What shall we do if one of these nuckle heads becomes president?

Start saving money now. Eventually we will have a socialized medicine system in the US. I have a lot of friends who are anesthesiologists and I worry for them. They provide a service that people need and it is a service that can and is being done more cheaply by CRNA's. I am not arguing about outcomes etc. but the fact is that CRNA's have been the sole anesthesia providers in many small towns for ages now. I have several CRNA friends working in one particular small town that I rotated in. Each of them is making in the >200K range, which is far more than I would have been able to command as the general surgeon doing the procedures. HA! Gotta love it.

I also worry about my primary care friends - nurse practitioners can and do handle a lot of the every day stuff that primary care docs do. I moonlight in a rural ER from time to time and my radiology films are sent for wet reads to somewhere in India. I am beginning to wonder if my radiology friends are safe, given that most places are converting to digital films which can be sent anywhere in the world for reading.

I hope that you all are able to fight the good fight and win, but right now my bet is that the 70% of lemmings in this country who want "free" healthcare will win. Once again, save your money, its a short ride.
 
One more thing. I actually do have questions for Conflicted. I am sorry if you have answered these questions in other posts but I am interested in your experiences in the Canadian medical system.

What was your role in the system? Are you currently in the United States and if so, why did you emigrate? What are your thoughts on the viability of a Canadian style system in the US?
 
Hi Donkeypunch (i love the nickname)

Well Ill try to answer your questions the best I can.

What was your role in the system?

I worked as a paramedic and then became an RN (4 year science degree in Canada) and worked in the CVICU, Trauma room and ER.

Are you currently in the United States and if so, why did you emigrate?

Now this is the big question. As an RN in Canada I was paying 40% income tax, 15% sales tax and the cost of a gas is now 1$/ liter. In the hospital we often worked with less resources and no support staff. When the healthcare system is 100% funded by government (read:taxes) then everything that spends money is always on the chopping block (including staff). It wasent long before you felt like another number sucking money from the system, unappreciated and overtaxed.

We had friends who came to the US for the exact same reasons and were quite happy with the system here. While there are problems, at least taxes are half as much. Also, the competition in the US among healthcare institutions including big pharm, engenders a need to treat employees better, pushes research and innovation. These are things you rarely see in Canada, more often you see innovations to do more with less regardless of their effects on staff or patients. When there is no competition b/c the whole system is owned and run by the gov't then there is no incentive to be better.

In the US I have felt appreciated by hospitals, there is a significant amount of money set aside to further your education, taxes are lower and the care is timely.

What are your thoughts on the viability of a Canadian style system in the US?

Well I dont think Americans are willing to pay what it costs to have a nationalized healthcare system like Canada. One of the main focuses in the US is to decrease taxes not double them. I also think that the degree of innovativeness, research and pay which is all stems from competition, would disappear and it is a powerful argument against a national system. Lastly, the amount of jobs lost would be unreal. The insurance industry would shrink as they watched their profits dry up. Big Pharm would also cut back on employees and so too would hospitals close as they do in Canada. Everything becomes very centralized and shrinks. Lastly, it would be difficult to keep the great minds in medicine here in the US. If you don't pay someone what they are worth, they will always have somewhere to go. This is what has happened with the 'Brain Drain' from Canada to the USA.

I think the next 5 years will be integral in healthcare in the USA.

Hope this helps and feel free to ask anything else.


One more thing. I actually do have questions for Conflicted. I am sorry if you have answered these questions in other posts but I am interested in your experiences in the Canadian medical system.
What was your role in the system? Are you currently in the United States and if so, why did you emigrate? What are your thoughts on the viability of a Canadian style system in the US?
 
Thank you for your response Conflicted. Despite what others might say, I welcome your voice in these forums. It takes a special kind of person to be able to uproot and move to another country. The fact that you saw through the system chose to actually do something about it speaks volumes about who you are.

Your responses to my questions are fairly similar to what I have heard from many other ex-Canadians. I find it baffling that the schemers who want to socialize our medical system think that we will somehow be able to do what Canada was unable to. We're the same people and we're subject to the same human nature that Canadians are.

Years ago I was part of a forum on healthcare reform. The Canadian system was held high on a pedestal and it was blasphemy to ask questions. One question I would always ask was "why did the Canadian gov. ban private health insurance." Rather than answering the question they would deny that Canada had prohibitions against private insurance. I could show them the actual statutes but it didn't matter to them. There was always some explanation, mostly involving an ad hominem upon me. Last year I felt vindicated when the Canadian supreme court struck down the ban on private health insurance. Kindof hard to strike down a ban that doesn't exist, don't you think?

I have 2 more questions to ask you.
1) Why did Canada ban private health insurance?
2) Do you think a similar move would be attempted in the US, should a nationalized system be implemented.
 
Hey Donkey

Thanks 🙂

Ill try and answer as best i can.

1) Why did Canada ban private health insurance?

The Canadian Health Act states that ALL Canadians are entitled to equal access to healthcare. The reason why private insurers we not allowed to operate in Canada is 2 fold, in my opinion:

1) Since insurance costs money but may well provide better care (opening for private hospitals), this would be a violation of the Canada health act b/c rich people would have better access based on income. Also, the government run institutions may well be forced to step it up thereby costing them more with no income to pay for it. A massive tax burden made worse, essentially.

2) If there were any private services they would likely offer more money to attract Docs and RNs. This would cause issues in the government run institutions with staff. The 'Brain Drain' to the US is self limiting as most people don't know the difference, have a misconception of Americans or simply dont want to leave home. However, this would not be the case if you could 'relocate' to a hospital down the road and make alot more money in a nicer, "resource rich' environment.

So if they didnt allow that these things could not happen.

2) Do you think a similar move would be attempted in the US, should a nationalized system be implemented.

Hmm. Thats a tough one and i would only be guessing. I would guess that the US system would be 2 tiered. I could see there being the 'county system' which we all pay for to take care of the uninsured and then the 'insurance system' which we also pay for to get care we feel is much better than county. Anyone who has been in US healthcare for sometime may remember (or still have) state run hospitals which were used for uninsured and illegals. We used to have these people come to the ER where we would ask for insurance before tx. If they didnt have insurance we shipped them to the 'County' as long as they were stable. Then the days of EMTALA and medical screening exams came along and that came to an end. Now since hospitals have to absorb these losses they pass them onto the paying customers and so insurance rates increase.

