AANA urges Medicare to consider hospital anesthesiology efficiency measures

Specialties CRNA

Published

AANA Urges Medicare to Consider Hospital Anesthesiology Efficiency Measures

The AANA has recommended that Medicare consider the costs of various anesthesia delivery models and of hospital anesthesia subsidies per anesthetizing location as part of quality measures intended to capture the efficiency of hospital anesthesia services.

The June 21 letter, signed by President Janice Izlar, CRNA, DNAP, stated, "The Agency may want to consider the costs of meeting the seven medical direction steps as part of the anesthesiology spending and cost-efficiency measure. Under the medical direction practice model, the medical directing anesthesiologist must complete seven steps in order to bill for this modality. The Agency has clearly stated that medical direction is a condition for payment for anesthesiologist services and not a quality standard."

The AANA discussed the ways that the requirements associated with anesthesiologist medical direction claims contribute to healthcare cost growth, noting specifically the requirement that the anesthesiologist be "present at induction." "For every minute spent waiting for an anesthesiologist to arrive and be present at induction, some of the costliest resources in the hospital are wasted. The clock is running on the surgeon, circulating nurse, scrub tech, and nurse anesthetist waiting in the operating room. Waiting costs cascade throughout the day, postponing the surgery schedule to require overtime and on-call staff, delaying the surgeon's rounds to affect patient care and discharge of the patient from the healthcare facility. Waiting costs also add opportunity costs, diverting needed resources from other patient care," continued the letter.

The letter also recommends including the cost per anesthetizing location as part of the proposed anesthesiology measure since hospitals pay an average of $160,096 per anesthetizing location to anesthesiology groups, and increasing the weight placed on clinical process of care measures, such as the Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) measures, under the hospital value based purchasing program.

Thanks for finally agreeing that I am right. Almost all rural anesthetics are provided by CRNAs.

Once again, I'm sorry AAs are so limited and need the MDA. Don't take it out on CRNAs

70% of anything does not equal "almost all".

Specializes in critcal care, CRNA.

70% of anything does not equal "almost all".

Pretty significant though.

Specializes in Anesthesia, Pain, Emergency Medicine.

jwk would argue that 99% does not equal almost all. LOL

He can't be wrong.

Specializes in cardiac, ICU, education.

To jwk and the CRNA's

According to: An Analysis of the Labor Markets for Anesthesiology RAND Health report, 2010

Urban

* 95% anesthesiologists

* 44% CRNAs

Rural

* 56% CRNAs

* 5% anesthesiologists

Regional

* Anesthesiologists more likely than CRNAs to work in Northeast and West

* Comparable distributions in Midwest and South

Hope that clears it up.

Specializes in cardiac, ICU, education.
It cost around 1 million dollars to train an anesthesiologist. A lot of that money comes from taxpayers/CMS. CRNAs cost 1/10 to train versus an anesthesiologist, and CRNAs receives no such subsidies from CMS for their training.

2 of the 3 references are a bit too old to be correct now, but as more CRNA training programs are going DNP, the costs are rising significantly. Furthermore, the anesthesia department of the medical school does not receive the money, the hospital does and reimburses the physicians directly. Because of that, larger and larger portions of the monies have gone to the hospitals to use as they see fit.

However, I would like to get back to the OP. I see the motive for the AANA's statement. According to your research, the ACT model is not cost effective and if medicare were to do away with reimbursing this model, then logically speaking, anesthesiologists would be ousted in many hospitals and those hospitals would hire CRNA's instead because they are more cost effective - but are they? As medicare reimbursements get lower and lower, so will payments to hospitals that employ CRNA's. When reimbursements fall, then people are laid off ordepartments/serives get outsourced. It is prevalent in every type of business today.

So now anesthesia services are outsourced to management companies or even just doctor or CRNA owned service. Why would a hospital choose a CRNA service over a physician owned service if they cost the same? I ask this because it has happened at 3 very large hospitals here in the state I work in (and our state opted out). One hospital system fired all the CRNA's and gave the contract to the MD's. The 50+ MD group didn't want to work with CRNA's and so they provide all anesthesia services. The docs bill on their own and, in turn, have an exclusive contract for services. Additionally, Baylor Medical Center in Dallas did the same thing, the administration concluded that it "does not really need to be in the business of employing CRNAs" So a contract was negotiated with Pinnacle, one of the nation’s largest anesthesia groups and they took over all anesthesia services.

