AANA members

CRNAtoMD · May 19, 2006

Of course the ASA had to get a member of Congress to sponsor a bill. Remember that this was initially a joint AANA, ASA endeavor via Thought Bridge until the two split on CMS' unwillingness to include SRNA's in the equation. If that hadn't happened, both sides would have saved a lot of money and my program and every other academic program would have had two years of extra collections to use.

It is definitely about money. Go to any academically affiliated county hospital and you can see what kind of impact this rule change could make to upgrade those training programs and the facilities. At some of these facilities, the equipment is older than I am or has broken and never been fixed.

London88 · May 19, 2006

post deleted

URgettingsleepy · May 20, 2006

Of course the ASA had to get a member of Congress to sponsor a bill. Remember that this was initially a joint AANA, ASA endeavor via Thought Bridge until the two split on CMS' unwillingness to include SRNA's in the equation. If that hadn't happened, both sides would have saved a lot of money and my program and every other academic program would have had two years of extra collections to use.
It is definitely about money. Go to any academically affiliated county hospital and you can see what kind of impact this rule change could make to upgrade those training programs and the facilities. At some of these facilities, the equipment is older than I am or has broken and never been fixed.

From the mouth of a MDA, "this rule change could make to upgrade those training programs and facilities", upgrade the MD residents training, yes at the expense of future SRNA training.

Write you senators now, I have written three so far and many more to go.

Use the AANA link, for quick links. UR

Nitecap · May 20, 2006

From the mouth of a MDA, "this rule change could make to upgrade those training programs and facilities", upgrade the MD residents training, yes at the expense of future SRNA training.
Write you senators now, I have written three so far and many more to go.
Use the AANA link, for quick links. UR

I have searched the AANA website. IS there a pre written letter to send because I havent found one.

KeithEMU · May 20, 2006

I have searched the AANA website. IS there a pre written letter to send because I havent found one.

Noramlly pre-written letter don't normally have the same impact. It's kind of like you receiveing bulk mail over and over. It's like spam, you ignore it. If you write a good letter, you can send the same one to all the congressmen, but having different letters from 100 people is much better them getting the same letter from 100 people. The people in his office won't even read them after a while.

Nitecap · May 20, 2006

I hear ya

skipaway · May 20, 2006

Noramlly pre-written letter don't normally have the same impact. It's kind of like you receiveing bulk mail over and over. It's like spam, you ignore it. If you write a good letter, you can send the same one to all the congressmen, but having different letters from 100 people is much better them getting the same letter from 100 people. The people in his office won't even read them after a while.

Not necessarily, because each letter or piece of mail comes from a real live VOTER, hopefully from the district that the congressperson represents. That is way more important than what each letter says. All the letters basically say the same thing..Honorable Sir or Madamm...please vote this way for my issue. That's really all that matters..how do you want them to vote on your behalf. So, if their staff makes 2 piles.. one for/one against, their going to count them and tell the Congressperson which way the constituents want them to vote. It looks real good if a staffer can say, WOW, 100 CRNAs in your district really are against this bill. Your eloquence or lack thereof will not have much bearing. IMHO

KeithEMU · May 20, 2006

I do hate getting form letters back that have nothing to do with the issue I'm mailing about...lol

CRNAtoMD · May 22, 2006

From the mouth of a MDA, "this rule change could make to upgrade those training programs and facilities", upgrade the MD residents training, yes at the expense of future SRNA training.
Write you senators now, I have written three so far and many more to go.
Use the AANA link, for quick links. UR

Maybe it's because I've just finished a 24 hour case, but did you read ANYTHING I've written before writing "at the expense of future SRNA training??????????????????"

Upgrading facilities and upgrading training programs MEANS FOR BOTH RESIDENTS AND SRNA'S.

Yet again, it takes at least a year of review and usually two years for a program just to add ONE OR TWO residency slots to the resident training program and only if there are enough hearts, pedi, etc. If you are in training or at a training program, go ask the department about it. Listen to how much time, effort, paperwork, inspections, review committees, hospital approval, administrative approval, Medicare paperwork, etc. it takes just to add ONE resident.

Before you take a quote from me and add your interpretations to it, READ MY POSTS FIRST AND DO SOME INVESTIGATION TO GET FACTS.