Im not sure how it would cash out here in the states but i am sure that anyone who had money (middle class and up) would be paying twice. Once in your taxes for the uninsured's healthcare and again in your insurance premiums so you didnt have to goto the 'county' hospital.

Hope that helps!


Thank you for your response Conflicted. Despite what others might say, I welcome your voice in these forums. It takes a special kind of person to be able to uproot and move to another country. The fact that you saw through the system chose to actually do something about it speaks volumes about who you are.

Your responses to my questions are fairly similar to what I have heard from many other ex-Canadians. I find it baffling that the schemers who want to socialize our medical system think that we will somehow be able to do what Canada was unable to. We're the same people and we're subject to the same human nature that Canadians are.

Years ago I was part of a forum on healthcare reform. The Canadian system was held high on a pedestal and it was blasphemy to ask questions. One question I would always ask was "why did the Canadian gov. ban private health insurance." Rather than answering the question they would deny that Canada had prohibitions against private insurance. I could show them the actual statutes but it didn't matter to them. There was always some explanation, mostly involving an ad hominem upon me. Last year I felt vindicated when the Canadian supreme court struck down the ban on private health insurance. Kindof hard to strike down a ban that doesn't exist, don't you think?

I have 2 more questions to ask you.
1) Why did Canada ban private health insurance?
2) Do you think a similar move would be attempted in the US, should a nationalized system be implemented.
 
On a totally different subject......look up the definition to "donkey punch" on any online urban/slang dictionary. Funny.....
 
Eventually we will have a socialized medicine system in the US.

1) we already do
2) not as you envision

I have a lot of friends who are anesthesiologists and I worry for them. They provide a service that people need and it is a service that can and is being done more cheaply by CRNA's.

huh? how does a crna change the overall reimbursement for a case? this doesn't mean that the money being paid out is less. the fact is that most crnas are hospital employees who get paid a salary out of what the hospital collects as reimbursement for their services. this doesn't mean payers will pay less because a crna is signed-on to a case, at least from a federal government perspective. with independent practice rights, crna's will just get to collect what anesthesiologists collect.

I hope that you all are able to fight the good fight and win, but right now my bet is that the 70% of lemmings in this country who want "free" healthcare will win.

i think this is a slightly skewed persepctive. people believe they pay too much for healthcare, but they do expect to pay something. and, 70%? you know that 73.8% of all quoted statistics are made-up.

the real problem is that the healthcare delivery model is so lopsided. there is a very small portion of unhealthy, sick, and elderly people who pay little into the system and use up the lions share of cost. most of these people, if you just look around your average hospital, are low socioeconomic status and have complex problems, much of which are brought on by their lifestyle and habits.

we have tried to push for preventive care for these folks. we can't force them to pay higher premiums because they don't have the money. both of these tacts have been tried, and they simply don't pay or change their behavior. yet, they still show-up on the hospital's doorstep.

what needs to happen is that we have a dual-tier system in the u.s. the people who can't afford healthcare do not get "premium" access to services. if they have a problem, they can wait. as i said before, you revamp the system to require that physicians collect a set-fee each year from the government and, for that fee, they have to treat indigent and non-paying patients. maybe this is 10% of the time per month. people that have cancer or need a heart operation or have severe cardiac problems but don't have the money will just have to wait their turn to get access to the system.

sounds cruel, but i don't know of any other country in the world where someone with no ability to pay can walk in with chest pain and get a full cardiac work-up and intervention in the same day. we just have to get tough on non-payers, yet provide them a mechanism to still get care. this would be universal access, but it recognizes the limited resources that everyone seems to want to currently stick their heads in the sand and ignore.

so, you have an obese, unemployed drinker/smoker that comes into your ER with chest pain, you demand payment up front. if they can't pay, then tough cookies. you evaluate them and then give them an appointment at the next free clinic to be followed-up. i can morally justify that to myself. we need to get over this paternalistic notion that the gold-standard of healthcare for everyone is a right. and, we need judges to throw out ludicrous lawsuits that will follow. so long as you continue to enable people's bad habits, they are going to continue them. if you can't afford bad habits, then you shouldn't engage in them.

it's really simple, but requires some tough love on our profession's part. it's time to start weaning people of the notion that they are entitled to the best healthcare in the world if they're unwilling to pay for it. at the very least, those who are unwilling or unable to pay can wait, and will likely be rapidly no longer a problem.

pay up front (or put a deposit down, etc.) or no care.
 
What va says is what needs to happen...unfortunately, most of the US are bleeding hearts who won't do the right thing.
 
and, i guess that's why YOU are posting here on a saturday night before christmas... because your life is so grand. either that, or you must be working an end-of-year publication deadline too, right? and, you don't want it to ruin christmas eve, christmas day, or your new year plans, right? that's why you're posting here on a saturday night, ebenezer? :laugh: or, maybe you're "working" tonight? i bet that's it. you're covering that tough holiday shift collecting your $85/hr for sitting on your ass surfing a doctor's forum with every other nurse in the hospital wishing they were you... but that's not good enough... there you are still wishing you had the last twenty years of your life back... oh what you would've done differently... so, instead you're going to do everything you can now to get what you perceive is that last little slice of the respect pie you think you deserve. (what motivates you guys is all so transparent.)

ownership noted. so, don't come stand in the kitchen, then, if you can't han dle the heat.[/QUOTE

Your resideny must have lacked lectures and seminars to shape you as professional. You make your colleages look bad. Do you ever shut up? You are the MD version of Nitecap. Nitecap hasnt been here in forever. It is amazing how much he effected you. DO you have dreams about the guy or what?
 
i have my suspicions that "dr. mccoy" and "conflicted" are the same poster. only the mods can disprove this.


Damn it Jim, I'm a doctor, not a blogger! Besides, I have no idea who you are referring to. Try to follow the message, not the messenger.
 
Agreed. People cant stomach whats needed, much like in war.