I am just saying be careful what you wish for because a number of hospitals are going this route.

Specializes in Anesthesia, Pain, Emergency Medicine.

The school DOES receive the money. NO, the hospital does receive the money and does not reimburse the physicians.

The physicians OR CRNAs bill for directing the students.

2 of the 3 references are a bit too old to be correct now, but as more CRNA training programs are going DNP, the costs are rising significantly. Furthermore, the anesthesia department of the medical school does not receive the money, the hospital does and reimburses the physicians directly. Because of that, larger and larger portions of the monies have gone to the hospitals to use as they see fit.

However, I would like to get back to the OP. I see the motive for the AANA's statement. According to your research, the ACT model is not cost effective and if medicare were to do away with reimbursing this model, then logically speaking, anesthesiologists would be ousted in many hospitals and those hospitals would hire CRNA's instead because they are more cost effective - but are they? As medicare reimbursements get lower and lower, so will payments to hospitals that employ CRNA's. When reimbursements fall, then people are laid off ordepartments/serives get outsourced. It is prevalent in every type of business today.

So now anesthesia services are outsourced to management companies or even just doctor or CRNA owned service. Why would a hospital choose a CRNA service over a physician owned service if they cost the same? I ask this because it has happened at 3 very large hospitals here in the state I work in (and our state opted out). One hospital system fired all the CRNA's and gave the contract to the MD's. The 50+ MD group didn't want to work with CRNA's and so they provide all anesthesia services. The docs bill on their own and, in turn, have an exclusive contract for services. Additionally, Baylor Medical Center in Dallas did the same thing, the administration concluded that it "does not really need to be in the business of employing CRNAs" So a contract was negotiated with Pinnacle, one of the nation's largest anesthesia groups and they took over all anesthesia services.

I am just saying be careful what you wish for because a number of hospitals are going this route.

Specializes in Anesthesia.
2 of the 3 references are a bit too old to be correct now, but as more CRNA training programs are going DNP, the costs are rising significantly. Furthermore, the anesthesia department of the medical school does not receive the money, the hospital does and reimburses the physicians directly. Because of that, larger and larger portions of the monies have gone to the hospitals to use as they see fit.

However, I would like to get back to the OP. I see the motive for the AANA's statement. According to your research, the ACT model is not cost effective and if medicare were to do away with reimbursing this model, then logically speaking, anesthesiologists would be ousted in many hospitals and those hospitals would hire CRNA's instead because they are more cost effective - but are they? As medicare reimbursements get lower and lower, so will payments to hospitals that employ CRNA's. When reimbursements fall, then people are laid off ordepartments/serives get outsourced. It is prevalent in every type of business today.

So now anesthesia services are outsourced to management companies or even just doctor or CRNA owned service. Why would a hospital choose a CRNA service over a physician owned service if they cost the same? I ask this because it has happened at 3 very large hospitals here in the state I work in (and our state opted out). One hospital system fired all the CRNA's and gave the contract to the MD's. The 50+ MD group didn't want to work with CRNA's and so they provide all anesthesia services. The docs bill on their own and, in turn, have an exclusive contract for services. Additionally, Baylor Medical Center in Dallas did the same thing, the administration concluded that it "does not really need to be in the business of employing CRNAs" So a contract was negotiated with Pinnacle, one of the nation’s largest anesthesia groups and they took over all anesthesia services.

I am just saying be careful what you wish for because a number of hospitals are going this route.

The DNP has no effect on the the difference in training costs, because CRNAs still pay for the majority of their own education. Yes, medical schools do receive significant public monies.

These are Uniformed statements at best. Certain private insurance companies will pay MDAs more for the same services and some surgeons refuse to work with CRNA only groups this is the true reasons behind MDA groups which are still the most expensive types of anesthesia practices.

