AANA members

MmacFN · May 24, 2006

hehehe Yup u will be a "pot stirrer" like me

heartICU · May 24, 2006

As SRNAs are going through 2-2.5 yrs of training, unpaid, Med students are going though 4 yrs of Med school unpaid.
Should hospitals not be paid more because they have to pay for residencies for MDAs? Sure it would be great if SRNAs got paid to go through the clinicals, being as they are providing services, but in all fairness I am having trouble understanding the equality we are fighting for here.

We are not fighting for SRNAs to get paid - we just don't want residents to generate more revenue for the hospital or group on a case-by-case basis than a student. I don't think anyone is fighting for students to receive monetary compensation for their services - in fact, we cannot. However, to provide a hospital with 100% of the anesthesia fee for a case a resident runs versus a case a student runs would generate more money for the hospital. Does this make sense?

jwk · May 24, 2006

We are not fighting for SRNAs to get paid - we just don't want residents to generate more revenue for the hospital or group on a case-by-case basis than a student. I don't think anyone is fighting for students to receive monetary compensation for their services - in fact, we cannot. However, to provide a hospital with 100% of the anesthesia fee for a case a resident runs versus a case a student runs would generate more money for the hospital. Does this make sense?

So to be consistent in your views, all of you agree that reimbursement for surgical residents should be decreased drastically. Right?

lmdscd · May 24, 2006

Hey JWK are MD's paying you to speak for them? Course i see some reason in your posts if Md's would lose any ground it would hurt AA's i guess we are having to fight these things that would hurt us from behind that bill and everybody knows it guess thats why your fighting for the bill to pass . Doc's could teach part time in medical school and write it off for their taxes ! Now there an idea ! Everything boil down to money doc's have to fight for reasons there worth twice to three times as Crna's. You know I was talking to a ceo of a hospital who admits both do the same job and have same out come and he said Crna's were cheaper but admitted it was political with Md's there. Everybody have a great weekend and hope we think on all the people who gave us freedom to say and do these things !

MmacFN · May 24, 2006

Well now thats an interesting topic jwk.

There isnt another situation existing in all of medicine quite like the one between CRNAs and MDAs. Where else is a midlevel practicing to the exact same scope (in the OR) with an evidenced based proven track record equal to their physician counterparts?

So, the NP and the PA midlevel providers would have no grounds to fight against their family practice physician counterparts (etc) increasing residency slots or rembursement for residents as they can never claim to practice at the same level.

How surgical residents fit into this category i havent a clue. I can think of no relation between the surgical resident and the SRNA. This only holds true for the anesthesia resident and the SRNA. Both doing the exact same job only one allowing the hospital to bill more than the other. Clearly, this could sway hospitals to replace SRNA slots for MDA slots simply based on the potential economic gain.

This certainly wouldnt be the first time hospital systems have made a change in the name of the bottom line. While you do not have the hospital politic experience the RNs here have jwk, we have all seen this happen. Medics replacing RN slots in the ER, LPNs/techs on floors and in rehabs filling RN positions etc etc. Even when studies have shown that there is a positive coorelation between RN to patient ratio and pt outcomes, and a negative coorelation when RNs are replaced by less educated providers, hospitals still search for ways to do it. With this bill, hospital can increase reimbursement without the risk of having a lesser provider at the (potential) cost of decreasing future anesthesia providers numbers.

Its the kind of thinking which saves the jobs of hospital administrators today and increases CEO bonuses this year yet leaves the fallout for the next guy who will be looking for similar quick fixes. When your always focused on this fiscal years profits, the future is irrelevant.

Is that guarenteed to happen? I dont know. Is it worth the risk based on the track record nursing has historically seen in hospital administrations? The AANA has decided it is not.

So to be consistent in your views, all of you agree that reimbursement for surgical residents should be decreased drastically. Right?

heartICU · May 24, 2006

So to be consistent in your views, all of you agree that reimbursement for surgical residents should be decreased drastically. Right?

No.

deepz · May 25, 2006

No.

.......... "Igor, come quick! I've found a use for that spare brain."

!

platon20 · Jun 3, 2006

It seems to me the AANA wants to drastically increase the numbers of CRNAs so they will be able to compete directly against MDAs and replace them.

This is a very STUPID idea.