What va says is what needs to happen...unfortunately, most of the US are bleeding hearts who won't do the right thing.
 
1) we already do
2) not as you envision



huh? how does a crna change the overall reimbursement for a case? this doesn't mean that the money being paid out is less. the fact is that most crnas are hospital employees who get paid a salary out of what the hospital collects as reimbursement for their services. this doesn't mean payers will pay less because a crna is signed-on to a case, at least from a federal government perspective. with independent practice rights, crna's will just get to collect what anesthesiologists collect.



i think this is a slightly skewed persepctive. people believe they pay too much for healthcare, but they do expect to pay something. and, 70%? you know that 73.8% of all quoted statistics are made-up.

the real problem is that the healthcare delivery model is so lopsided. there is a very small portion of unhealthy, sick, and elderly people who pay little into the system and use up the lions share of cost. most of these people, if you just look around your average hospital, are low socioeconomic status and have complex problems, much of which are brought on by their lifestyle and habits.

we have tried to push for preventive care for these folks. we can't force them to pay higher premiums because they don't have the money. both of these tacts have been tried, and they simply don't pay or change their behavior. yet, they still show-up on the hospital's doorstep.

what needs to happen is that we have a dual-tier system in the u.s. the people who can't afford healthcare do not get "premium" access to services. if they have a problem, they can wait. as i said before, you revamp the system to require that physicians collect a set-fee each year from the government and, for that fee, they have to treat indigent and non-paying patients. maybe this is 10% of the time per month. people that have cancer or need a heart operation or have severe cardiac problems but don't have the money will just have to wait their turn to get access to the system.

sounds cruel, but i don't know of any other country in the world where someone with no ability to pay can walk in with chest pain and get a full cardiac work-up and intervention in the same day. we just have to get tough on non-payers, yet provide them a mechanism to still get care. this would be universal access, but it recognizes the limited resources that everyone seems to want to currently stick their heads in the sand and ignore.

so, you have an obese, unemployed drinker/smoker that comes into your ER with chest pain, you demand payment up front. if they can't pay, then tough cookies. you evaluate them and then give them an appointment at the next free clinic to be followed-up. i can morally justify that to myself. we need to get over this paternalistic notion that the gold-standard of healthcare for everyone is a right. and, we need judges to throw out ludicrous lawsuits that will follow. so long as you continue to enable people's bad habits, they are going to continue them. if you can't afford bad habits, then you shouldn't engage in them.

it's really simple, but requires some tough love on our profession's part. it's time to start weaning people of the notion that they are entitled to the best healthcare in the world if they're unwilling to pay for it. at the very least, those who are unwilling or unable to pay can wait, and will likely be rapidly no longer a problem.

pay up front (or put a deposit down, etc.) or no care.

I totally agree with your post. Unfortunately, like your best buddy milmd said, the majority of Americans are trending toward an entitlement mentality. And the rest are the bleeding hearts....lol

Everybody wants that gold standard (and most expect it), yet nobody seems to want to pay for it. This is such a huge issue that no politician wants to touch it. So, what'll happen is subsequent generations will end up paying for it (i.e. those that can't vote yet...). Pretty f...ing pitiful really.
 
UPDATE: John Edwards (DEM) is officially running for president and has named globalized healthcare part of his agenda.
 
UPDATE: John Edwards (DEM) is officially running for president and has named globalized healthcare part of his agenda.

does this mean that if i'm traveling abroad and have a stroke that uncle sam will foot the medical bill for my care? please.

if anyone decides they might even remotely consider voting for this smarmy, got-rich-on-others-misfortunes, bottom feeding, wolf in sheep's clothes in '08 (not that he's has a snowball's chance in hades of getting his party's nomination anyway) then please do us all a favor and just turn in your medical license and move to canada... now.

get a load of this (and talk about premature ejaculation)...

http://johnedwards.com/
 
Everybody wants that gold standard (and most expect it), yet nobody seems to want to pay for it. This is such a huge issue that no politician wants to touch it. So, what'll happen is subsequent generations will end up paying for it (i.e. those that can't vote yet...). Pretty f...ing pitiful really.

yeah, and i didn't even touch on us hospitalizing and treating and rehabilitating non-paying illegal immigrants... who can also sue us for malpractice if they don't get the "gold standard" of care.

we need to unionize.
 
does this mean that if i'm traveling abroad and have a stroke that uncle sam will foot the medical bill for my care? please.

if anyone decides they might even remotely consider voting for this smarmy, got-rich-on-others-misfortunes, bottom feeding, wolf in sheep's clothes in '08 (not that he's has a snowball's chance in hades of getting his party's nomination anyway) then please do us all a favor and just turn in your medical license and move to canada... now.

get a load of this (and talk about premature ejaculation)...

http://johnedwards.com/

Yeah I was just repeating what fox news said on the globalized bit. lol
 
John Edwards? Hillary Clinton? The Democratic Party has presidentiables that has physician's interest right up there with big oil and the NRA. I can't believe this low life is taking another crack at the white house. I still remember his deer in head lights look during the VP debate in the '04 campaign as Cheney read him the riot act. He looked like a surgery resident during M&M rounds. Here's to Romney in '08.
 
does this mean that if i'm traveling abroad and have a stroke that uncle sam will foot the medical bill for my care? please.

if anyone decides they might even remotely consider voting for this smarmy, got-rich-on-others-misfortunes, bottom feeding, wolf in sheep's clothes in '08 (not that he's has a snowball's chance in hades of getting his party's nomination anyway) then please do us all a favor and just turn in your medical license and move to canada... now.

get a load of this (and talk about premature ejaculation)...

http://johnedwards.com/

that's exactly what that chump is. i seriously can't believe he's as popular as he is (relatively speaking). a total leach that got rich on malpractice suits....
 
huh? how does a crna change the overall reimbursement for a case? this doesn't mean that the money being paid out is less.

I am not sure if this is true or not but I suppose it depends upon who is paying, private insurance vs. medicare etc.

the fact is that most crnas are hospital employees who get paid a salary out of what the hospital collects as reimbursement for their services. this doesn't mean payers will pay less because a crna is signed-on to a case, at least from a federal government perspective.