No one is saying that anesthesiologists would be ousted with removal of ACT practices, but anesthesiologists and CRNAs would do their own cases instead of the current billing fraud that consistently happens with ACT practices.

The ACT model has never done anything to improve patient care and all ACT practices are good for is increasing anesthesiologists bottom line.

Specializes in cardiac, ICU, education.
The school DOES receive the money. NO, the hospital does receive the money and does not reimburse the physicians.

The physicians OR CRNAs bill for directing the students.

Let me clarify - I was referring to WTBCRAN's comment about CMS. The hospitals receive the money from Medicare.

https://www.aamc.org/advocacy/gme/71152/gme_gme0001.html

Specializes in cardiac, ICU, education.
The DNP has no effect on the the difference in training costs, because CRNAs still pay for the majority of their own education.

Who's costs are you referring to? If you are in the military than you are subsidized by taxpayer money. Our university has 7 DNP programs. The cost to go from NP to DNP was significant and the ongoing costs are as well. The creation of a DNP program can be millions as you have to be certified before classes even begin. Certifications, curriculum creation and evaluation, higher pay for more instructors, there are more classes to pay for, and in turn more overhead. Additionally, it costs more to educate students than they pay in tuition. Granted, if universities were run correctly and ethically, the tuition from students and would be more than enough to pay for school, but money is diverted into other areas to "benefit" students. Research institutions (all CRNA schools) have higher E&R than non research schools. DNP's have to produce some type of research whether it be an EBP all the way to a research project defending a thesis. That activity is not paid for by the CRNA alone.

No one is saying that anesthesiologists would be ousted with removal of ACT practices, but anesthesiologists and CRNAs would do their own cases instead of the current billing fraud that consistently happens with ACT practices.

Of course you are, even if you have a 1:4 supervisory model. If no ACT, then no anesthesiologist or one less CRNA. Same amount of cases but one less provider. Do that systematically across the system and you reduce your workforce by 20% in those hospitals with those models. Somebody has go to go.

Specializes in Anesthesia.
Who's costs are you referring to? If you are in the military than you are subsidized by taxpayer money. Our university has 7 DNP programs. The cost to go from NP to DNP was significant and the ongoing costs are as well. The creation of a DNP program can be millions as you have to be certified before classes even begin. Certifications, curriculum creation and evaluation, higher pay for more instructors, there are more classes to pay for, and in turn more overhead. Additionally, it costs more to educate students than they pay in tuition. Granted, if universities were run correctly and ethically, the tuition from students and would be more than enough to pay for school, but money is diverted into other areas to "benefit" students. Research institutions (all CRNA schools) have higher E&R than non research schools. DNP's have to produce some type of research whether it be an EBP all the way to a research project defending a thesis. That activity is not paid for by the CRNA alone.

Of course you are, even if you have a 1:4 supervisory model. If no ACT, then no anesthesiologist or one less CRNA. Same amount of cases but one less provider. Do that systematically across the system and you reduce your workforce by 20% in those hospitals with those models. Somebody has go to go.

I am referring to the difference in what it costs to educate the average CRNA vs the average MDA in public funds. There is significant portion of public monies that subsidize medical school and basically all of residencies. Those monies are paid by public/CMS funds. It does not matter if the tuition for CRNA school quadruples the SRNAs are the ones paying the majority of the bill with little to no public monies.

There is universal shortage of an anesthesia providers no one has to go, but there maybe some significant translocation of jobs. You will still have to have anesthesia provider floats, and without ACTs hospitals can actually do more anesthesia with the same amount anesthesia providers.

I provide the military with a service cheaper than any contractor the military could get in exchange I went to NA school on Active Duty. Unlike non uniformed services medical students and residents I payback my military education through military/public service. There is absolutely no comparison between that and the public monies used to subsidize medical education/residencies.

What is it that you exactly teach?

Specializes in cardiac, ICU, education.
I am referring to the difference in what it costs to educate the average CRNA vs the average MDA in public funds. There is significant portion of public monies that subsidize medical school and basically all of residencies. Those monies are paid by public/CMS funds. It does not matter if the tuition for CRNA school quadruples the SRNAs are the ones paying the majority of the bill with little to no public monies.

