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.
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.
Are you naïve enough to believe that SRNA tuition pays the entire cost of their education? Many CRNA programs are in PUBLIC university settings. The taxpayer subsidizes those institutions significantly. In both public and private colleges and universities, much of the funding comes from endowments, contributions from alumni, corporate donations, etc.
Are you naïve enough to believe that SRNA tuition pays the entire cost of their education? Many CRNA programs are in PUBLIC university settings. The taxpayer subsidizes those institutions significantly. In both public and private colleges and universities, much of the funding comes from endowments, contributions from alumni, corporate donations, etc.
What percent of a CRNAs education do you think is subsidized?
Are you naïve enough to believe that SRNA tuition pays the entire cost of their education? Many CRNA programs are in PUBLIC university settings. The taxpayer subsidizes those institutions significantly. In both public and private colleges and universities, much of the funding comes from endowments, contributions from alumni, corporate donations, etc.
And he is back...
I am smart enough to know that there is no comparison between the amount public funds and subsidizes used for medical school and medical residencies as there is for nurse anesthesia school. Do you really think that the all the CRNA schools that are open because of the public funds they received. No, but without all the public monies there would be virtually no medical schools or medical residencies in the US. SRNAs are virtual cash cows for universities.
I am smart enough to know that there is no comparison between the amount public funds and subsidizes used for medical school and medical residencies as there is for nurse anesthesia school. Do you really think that the all the CRNA schools that are open because of the public funds they received. No, but without all the public monies there would be virtually no medical schools or medical residencies in the US. SRNAs are virtual cash cows for universities.
Cash cows - hmmmmmmm
MCG CRNA program - total tuition $15,070, yearly tuition $,7535
MCG Medical School - total tuition $54,516, yearly tuition $13,629
Duke CRNA program - total tuition $71,250, avg yearly tuition 28,500
Duke Medical School - total tuition $199,760, yearly tuition $49,940
USC CRNA program - total tuition $69,120, yearly tuition $34,560
USC Medical School - total tuition $209,632, yearly tuition $52,408
In each case, both the annual and total tuition for physicians far exceeds those for SRNA's.
Both medical schools and nursing/CRNA schools receive public funding of one sort or another. But you would reduce the stated cost of a CRNA education to the tuition alone that a SRNA pays and claim that no other monies are involved (when nothing could be further from the truth), yet then inflate the cost of physician education by including myriad other funding besides tuition paid. Is physician education more expensive? Well of course it is. Nobody debates that. But your comparison isn't even close to apples to apples.
He comes here to troll. I hoped he was banned but apparently not.
I'll leave instead.
He surfs all the popular CRNA sites that he is allowed on. No reason to leave just keep refuting the inaccuracies that are posted for those that do not have experience to know any better will not be mislead.
He surfs all the popular CRNA sites that he is allowed on. No reason to leave just keep refuting the inaccuracies that are posted for those that do not have experience to know any better will not be mislead.
What a coincidence - exactly why I'm here - refuting inaccuracies.
He surfs all the popular CRNA sites that he is allowed on. No reason to leave just keep refuting the inaccuracies that are posted for those that do not have experience to know any better will not be mislead.
Would be different if he would come to discuss things on common ground but he just tries to justify and support anything the MDA community believes.
Would be different if he would come to discuss things on common ground but he just tries to justify and support anything the MDA community believes.
AAs are totally dependent on ACTs and therefore MDAs. His whole livelihood depends on maintaining the status quo no matter if it only truly benefits MDAs in ACT practices.
Cash cows? What universities are you referring to? Do you have research on that? I would love to pass it along to our Dean - and I am being totally serious - no snark.
Unless you are talking about UFGC or Maryland which charges >$100,000 for out of state students, I can't see how the SRNA programs make anymore money for the university than any other program, especially since many universities (especially state universities) cap their programs to be
jwk
1,102 Posts
Are you naïve enough to believe that SRNA tuition pays the entire cost of their education? Many CRNA programs are in PUBLIC university settings. The taxpayer subsidizes those institutions significantly. In both public and private colleges and universities, much of the funding comes from endowments, contributions from alumni, corporate donations, etc.