This may or may not be true, but it would be cheaper for the hospital to hire a CRNA to do the cases than it would be for them to hire an anesthesiologist. If they get paid the same for either, why would they pay more to have an M.D., provided that outcomes are similar.

The hospital is then free to transfer whatever the price difference is to another portion of the budget as needed. Unfortunately if you provide a service that people need and there is someone else who can do it cheaper, you lose. I think our system is having to do much more with much less, and using cheaper labor is one way that the system is going to reduce costs and become more efficient. It sucks to be the M.D. who can be replaced, but it is unfortunately inevitable as our system looks for ways to stay afloat.

with independent practice rights, crna's will just get to collect what anesthesiologists collect.

Highly doubtful. No one is going to pay a nurse as much as they pay a doctor to do the same job. If anything I would think the CRNA's would see a fairly large paycut as independent practitioners. The only reason they are making what they are now is because they are employees and currently generate far more income than they are paid. If the CRNA's suddenly become eat what you kill practitioners, they can no longer be paid from the $17k per hour or whatever that the hospital gets paid just to have a patient in the OR. If the hospital dips into that money and the CRNA isn't an employee its called fee sharing or kickback, which is illegal.

there is a very small portion of unhealthy, sick, and elderly people who pay little into the system and use up the lions share of cost. most of these people, if you just look around your average hospital, are low socioeconomic status and have complex problems, much of which are brought on by their lifestyle and habits.

Agreed.

we have tried to push for preventive care for these folks. we can't force them to pay higher premiums because they don't have the money. both of these tacts have been tried, and they simply don't pay or change their behavior. yet, they still show-up on the hospital's doorstep.

Yeah when I was in medical school that was all the rage. A lot of idiots went into primary care thinking they were going to save the world, have lots of free time and maybe stop whaling in Japan. Its damn hard to make ends meet with a 90K salary and 250K medical school debt. Ouch.

as i said before, you revamp the system to require that physicians collect a set-fee each year from the government and, for that fee, they have to treat indigent and non-paying patients.

I am sorry I am somewhat new to the forums so I haven't seen many of your posts. If this is old ground please accept my apology and thank you for helping me get up to speed.

What you are talking about is very very very dangerous ground. Giving the government the power to demand that you provide free care for a 'set-fee' is the beginning of the end. If you can't see where that would go, I would be happy to explain further in another post. Unfortunately I think that something like this will eventually happen. The money will probably almost be worth it to begin with and the time commitment will be minimal. Gradually the money will decrease and the time commitment will increase. Eventually no MD's would want to participate and the gov. would start tying medical licensing to participation in that sort of a scheme. I believe a couple states are already attempting something similar to that. If you accept that you can be forced to do something, anything, for less than it is worth than you have already lost the battle.


people that have cancer or need a heart operation or have severe cardiac problems but don't have the money will just have to wait their turn to get access to the system.

Yeah and the first time a 45 year old single welfare mother of 12 dies waiting for a CABG, Oprah will be waiting along with Barbra Wawwa and all of the other vultures to "expose" the evils of the system. Same exact pattern was followed with silicone breast implants (hello Connie Chung).

sounds cruel, but i don't know of any other country in the world where someone with no ability to pay can walk in with chest pain and get a full cardiac work-up and intervention in the same day.

This isn't the rest of the world. Uncle Sugar saw to that when he linked health insurance to employment after WW2. Now you've had 2 generations with the entitlement mentality. Good luck ever getting rid of it.

so, you have an obese, unemployed drinker/smoker that comes into your ER with chest pain, you demand payment up front. if they can't pay, then tough cookies. you evaluate them and then give them an appointment at the next free clinic to be followed-up.

This all sounds great but wait until she dies leaving 12 orphans and Oprah finds out about it. Or even better, wait until Edwards finds out about it and sues the living crap out of you and then uses it as a demogogue issue to get elected and further force you into the service for free role.

it's really simple, but requires some tough love on our profession's part.

The problem is that the profession sold out long ago. The first time a doctor accepted $45 dollars from an insurance company when his fee was $60, that doctor sold himself and everyone who came after out. Once you buy into the argument that someone can pay part of your bill and get away with it you have essentially declared your own slavery moral.

I am not trying to be contentious with my posts. Believe me when I tell you that we are on the same side.
 
I am not trying to be contentious with my posts. Believe me when I tell you that we are on the same side.

My father-in-law was a busy FP physician from the early 1950s, retiring in 2000.

He loves to recount how the AMA was initially against Medicare in 1965. Not on principle, but on how they didn't want the introduction of the government becoming a payer.

Prior to 1965 my father-in-law gave away lots of free care to the indigent, was frequently paid in bushels of peaches/eggs/chickens/venison, and charged those of affluence a little bit more. No one went without. And $$$$ wasn't wasted on heroic and futile end-of-life efforts. Medical costs also weren't increasing at ridiculous annual percentage rates as they currently are.

The AMA withdrew it's objection to Medicare over the resulting public relations firestorm. The AMA was chided by the lay media as not caring about the needy/elderly. No, the AMA simply didn't want big government (or big business, as was sure to follow) becoming the central financier of medical care. But the lay media overlooked that factoid in their "objective" reporting.

My father was a busy dentist at the same time. He had the same exact thoughts and was right.

The AMA hit the nail squarely on the head. Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle.
 
My father-in-law was a busy FP physician from the early 1950s, retiring in 2000.

He loves to recount how the AMA was initially against Medicare in 1965. Not on principle, but on how they didn't want the introduction of the government becoming a payer.

Prior to 1965 my father-in-law gave away lots of free care to the indigent, was frequently paid in bushels of peaches/eggs/chickens/venison, and charged those of affluence a little bit more. No one went without. And $$$$ wasn't wasted on heroic and futile end-of-life efforts. Medical costs also weren't increasing at ridiculous annual percentage rates as they currently are.

The AMA withdrew it's objection to Medicare over the resulting public relations firestorm. The AMA was chided by the lay media as not caring about the needy/elderly. No, the AMA simply didn't want big government (or big business, as was sure to follow) becoming the central financier of medical care. But the lay media overlooked that factoid in their "objective" reporting.

My father was a busy dentist at the same time. He had the same exact thoughts and was right.