Medical Students pay the majority of their own eduction as well. Trust me, paying back $250,000 in loans was not fun or easy. Additionally, residents get paid almost a nominal fee for working in hospitals, and unlike CRNA students, they are licensed and have the capacity to do more than students do. Making $40,000 a year while working 90 hours a week is barely minimum wage. I know things are changing now in reference to hours/week, but your reference was from years ago when most residents worked those kinds of hours. Our residents do an intern year in which they are the hospitalists and all that entails so they are giving back to hospital. Additionally, physicians give back to research and medical schools exponentially compared to nurses. Nurses across the board minimally donate back to their respective colleges compared to other disciplines. Is it like the military? No, but then the military is completely paid for by tax payer money and grants.

I think looking at the bigger picture of how universities, the military, medical schools, etc., are funded, it all is coming from taxpayers in some way. Whether it is nursing school grants, loans (which have a higher default rate now than ever), government grants, donations, private funding, etc. The question is what is the benefit which leads me to your next statement.

There is universal shortage of an anesthesia providers no one has to go, but there maybe some significant translocation of jobs.

Some will have to go. There is a small universal shortage of about 3.8 to 5.8% according to RAND. Depending on how many ACT models there are out there, there would be a surplus. Especially for hospitals that supervise on a 1:2 model, which actually does not make the physicians more money. It has to be a 1:3 or 1:4 model with at least a 75% utilization rate to be cost effective. I am part owner in an anesthesia group, I am very aware of the costs of running an OR.

Also, it does not necessarily mean more anesthesia or more quality anesthesia. For instance, we have 2 fellowship trained cardiac anesthesiologists. They will supervise, but only on a 1:2 ratio. 2 surgeries get done instead of one. The types of surgeries they do, CRNA schools do not provide fellowships for, so we need the anesthesiologist. When it comes to peds, cardiac, and other specialty anesthesia cases, the fellowship trained physicians are better trained even versus other MDA's.

What is it that you exactly teach?

Depends on the semester (and now we are going through another curriculum change) but in the graduate program:

Epidemiology and Population-Based Health

APN Statistics

Health Care Leadership/Finance

However, I am currently in charge of a federal grant for residency programs. The government is realizing that residencies are needed more than ever and are funding residency programs for nurses. It is not the same kind of reimbursement that it has been for medical residencies, but nurses were usually trained in diploma programs. After changing to ADN and BSN programs, coupled with the increase in acuity, specialties, and technology, it is impossible for nurses to learn everything they need to learn in clinicals or schools, so we are seeing residencies on the rise even though there are significant cutbacks because the ROI is about 121%. This trend is likely to increase and it will encompass all nursing specialties (AACN, Versant, UHC), which I think is great for APNs as well. I would love to see 6 month to even 1 year residencies where APNs are paid for their work while still learning their skill. This would take some of the burden off of schools and hospitals to pay for this type of precepted and residency type training.

Again, I respect CRNA's and believe them to be a vital part of healthcare. Surgeries would not get done in this country without them. However, I do respect the MDA programs as well. I find myself defending CRNA's to physicians in the group when feathers get ruffled (although not often as they have a very good working relationship). Our MDA's want nothing to do with employing AA's because they respect the training of the CRNA's. The supervising comes from 2 heads are better than one mentality and it works well for the group which is evidenced by the phenomenal pay the CRNA's receive. Please don't confuse the tones of my posts with that of the AA's.

Specializes in Anesthesia.
Medical Students pay the majority of their own eduction as well. Trust me, paying back $250,000 in loans was not fun or easy. Additionally, residents get paid almost a nominal fee for working in hospitals, and unlike CRNA students, they are licensed and have the capacity to do more than students do. Making $40,000 a year while working 90 hours a week is barely minimum wage. I know things are changing now in reference to hours/week, but your reference was from years ago when most residents worked those kinds of hours. Our residents do an intern year in which they are the hospitalists and all that entails so they are giving back to hospital. Additionally, physicians give back to research and medical schools exponentially compared to nurses. Nurses across the board minimally donate back to their respective colleges compared to other disciplines. Is it like the military? No, but then the military is completely paid for by tax payer money and grants.

