Okay, I've got two issues I'm wondering about---
Five years from now, does anyone have any insight/information to support the notion that there could actually be a glut of CRNA's on the market? Or, let's say, if all the schools
doubled their entering classes this year, would there still be a shortage i five years? I've not seen any statistics on this. Perhaps those of you in class may have heard something from an instructor?
Secondly, are there any worries that legislation could drastically change/lower pay? This interest to do so rooted in the healthcare mess we are in. I would reference what happened to the home health care nursing as a result of changes in gov. reimbursement that occurred a few years ago, which made HH nursing go from somewhat rewarding in pay to not at all.
Any ideas or insights would be interesting to hear about. THANKS!
Oct 28, '02
give anesthesia or do MD's (MDA's)? Also, do you happen to know what "average" wages are for RN's (or their equivalent) in US dollars. I don't think that socialized medicine will necessarily happen in the next twenty years, or is even a definitive probability. However, I do think it is a legitimate POSSIBILITY. Therefore, it is logical to evaluate this contingency for possible ramifications to this profession.
Last edit by Roland on Oct 28, '02
Oct 29, '02
also my questions. From the little research I've done it seems that Canadian RN's earn around $20.00 per hour (in Canadian dollars). From several other threads that I've read (including the one immediately above) it seems that in most other countries that advanced practice nurses in general, and CRNA's in particular are a rarity. To me this is counterintuitive as I would think that the health care rationing which almost always TEND to ensue under socialized health care would PROMOTE cost saving measures such as the use of NP's. I can only conclude that there are even stronger countervaling forces such as tradition, and or the strength of doctor unions which prevent this from happening (or maybe I've acquired incorrect, or incomplete information and there are indeed CRNA's ect).
As to the Oregon health plan here is one of the better articles that I found on the subject (I wish I knew how to cut and paste on this board so I didn't have to type the darn thing!):
Bold New Health Plan in Oregon:
Salem, Ore. Oct 09 2002
(AP) Every man, woman and child in Oregon would receive full medical insurance with no co-payments, no deductibles - under a measure on the Nov 5 ballot that would create the first universal health care plan in the nation.
The question is wether Orgonians are willing to pay higher taxes for a plan so generous it would cover even acupuncture and massage therapy.
"What we are proposing is ambitious and audacious, but we believe the health care system now is in crisis," said Mark Lindgren, spokesman for the Health Care for ll Oregon campaign, sponsor of Measure 23.
Under the existing system, he said an estimated 423,000 of Oregon's 3.3 million residents have no health insurance- about 70,000 of them children. Nationally, the number of uninsured is about 41 million.
The Oregon plan would be financed by a new payroll tax of up to 11.5 percent on businesses and an increase in personal income taxes. The top rate would rise from its current 9 percent to as high as 17 percent.
No independent polls have been released on the measure, but it is facing strong opposition from business, insurance, and health care industry groups, who fear it will lead to runaway spending and wreak the state's economy.
"It's the richest benefits package known to man," said J.L. Wilson head of the Oregon chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business. "Under this bill, you would have to pay for people to go to a massage therapist four days a week because it's deemed medically necessary."
Lindgren put the cost $19 billion a year- more than the entire crrent state bdget of about $16 illion. About $7 billion of the cost would be covered by the payroll tas, and $4.9 billion by higher income taxes. The rest would come from shifting state and federal health care dollars to the new universal system.
Oregon has gained a reputation for tackling difficult health related issues n recent years. Voters in 1996 approved the nations only law allowing physician assisted suicide. In 1998 the approved the medicinal use of marijuana. In 1989, the Legislature enacted a groundbreaking health plan that extended insurance to thousands of poor people; the stat drew up a master list of hundreds of diseases and treatments, ranking them in order of importance, then drew a cutoff line below which the state would not provide coverage.
Measure 23 is backed by th Cleveland based Universal Health Care Action Network, wose spokeswoman Rachel Deolia sees the Oregon effort as picking up where Hillary Rodham Clinton left off a decade ago with her push for universal health care."
Supporters hope passage of Oregon's measure will lead to similar efforts in other states.
People in Oregon would not be required to get rid of their private or group insurance, but most would probably do so since they would be paying for the universal sysem anyway, Lindgren said.
He said that while many people would pay higher taxes, much of that would be offset because thy would no longer have to pay premiums, or copayments deductibles and other out of pocket health costs.
Opponents say the residency requirement is so loose that seriously ill people without insurance would move to Oregon just to take advantage of the program. New arrivals would merely have to declare their intention to live here.
"It would take more to get a hunting license in Oregon than it would take to get access to full health benefits," said the NFIB's Wilson.
Opponents also warn that it would cover all treatment deemed "medically necessary" by any state licensed, certified or registered health care practitioner. Also, the measure does not contain any limits on coverage and does not spell out whether there would be ny exclusions for experimental procedures or devices.
Lindgren said those points were deliberately left vague so that a 15 member state board that would be created to oversee the program could make those decisions later.
He disputed warnings of runaway costs. Among other things, he said, people who lack insurance are a drain on the sytem because they often leave minor conditions untreated until they become major problems requiring expensive emergeny room treatment.
Barney Speight, a former state health administrator, warned that Measure 23 is bad medicine. "It might be able to achieve universal health coverage in the short term," he said, "but in the long term it could destroy Oregon's economy."
Last edit by Roland on Oct 30, '02