The AMA hit the nail squarely on the head. Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle.

Yeah in 30 to 40 years kids will more than likely say, "I want to be a lawyer or engineer. I'm not going to waste my life and be a doctor" lol.
 
hello

I am trying to read this thread but alot of it isn't making sense? Who is donkeypunch talking to?
 
donkeypunch,

just want to make sure you understand a few things... it wasn't clear from your post.

hospitals do not hire and pay doctors. hospitals do not collect big lumps of money to dole out as they see fit to their employees either. medicare/medicaid and private payers pay either hospitals or doctors groups for services rendered. if you provide an anesthetic, there is a set fee that is collected from the payer (whomever it is) that is paid to "someone" for that service. that doesn't change based on who's providing the anesthetic. the only thing that changes is the "someone" who collects that fee, either the hospital administration or the physician practice group.

crna's are predominately employees of hospitals. they are also required by law to be supervised by a physician (not necessarily an anesthesiologist) with whom their employer, the hospital, splits the reimbursement. the only advantage to the hospital with regards to independent practice for crnas is if they can retain them as employees. in this way, they won't have to split the fee they collect with the supervising physician, and they still pay the crna's salary out of the fully collected fee. however, if this were to happen, crna's - like anesthesiologists - would most likely stop being hospital employees and form their own groups, like anesthesiologists. so, that's a lose-lose for the hospital. they know this. this is why they aren't backing independent practice rights for crnas. they actually may stand to lose revenue in the long run.

furthermore, there overall may be a larger advantage for a hospital to have predominately contracted groups providing services. in that model, they do not have to retain an employee, provide insurance, provide healthcare benefits, collect and distribute reimbursement for services, and worry about payroll, HR, training (etc.) for that employee. when a private group contracts with a hospital, all of those functions are done by the private group who holds the contract.

on the second point, i'm neither suggesting nor recommending that we go to a public healthcare system that mandates a portion of care be provided to indigent/non-paying/public assistance populations via some fixed governmental disbursement mechanism. i'm saying that this would be the only realistic "universal healthcare" model that would work in this country. the british and canadian systems simply would not be tolerated here. personally, i don't think much of anything is going to drastically change, as access would in reality decrease for everyone. but, there is talk by some politicians (who also don't understand how things really work in a hospital) about pushing for such a model. like their voting contingents, they only see things superficially from outside of the model.

as far as paying up front, this could be a viable option if we adopt a "part-time" model as i described. otherwise, i agree. there's way too much bad PR to be had. ask any welfare mom how much she thinks a doctor makes a year and she'll likely say "$5-6 million". they all think we're michael jordan. that's why there's no shame in awarding a $20M jury prize... just ask john edwards.
 
if you provide an anesthetic, there is a set fee that is collected from the payer (whomever it is) that is paid to "someone" for that service. that doesn't change based on who's providing the anesthetic. the only thing that changes is the "someone" who collects that fee, either the hospital administration or the physician practice group.

crna's are predominately employees of hospitals. they are also required by law to be supervised by a physician (not necessarily an anesthesiologist) with whom their employer, the hospital, splits the reimbursement. the only advantage to the hospital with regards to independent practice for crnas is if they can retain them as employees. in this way, they won't have to split the fee they collect with the supervising physician, and they still pay the crna's salary out of the fully collected fee. however, if this were to happen, crna's - like anesthesiologists - would most likely stop being hospital employees and form their own groups, like anesthesiologists. so, that's a lose-lose for the hospital. they know this. this is why they aren't backing independent practice rights for crnas. they actually may stand to lose revenue in the long run.

.

That is not correct.

Reimbursement rules for an "anesthetic" that is provided changes based on your insurance company...and what you have negotiated with the insurance company.

Some insurance companies (70% of my payor mix) pays different amounts based on the anesthesia model used.

MD only --- a set amount

MD + group employed CRNA ----- a set amount + 1 unit

MD+ hospital employed CRNA ---- less than MD only + some to the hospital.

So the money out is different based on the different models of care even though the same amount of work gets done.

So it is MOST expensive to this insurance company when the MD group hires its own CRNA's

Least expensive when the hospital hires the CRNAs..

and somewhere in between when the MD does it's own cases....

Diffferent rules....all the time....
 
.....crna's are predominately employees of hospitals. they are also required by law to be supervised by a physician (not necessarily an anesthesiologist) with whom their employer, the hospital, splits the reimbursement. ..

That's not exactly true, and you might be mixing apples and oranges of state law versus Medicare requirements. In ~50% of the states, CRNAs have completely independent practice per state law. No physician anywhere in the chain of command. Irregardless of state law, however, Medicare requires physician oversight of CRNA practice for Medicare reimbursement, unless that state has "opted-out." This doesn't apply to private insurance payment in the states where CRNAs have independent practice, and usually the independent CRNA rate is 85% of the MD/DO rate.


.....crna's- like anesthesiologists - would most likely stop being hospital employees and form their own groups, like anesthesiologists. so, that's a lose-lose for the hospital. they know this. this is why they aren't backing independent practice rights for crnas. they actually may stand to lose revenue in the long run..

There are CRNA-only independent groups, with hospital contracts, in the states which do not require physician supervision of CRNA practice. Even in states where law requires constant CRNA oversight, more and more hospitals are wanting to divest themselves of CRNAs as employees, freeing themselves from pension funding burdens, liability, and malpractice coverage overhead. And smart savvy CRNAs, who have taken the time to research the tax benefits of being a 1099 independent contractor versus a W-2 employee, will jump at the first opportunity to make the switch.

Just to add this tidbit to the discussion, about hospitals billing for CRNA service. As background:

-- I live in a state which requires MD/DO/DDS supervision of CRNA practice.

-- I worked as an employee of an anesthesiologist group practice at a private hospital. The group billed for its services.

-- My wife had a 45 minute extensive breast biopsy with LMA anesthesia provided by an anesthesiologist and CRNA from the group. (per usual routine, the anesthesiologist was simultaneoutly supervising and billing on 4 CRNA cases in 4 ORs).

-- The group billed me $950 for the anesthetic. They filed against my insurance, and the PPO rate was $620, which the group just wrote off as an employee benefit for me.