If anyone wants to campaign against the bill because you hate doctors go right ahead and do so for that reason. I'm not going to be able to nor do I want to try to change your mind on that. I've been on both sides of the road and I can see both sides arguments, just don't think you're only hurting doctors and residency programs. EVERYONE (MD'S, CRNA'S, RESIDENTS, SRNA'S) PAYS THE PRICE OF INADEQUATE FUNDING IN THE FORM OF OVERWORK, FEWER FACULTY AND STAFF CRNA'S, $HITTY EQUIPMENT, AND SHORTCUT METHODS/TECHNIQUES TO CUT COSTS.

The argument that SRNA programs will be hurt by this bill is simply false and I invite anyone to call the academic programs and talk to someone (how about a staff/chief CRNA) about how a residency works, how hard it is to add one residency slot to a program, and how having less money puts them in a bind.

deepz · May 22, 2006

It will definitely NOT hurt SRNA training ........The argument that SRNA programs will be hurt by this bill is simply false......

Please. Are we idiots? Anyone who believes this needs a brain transplant.

Simply put, there are only so many training slots. A finite number, essentially.

Long term, if Medicare pays hospitals *twice* the going rate of reimbursement for MDs over SRNAs, than hospitals will shift training slots to MD anesthesia residents, away from SRNAs, and therefore HR 5246 will hurt future CRNA numbers. It is very plain.

The AANA suffers long term, no matter how one might choose to porifice it.

Send those letters in, folks. Oppose HR 5246.

deepz

URgettingsleepy · May 22, 2006

Please. Are we idiots? Any CRNA who believes this needs a brain transplant.
Simply put, there are only so many training slots. A finite number, essentially.
Long term, if Medicare pays hospitals *twice* the going rate of reimbursement for MDs over SRNAs, than hospitals will shift training slots to MD anesthesia residents, away from SRNAs, and therefore HR 5246 will hurt future CRNA numbers. It is very plain.
The AANA suffers long term, no matter how one might choose to porifice it.
Send those letters in, folks. Oppose HR 5246.
deepz

deepz, very true.

The link for the letters to oppose this unfair Bill is through AANA Professional Advocacy Website. Please check your email and respond to the recent link provided by the AANA.

You may also find your representatives by loging into aana.com member section,select government relations, then federal legislative lookup, click the link and a list of your states legislators will appear.

Send those letters in...UR

CRNAtoMD · May 23, 2006

Please. Are we idiots? Any CRNA who believes this needs a brain transplant.

Interesting way of getting your view across.

Simply put, there are only so many training slots. A finite number, essentially.
Long term, if Medicare pays hospitals *twice* the going rate of reimbursement for MDs over SRNAs, than hospitals will shift training slots to MD anesthesia residents, away from SRNAs, and therefore HR 5246 will hurt future CRNA numbers. It is very plain.

I won't repeat everything I have said before, because for you it will fall on deaf ears. Show me something to refute what I have stated other than the party line. I have ACGME and ABA documentation to prove my points. A residency program with a class size of 18 would need at least 9 years and probably 15-20 years to double that class size. To make the Medicare reimbursement worth anything, it would have to WANT to take more Medicare and understand that anesthesiology programs have no say in what patients it takes. They provide a service. The primary care guys bring in the patients.

Do you think they are looking to take in MORE Medicare patients so that anesthesiology residency programs can magically benefit from HR5246?

Of course not. My department is actively involved with the medical school and county hospital boards to find ways to decrease the Medicare payor mix and bring in more privately insured cases.

WITH THE ONE TO ONE REIMBURSEMENT THAT DERMATOLOGY, OPHTHAMOLOGY, GYN, SURGERY, MEDICINE, AND FAMILY MEDICINE RECEIVES, THANK GOODNESS ALL OF THOSE RESIDENCY PROGRAMS HAVE TRIPLED IN SIZE AND PREVENTED ANY TRAINING OF NP'S, NURSE MIDWIVES, OPTOMETRISTS, AND PA'S. (Sarcasm intended). So I ask anyone here still convinced that HR5246 will hurt CRNA's and trainees, do you think NP's, nurse midwives, optometrists, and PA's have suffered and watched their lateral practice residency programs even double in size?

In the end, HR5246, even if it passes, will likely not be enough to convince CMS to change the reimbursement rule. Remember it is not a mandate, only a very strong suggestion. CMS can do what it wants to do.