I think looking at the bigger picture of how universities, the military, medical schools, etc., are funded, it all is coming from taxpayers in some way. Whether it is nursing school grants, loans (which have a higher default rate now than ever), government grants, donations, private funding, etc. The question is what is the benefit which leads me to your next statement.

Some will have to go. There is a small universal shortage of about 3.8 to 5.8% according to RAND. Depending on how many ACT models there are out there, there would be a surplus. Especially for hospitals that supervise on a 1:2 model, which actually does not make the physicians more money. It has to be a 1:3 or 1:4 model with at least a 75% utilization rate to be cost effective. I am part owner in an anesthesia group, I am very aware of the costs of running an OR.

Also, it does not necessarily mean more anesthesia or more quality anesthesia. For instance, we have 2 fellowship trained cardiac anesthesiologists. They will supervise, but only on a 1:2 ratio. 2 surgeries get done instead of one. The types of surgeries they do, CRNA schools do not provide fellowships for, so we need the anesthesiologist. When it comes to peds, cardiac, and other specialty anesthesia cases, the fellowship trained physicians are better trained even versus other MDA's.

Depends on the semester (and now we are going through another curriculum change) but in the graduate program:

Epidemiology and Population-Based Health

APN Statistics

Health Care Leadership/Finance

However, I am currently in charge of a federal grant for residency programs. The government is realizing that residencies are needed more than ever and are funding residency programs for nurses. It is not the same kind of reimbursement that it has been for medical residencies, but nurses were usually trained in diploma programs. After changing to ADN and BSN programs, coupled with the increase in acuity, specialties, and technology, it is impossible for nurses to learn everything they need to learn in clinicals or schools, so we are seeing residencies on the rise even though there are significant cutbacks because the ROI is about 121%. This trend is likely to increase and it will encompass all nursing specialties (AACN, Versant, UHC), which I think is great for APNs as well. I would love to see 6 month to even 1 year residencies where APNs are paid for their work while still learning their skill. This would take some of the burden off of schools and hospitals to pay for this type of precepted and residency type training.

Again, I respect CRNA's and believe them to be a vital part of healthcare. Surgeries would not get done in this country without them. However, I do respect the MDA programs as well. I find myself defending CRNA's to physicians in the group when feathers get ruffled (although not often as they have a very good working relationship). Our MDA's want nothing to do with employing AA's because they respect the training of the CRNA's. The supervising comes from 2 heads are better than one mentality and it works well for the group which is evidenced by the phenomenal pay the CRNA's receive. Please don't confuse the tones of my posts with that of the AA's.

Many states and federal agencies highly subsidize medical school costs. Texas being one of the best for subsidized medical schools. This is something that will never be allotted to SRNAs.

Nurses do not have the time in general that physicians are allotted to do research and there are many places that will not allow CRNAs to do their own research without a physician sponsor (Baltimore Shock Trauma comes to mind). There is a huge difference in time when someone has full-time administrative job versus someone who is giving direct patient care all day. MDAs are more often to have the type of positions and resources to do research where very few CRNAs will ever have that time because CRNAs are the ones doing the majority of the actual anesthesia care.

You have no concept of military payback. There is no comparison of military obligations to someone going through civilian medical school with normal subsidies and student loans. Our military education is not given to us we pay for it everyday. There is no other job with 24/7 365 days a year of call, deployments, time away from families, hazardous duty, austere environments etc. We are not blindly given public monies we earn every dime and more. Not to mention our salaries are significantly lower than our civilian CRNA counterparts during payback.

The only group that would likely be pushed out if ACTs closed is AAs. MDAs would actually have to start doing their own cases which some would enjoy while others wouldn't have a clue what to do.

CRNAs provide care for every speciality anesthesia case there is. I agree that a fellowship trained MDA is usually more qualified right after school than another MDA or CRNA right out of school, but experience in that speciality quickly negates those differences. CRNAs are developing fellowships. There are two that I know of right now(pain and peds).

There has never been any research that shows that MDA supervision improves patient care. The military anesthesia model is the ideal and the AANA has touted the benefits of this model and type of training for decades.

+ Add a Comment