-- The hospital billed me $620 for the anesthetic, even though none of the anesthesia providers were employed by the hospital. And all the anesthetic drugs were itemized separately under the pharmacy charges. I called the hospital billling office, inquiring what this $620 anesthesia charge represented, since the providers were all group (not hospital) employees. All they would say is that "it's for the anesthetic." Curious how it was exactly the same charge as the PPO-negotiated rate with my group employer.

Smell a fish here?
 
listen, i understand there are different payer/mix models out there. i also understand that groups can negotiate directly with payers. (we've had that discussion before, mil, and you know i worked in a private healthcare group before med school negotiating such contracts... fact is, when you negotiate to split a fee with a hospital employee you won't necessarily know how much that payer is paying the hospital... unless they tell you... which they don't have to).

i was only trying to paint a simple picture to counter the inference that donkeypunch was making that hospitals pay doctors. and, as i alluded to before in this thread, there are different structures within medicaid, which is the part that's administered by states, on a per-state basis because that's who controls disbursements to individual hospitals.

likewise, trinityalumnus, you are essentially restating my point in the second part of your post. however, we're not talking about who can form a group. in all cases, crnas need physician oversight to give anesthesia. it doesn't have to be an anesthesiologist, but they cannot "practice" independently. if you are going to challenge that, i need a specific example. and, i'm not talking about the opt-out clause that individual hospitals can pursue, which is exception to bill medicare independently, not practice independently, born from necessity due to lack of providers in certain region. if the doctor who is signing-off on that oversight doesn't want to take a cut, then he/she is either very generous or stupid.

reimbursement is very complex, and part of the reason why a simplistic "universal healthcare" plan won't work. just look at how completely screwed up medicare part D is, and that's not even 2-years-old yet.
 
.... in all cases, crnas need physician oversight to give anesthesia. it doesn't have to be an anesthesiologist, but they cannot "practice" independently. if you are going to challenge that, i need a specific example. and, i'm not talking about the opt-out clause that individual hospitals can pursue,which is exception born from necessity due to lack of providers in certain region........

Respectfully:

1. Superceding everything else are individual hospital by-laws. Even if state law gives CRNA independent/unsupervised practice rights, XYZ Hospital in that state can mandate physician (even "anesthesiologist") supervision requirement for CRNAs. Individual hospital by-laws can always be more restrictive than state law regarding scope of practice.

2. "Opt-out" pertains strictly to Medicare reimbursement for anesthesia services in states which have independent CRNA practice. Even though ~50% of the states give CRNAs independent practice (by state law), Medicare still mandates physician involvement in the anesthetic to receive Medicare reimbursement. Uncle Sam allows individual states (which have independent CRNA practice) to "opt-out" of this physician requirement by gubernatorial proclamation. But even this can be superceded by #1, above.

3. Number of states with independent CRNA practice:
http://www.sppm.org/FYI/independent_crna.html
 
Then you know that what is paid out is different based on who is/are doing the work....

The cost is different......whether it is a md..crna...or md/crna.....


You had said it was all the same.....
Volatile Agent said:
if you provide an anesthetic, there is a set fee that is collected from the payer (whomever it is) that is paid to "someone" for that service. that doesn't change based on who's providing the anesthetic. the only thing that changes is the "someone" who collects that fee, either the hospital administration or the physician practice group.
 
Respectfully:

1. Superceding everything else are individual hospital by-laws. Even if state law gives CRNA independent/unsupervised practice rights, XYZ Hospital in that state can mandate physician (even "anesthesiologist") supervision requirement for CRNAs. Individual hospital by-laws can always be more restrictive than state law regarding scope of practice.

2. "Opt-out" pertains strictly to Medicare reimbursement for anesthesia services in states which have independent CRNA practice. Even though ~50% of the states give CRNAs independent practice (by state law), Medicare still mandates physician involvement in the anesthetic to receive Medicare reimbursement. Uncle Sam allows individual states (which have independent CRNA practice) to "opt-out" of this physician requirement by gubernatorial proclamation. But even this can be superceded by #1, above.

3. Number of states with independent CRNA practice:
http://www.sppm.org/FYI/independent_crna.html

this is where a lot of confusion arises. there are two issues here: billing and legal supervision.

in those states where the governor has agreed for a particular hospital who's applied to invoke the "opt-out" clause, crna's can independently bill for services. that is, they do not need to have a physician submit the bill for the anesthetic. in that instance, "practice independently" means that they can bill independently for their services.

this is different from the laws of the state nursing and medical boards that mandate physician supervision of delivery of the anesthetic. in other words, any anesthetic given must be under the order of a physician.

this is a confusing concept that the aana (and other nurse advocacy groups) plays on to make it seem that Crna's scope of practice is equivalent to anesthesiologists in those states. don't kid yourself. it is not.

based on the way this law is written and the actual minimal impact it has, i'm still curious as to why not all fifty states have invoked this opt-out clause. seems logical to me, and it doesn't really change anything. crnas will ultimately not provide a more cost-effective service to the healthcare system if they are allowed to compete head-to-head. in fact, this is where i think we'd see a real distinction in the services we are able to provide. iow, crna's would screw themselves if they tried.
 
Then you know that what is paid out is different based on who is/are doing the work....

The cost is different......whether it is a md..crna...or md/crna.....