Yes, more CRNAs will be able to displace MDAs, but at what cost? We could pump out 200,000 more CRNAs if we wanted to, but you guys wouldnt like the result. Yes, you would push out some MDAs, but there would be so much labor supply your incomes would fall from 130k to 60k OVERNIGHT!

Its supply and demand folks.

AANA should be lobbying for CURRENT CRNAs, not trying to pump out hundreds of thousands more to compete with MDAs.

If the AANA wants to keep CRNAs as the best paid nurses in the whole healthcare industry,they would be well advised to cap the number of new graduates and just lobby for the existing CRNAs. Pumping out millions of new CRNAs doesnt do ANYBODY ANY GOOD.

soliant12 · Jun 3, 2006

You have no idea what you are talking about.

It seems to me the AANA wants to drastically increase the numbers of CRNAs so they will be able to compete directly against MDAs and replace them.
This is a very STUPID idea.
Yes, more CRNAs will be able to displace MDAs, but at what cost? We could pump out 200,000 more CRNAs if we wanted to, but you guys wouldnt like the result. Yes, you would push out some MDAs, but there would be so much labor supply your incomes would fall from 130k to 60k OVERNIGHT!
Its supply and demand folks.
AANA should be lobbying for CURRENT CRNAs, not trying to pump out hundreds of thousands more to compete with MDAs.
If the AANA wants to keep CRNAs as the best paid nurses in the whole healthcare industry,they would be well advised to cap the number of new graduates and just lobby for the existing CRNAs. Pumping out millions of new CRNAs doesnt do ANYBODY ANY GOOD.

KeithEMU · Jun 3, 2006

It seems to me the AANA wants to drastically increase the numbers of CRNAs so they will be able to compete directly against MDAs and replace them.
This is a very STUPID idea.
Yes, more CRNAs will be able to displace MDAs, but at what cost? We could pump out 200,000 more CRNAs if we wanted to, but you guys wouldn't like the result. Yes, you would push out some MDAs, but there would be so much labor supply your incomes would fall from 130k to 60k OVERNIGHT!
Its supply and demand folks.
AANA should be lobbying for CURRENT CRNAs, not trying to pump out hundreds of thousands more to compete with MDAs.
If the AANA wants to keep CRNAs as the best paid nurses in the whole health care industry,they would be well advised to cap the number of new graduates and just lobby for the existing CRNAs. Pumping out millions of new CRNAs doesn't do ANYBODY ANY GOOD.

You really need to do some research before posting such a bold statement

There is a rather large shortage of ALL anesthetists right now. Some hospitals have had to shut down some ORs and cancel some elective surgeries. To cap the number of CRNAs or MDAs at this point would be irresponsible and detrimental to the patients.

Another thing you don't seem to understand, platon20, is that CRNAs can preform the SAME JOB as MDAs and have virtually the same success rate, yet cost less to the patient. There are tons of studies that have been done on this.

regardless of this fact the AANA has had to fight for the industry to recognize and respect these facts.

Try to do just a little bit or research before making such bold statements. If you had just read a few of the pertinent threads on the CRNA boards, I don't think you would have said that.

athomas91 · Jun 3, 2006

platon20... although people feel everyone is entitled to opinions..i do not...and i do not feel you should voice yours unless you have the knowledge to back it up...

first of all the AANA is not trying to pump out CRNA's - they are however trying to increase the numbers of schools due to the fact that many states are without training programs and others may only have one - this is very limiting to those w/ families who want to pursue the field but find it financially overbearing due to having to abandon house and home to attend....

the point is...if a hospital is reimbursed large amts of money for residents...then residents will preferentially be used...this doesn't mean SRNA's won't neccesarily be trained at these institutions - but Residents will be on a different playing field instead of both trainees receiving proper and equal training..

you are correct about supply and demand..but the demand won't be met for over 20 years even with the new programs instituted.. do you know the mean age of CRNA's practicing currently - well - look it up - they will be retiring in the next 10 years which will only worsen the shortage you think new programs will destroy...

the AANA is only fighting for equal ground as far as training...the ASA is as always fighting for dominance and money... you figure it out.

MmacFN · Jun 3, 2006

It is also important to recognize that CRNAs are aging. Ive heard different stats, but in general, the average CRNA is in their late 40's. Add to the general nursing shortage which means less ppl to become CRNAs and its a tough road. If the admission numbers were not pumped up you would see a glut of CRNAs retiring and noone to take their place.