You had said it was all the same.....

i already said i was trying to simplify. you are just splitting hairs because you like to argue. overall, in the end, hospitals generally don't "save" any money by having crna's administer anesthetics. if they structure their reimbursements correctly they may "make" money, but it certainly isn't "cheaper" for them, which was donkeypunch's simplistic way of stating it.

the fact is that, (1) hospitals don't pay doctors (as donkeypunch erroneously believes) and (2) reimbursement structuring is complex and highly individualized based on a multitude of factors including volume, case mix, and billable units just to name a few. but, since you want to discuss it and try to call me out...

when you negotiate to split a fee with a hospital-employed crna, the md/do-owned practice will get less money for that case than they would have if they'd collected the full reimbursement. but, that payer will also pay a portion of that case fee (the part you don't see) directly to the hospital for that service. just as with private practice, there are multiple ways this can be negotiated with the hosptial (the part you aren't involved in) including bulk units, direct fee-for-service (etc.). depending on case volume, the hospital will either lose money or make money on that crna. their goal, as always, is to make money. so, their incentive is to get their crna-employees working as much of the time as they are there and to keep case volume involvement high.

having crna's independently able to practice will not create a de facto savings to the hospital, which is what donkeypunch was insisting. instead of being hospital employees, they will take their services outside and compete with anesthesiologist-owned practices for the contract. that's where it gets interesting, because you negotiate services with the hospital (e.g., call coverage, case types, pass throughs [i.e., pharm charges, equipment], etc.). whichever bidder has the best package will get the contract. this doesn't "save" the hospital any money, per se, except that they will no longer have employees for whom to provide all the other services (HR, payroll, etc.) just as they don't now with doctors. all the hospital cares about is bringing the patient into the hospital, providing them a bed, providing them medications, and providing them care - all of which they seek reimbursement from insurance companies and the government - for which they get their fee.

so, to simplistically say that crna's are "cheaper" for the hospital paints an entirely wrong picture, which is what i was reacting to. all other things being equal, there is essentially a "set fee" collected for a particular service. all that changes is who collects that fee and how those fees are negotiated. depending on who can better negotiate - and more importantly to the hosptial - actually provide the contracted coverage for that service is all that really matters. depending on how well this is done means how much money the respective parties make (or lose) in the end.

clear now?
 
this is where a lot of confusion arises. there are two issues here: billing and legal supervision..

Truer words have never been spoken. We can thank Uncle Sam, Blue Cross, and 50 state legislatures for the very muddy waters we swim in regarding those two separate issues.

in those states where the governor has agreed for a particular hospital who's applied to invoke the "opt-out" clause, crna's can independently bill for services. that is, they do not need to have a physician submit the bill for the anesthetic. in that instance, "practice independently" means that they can bill independently for their services.

this is different from the laws of the state nursing and medical boards that mandate physician supervision of delivery of the anesthetic. in other words, any anesthetic given must be under the order of a physician...

In the 28 states which have granted CRNAs completely independent scope of practice, the order for the anesthetic is presumed when the surgeon admits the patient for a procedure. The CRNA independently administers the anesthetic (and all surrounding components), assumes all liability, and bills for the service. There is no official physician involvement/oversight anywhere in the process.

Governors do not opt-out individual hospitals. Their action applies state-wide.

http://www.coruralhealth.org/crhc/resources/fact sheets/Fact Sheet.pdf

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/CFCsAndCoPs/02_Spotlight.asp

The AANA has a wealth of up-to-date and concise articles on all these issues. Unfortunately their website is down today.


based on the way this law is written and the actual minimal impact it has, i'm still curious as to why not all fifty states have invoked this opt-out clause.

Opt-out is not applicable in those states which require physician supervision/direction of CRNA practice.

It's only applicable in the 28 states which have legislatively granted CRNAs scope of practice which is completely independent of physician oversight for the perianesthetic encounter. Furthermore, it's only applicable in those 28 states where the governor wishes to opt-out of the Medicare requirement for physician oversight of otherwise-independent CRNA practice, purely to abide by Medicare reimbursement rules.

As stated above, this entire state of affairs is clear as mud. And this is a forum of educated and erudite individuals. Think how confusing this must be to Joe Taxpayer.
 
you see? even you are being obfuscatory in your response.

just answer these:

can nurses give anesthetics in any state without a physician order?

could a nurse see a patient and do a block, as a primary pain procedure, without a physician order?

i can't state this enough. the "physician supervision" requirement is for billing purposes only, namely for billing medicare. it has nothing to do with nurses being able to give an anesthetic to whomever they want. they cannot legally medically independently evaluate a patient and they cannot independently order medications. they have to have a doctor - some doctor - sign-off or take responsibility for the medical aspects of that patient's peri-operative care. they are there to deliver an anesthetic, which is only a part of the total job that an anesthesiologist actually does.
 
can nurses give anesthetics in any state without a physician order? .

Per ASA 2004 chart: page 34 at Attachment I http://www.asahq.org/Washington/nurseanesscope.pdf

could a nurse see a patient and do a block, as a primary pain procedure, without a physician order?.

Umm, good question. Not sure about that wrinkle....they might need a referral from the primary care physician. But they can still carry out the pain block independently in some states.
 
i already said i was trying to simplify. you are just splitting hairs because you like to argue. overall, in the end, hospitals generally don't "save" any money by having crna's administer anesthetics. if they structure their reimbursements correctly they may "make" money, but it certainly isn't "cheaper" for them, which was donkeypunch's simplistic way of stating it.

the fact is that, (1) hospitals don't pay doctors (as donkeypunch erroneously believes) and (2) reimbursement structuring is complex and highly individualized based on a multitude of factors including volume, case mix, and billable units just to name a few. but, since you want to discuss it and try to call me out...

when you negotiate to split a fee with a hospital-employed crna, the md/do-owned practice will get less money for that case than they would have if they'd collected the full reimbursement. but, that payer will also pay a portion of that case fee (the part you don't see) directly to the hospital for that service. just as with private practice, there are multiple ways this can be negotiated with the hosptial (the part you aren't involved in) including bulk units, direct fee-for-service (etc.). depending on case volume, the hospital will either lose money or make money on that crna. their goal, as always, is to make money. so, their incentive is to get their crna-employees working as much of the time as they are there and to keep case volume involvement high.

having crna's independently able to practice will not create a de facto savings to the hospital, which is what donkeypunch was insisting. instead of being hospital employees, they will take their services outside and compete with anesthesiologist-owned practices for the contract. that's where it gets interesting, because you negotiate services with the hospital (e.g., call coverage, case types, pass throughs [i.e., pharm charges, equipment], etc.). whichever bidder has the best package will get the contract. this doesn't "save" the hospital any money, per se, except that they will no longer have employees for whom to provide all the other services (HR, payroll, etc.) just as they don't now with doctors. all the hospital cares about is bringing the patient into the hospital, providing them a bed, providing them medications, and providing them care - all of which they seek reimbursement from insurance companies and the government - for which they get their fee.

so, to simplistically say that crna's are "cheaper" for the hospital paints an entirely wrong picture, which is what i was reacting to. all other things being equal, there is essentially a "set fee" collected for a particular service. all that changes is who collects that fee and how those fees are negotiated. depending on who can better negotiate - and more importantly to the hosptial - actually provide the contracted coverage for that service is all that really matters. depending on how well this is done means how much money the respective parties make (or lose) in the end.

clear now?

Clear...that you 're wrong about the amount reimbursed.....

but right in correcting Donkeypunches assumption.
 
around 70% of anesthesia groups around the country receive "subsidies" from the hospitals where they provide services....why the "subsidies"???

Shortage of "good" anesthesiologists...so hospital administrations are willing to fork out cash to retain the better ones.

If the administration is willing to give up having MD's...then it will be cheaper to just have CRNAs.
 
Well....it is supply and demand....once the supply of "good" anesthesiologists exceed the demand....

There will be no need for subsidies....and the salaries (in practcies with subsidies) will PLUMMET.
 
VA:

if they structure their reimbursements correctly they may "make" money, but it certainly isn't "cheaper" for them, which was donkeypunch's simplistic way of stating it.

You are splitting hairs yourself here, I will explain below.

the fact is that, (1) hospitals don't pay doctors (as donkeypunch erroneously believes)

I never stated that hospitals payed doctors or intentionally implied it. Although now that you mention it, YES in certain circumstances hospitals DO pay doctors a salary, but that is another issue entirely, not even germaine to the discussion.

when you negotiate to split a fee with a hospital-employed crna, the md/do-owned practice will get less money for that case than they would have if they'd collected the full reimbursement. but, that payer will also pay a portion of that case fee (the part you don't see) directly to the hospital for that service. just as with private practice, there are multiple ways this can be negotiated with the hosptial (the part you aren't involved in) including bulk units, direct fee-for-service (etc.). depending on case volume, the hospital will either lose money or make money on that crna. their goal, as always, is to make money. so, their incentive is to get their crna-employees working as much of the time as they are there and to keep case volume involvement high.

You just explained exactly what I mean when I say that hospitals have an incentive to have CRNA's providing anethesia for cases. Look at it this way:

1) The hospital can employ a CRNA and be reimbursed (along with the supervising MD, if one exists) for the anesthesia that the CRNA provides. If the OR is busy and the CRNA does a lot of cases, then the reimbursments are more than the salary for the CRNA. IE - the hospital makes money off of the CRNA.

2) Alternatively the hospital, depending on the arrangement, can contract with an anesthesiology group to cover the OR's. If there are no CRNA's employed and the anesthesiologist aren't kicking back any of their fees to the hospital, the hospital does not get a cut from the anesthesia portion of the case.

To me, it makes sense that a hospital would hire CRNA's in order to get a cut of the anesthesia portion of the bill. The hospital wouldn't hire CRNAs if they weren't making money by doing so. That is all I have been saying, I just didn't have the time to explain it so specifically, as I figured you would get my meaning. Its not really that the hospitals are "saving" money by having employee CRNAs involved in cases, its that they are making more. It is a point that I didn't think would be controversial.

having crna's independently able to practice will not create a de facto savings to the hospital, which is what donkeypunch was insisting.

Wrong again, I never said that. Looking back, I said this:

"If anything I would think the CRNA's would see a fairly large paycut as independent practitioners. The only reason they are making what they are now is because they are employees and currently generate far more income than they are paid. If the CRNA's suddenly become eat what you kill practitioners, they can no longer be paid from the $17k per hour or whatever that the hospital gets paid just to have a patient in the OR. If the hospital dips into that money and the CRNA isn't an employee its called fee sharing or kickback, which is illegal."

There is a way that CRNA's being able to independently practice will create a saving for the payers. If CRNA groups are willing to work for less money than anesthesiology groups, the payers win. There wouldn't be so much animosity between anesthesiologists and CRNAs if there wasn't a loss of income involved. Additionally, hospitals could "save" money if CRNA groups were able to compete with anesthesiology groups to provide coverage, provided that the CRNA's were willing to contract for less.
 
what a "jackass" (pun intended).

There is a way that CRNA's being able to independently practice will create a saving for the payers. If CRNA groups are willing to work for less money than anesthesiology groups, the payers win. There wouldn't be so much animosity between anesthesiologists and CRNAs if there wasn't a loss of income involved. Additionally, hospitals could "save" money if CRNA groups were able to compete with anesthesiology groups to provide coverage, provided that the CRNA's were willing to contract for less.

the operative word there is "work", which CRNA's don't nearly do as much of as they'd like everyone to believe. and, they sure as hell aren't going to take a pay cut to work harder for less money. they just want parity - and this is not the current reality, and it is unlikely to be any time in the near future or likely ever, for that matter. furthermore, if this were to happen, the gloves will come off, so to speak, with the anesthesiologists groups. you will see a massive PR campaign against crna's rife with stories of abuse, unnecessary deaths, and patient morbidity at the hands of the unsupervised nurse anesthetist. it will become a battle fought in the court of public opinion, and it will be ugly.

the current detente we share is because we need each other, like it or not. and, despite being enacted years ago (before i was even in residency), these laws and ruling changes haven't affected much. i predict that things will be vastly different by 2015 unless both fields learn how to play nice and work together. but, until the CRNA lobby can adopt a non-self-interested long view and become better advocates for the entire field, we are setting the stage for a real war between our contingencies.
 
furthermore, if this were to happen, the gloves will come off, so to speak, with the anesthesiologists groups. you will see a massive PR campaign against crna's rife with stories of abuse, unnecessary deaths, and patient morbidity at the hands of the unsupervised nurse anesthetist. it will become a battle fought in the court of public opinion, and it will be ugly.

VA:

BRAVO! All I have been trying to do is get people to realize that at some point the gloves may need to come off. As a surgeon I have a vested interest in what is going on behind the curtain. If I could instill an ounce of your 180 pounds of passion into most of the people I meet, I would never have to stoke the fires on message boards like this. The problem with my anesthesia friends is that they recognize the CRNA threat, but refuse to treat it seriously.
 
Top