"Anesthesiologists are gaming the system"

Specialties CRNA

Published

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/309183-anesthesiologists-are-gaming-the-system

To make this whole issue even more absurd are two recent studies published in the journal "Anesthesiology," the official publication of the ASA, and "Anesthesia & Analgesia." In one, communications with "supervising" anesthesiologists were evaluated revealing that less than 2 percent of such communications originated from those being "supervised" in the OR. In the other, the authors revealed significant lapses in the ability to meet the accountability rules as the number of "medically directed" CRNAs increased - lapses which occurred 99 percent of the time! The study also identified a 22-minute delay when anesthesiologists try to meet the guidelines in order to properly bill for medical direction. With Medicare anesthesia provider reimbursement at a rate of $1.43 per minute, and perhaps millions of such delays every year, the waste of Medicare dollars adds up very quickly, even when the criteria can be met. But this is only a small part of the inherent economic fiasco. While patients waits for an anesthesiologist, the standard Operating Room charges are also accumulating at a rate of $25-50 per minute!

The solution to this problem is exquisitely simple. The president, via his HHS Secretary, must eliminate reimbursement for medically directed anesthesia claims other than those incurred when teaching students or residents. All anesthesia professionals privileged to relieve pain and suffering should actually administer anesthetics. As a society we simply cannot afford to have highly trained anesthesiologists, whose residencies are financed by taxpayers, "supervising". If a procedure requires multiple anesthesia providers due to surgical acuity or complexity, the current regulations provide for full reimbursement. The system currently incentivizes inefficiency without any gain in quality or safety, and potentially pays for services not rendered. This change eliminates the waste of millions or even billions of taxpayer-supported health care dollars and the submission of fraudulent claims. This would force anesthesia departments to become more efficient and allow all Americans to receive the same high level of care as our military heroes.

Everyone but some anesthesiologists and AAs would benefit from eliminating ACTs medical direction model. Hospitals could do more surgeries with less anesthesia providers. The costs to CMS (as I already pointed out a couple of times) and to the hospitals would be decreased. The political and legal costs could be greatly decreased by the largest medical PAC (ASA), and the AANA. We could focus efforts on more mutual outcomes in anesthesia. There is absolutely no benefit to gained from ACT practices other than to make anesthesiologists more money.

Puhleeze - drop the altruistic benefit to society arguments. I understand you want CRNA-only anesthesia, and that you believe anesthesiologists and especially AA's provide zero benefit to a patient or to society in general. There is no other motive on your part other than more money for you and elimination of your competition. I get it - it's pathetic - but I get it.

Specializes in Level 1 Trauma, ICU, Anesthesia.

"countless articles read and numerous lectures given on the subject matter"

[COLOR=#333333]First of all, both of these actions on my part include past and the most current research on the matter.....no where did I say this was my opinion only[COLOR=#333333]. My comments are not and never are predicated on anecdotal or emotional influences, but rather educated, sound deductions and interpretation of the most current data and research.

"You assume that all groups that have MD's get stipends because they can't get paid enough from insurance and CMS payments alone. That is simply a false assumption"

I never stated that ALL MD only or MD/CRNA practices take stipends....clearly, I state: "The cost-effectiveness is realized when stipend money necessary to sustain MDA only and MDA/CRNA groups is no longer required by the MAJORITY of CRNA practices"

No where in that statement did I say ALL MDA or MD/CRNA groups require a stipend. However, I could of easily stated that the majority do. As of three or four years ago around 70-80% of MDA or MD/CRNA groups were relying on stipends. Since "the majority is only defined as [COLOR=#333333]greater than 50%, I don't think it is an unreasonable statement. I don't think you will find a more current statistical documented source that declares otherwise. In fact, I believe this stat came from you own organization, the ASA.

"You and I both know that isn't true - there are CRNA groups or individual CRNA's that take stipends"

I didn't say CRNAs don't take stipends: I stated: "However, MOST CRNA’s in business for themselves, are able to sufficiently realize their salary requirements exclusively from third-party payers and CMS reimbursement." Last time I checked MOST was not indicative of ALL. The statement stands true.

"Your assumption that ACT practices require more personnel compared to a CRNA-only practice is an apples to oranges comparison. Yes, at least one MD will be required for four rooms in an ACT practice, but that MD does other things besides provide medical direction"

[COLOR=#333333]Really? Apples and oranges. For 8 years I worked in an MD/CRNA model. When I started with the group the MDs and CRNAs were both in rooms, both covering OB, doing the blocks, answering the emergency intubations, putting in the lines, etc....and in a high acuity setting - ASA PS 3 pt were the norm. We had a 700/yr cardiac program as well. Over the 8 years we had gone from 20 providers to 90 providers. Granted this included added additional sites to our group. However, at our own facility (without out adding any additional rooms or starts), we went from 20 providers (13 CRNAs and 7 MDS) to 27 providers (16 CRNA and 11 MDs). Why? Because the merger of our group with other groups brought in a model where the MDAs no longer wanted to provide hands-on anesthesia. This meant we needed more bodies (CRNAs) to fill rooms and the MDs went on to only provide supervision. So now were covering the same number of starts with an additional 7 providers, 4 (more than half) were MDs. Are you trying to tell me this did not drive up cost? The numbers speak for themselves. Additionally, the blocks, epidurals, emergencies, lines, etc.......still all being done by everyone.

And, I won't even get into the number of MDAs we hired in the entire group so that there would be enough coverage for them to take 10 weeks of vacation a year. And this is not just this group.....this is every group in this entire area, at least 10 weeks of vacation is the norm. This costs money too!

"Here's the most important thing in your whole post - "

I realize that this does not save the insurance carriers or CMS any money". Exactly the point I've been trying to make for a while. To the people who actually pay the bills, you're not cheaper than an MD."

[COLOR=#333333]

While I can appreciate your point, and it was not lost on my when I wrote it, I believe and tried to articulate that this cannot be the only consideration regarding this issue. The fact of the matter is, that despite groups like yours (which I personally believe are rare), the cost to necessary to provide adequate coverage/service must be looked at from a multitude of angles. The example I have provided from my own experience represents a more realistic trend of anesthesia practices beginning about 10 years ago - and that drives up cost. Its simple: if you add or employ more providers to do the job than is actually necessary, then cost will go up - its as simple as that. And because MDAs demand more compensation, you unfortunately drive up cost even more. I hate it for you...but that doesn't make it untrue.

Personally, I wish we could just get over this ridiculous turf war. CRNAs have been providing quality, safe anesthesia for nearly 150 years. We only live life once....no trial run, no do overs, and to battle over this issue year after year after year is such a waste of time, money, and vital resources.

s

Specializes in Level 1 Trauma, ICU, Anesthesia.

jwk....I have to share this as well. I have several personal friends and colleagues who own substantial multi-million dollar anesthesia businesses around the country. I am talking about easily over 100 million in billing and over 100 facilities. Their success has been ALMOST exclusively predicated on eliminating MD/CRNA ACT model type practices who require stipends. Their achievements have resulted in less than 10% of their facilities needing to pay stipends. In the situations where they do require a stipend, it is less than 25% of what the facility had been paying utilizing the ACT model. These practices consist of CRNA only and in many instance MD/CRNA. The difference is, where MDAs are employed or requested for one reason or another, they are working in rooms. This saves money. The fact is, the CRNAs and the MDA that work in these practice also make much more money than they would in an ACT money. I don't care to disclose the amounts, but it is substantial...especially for the MDAs. I wonder why more MDAs wouldn't want this.....these guys are making a killing. The CRNAs do well as well.

jwk....I understand your point about patient savings not being directly affected by this....or should I say the potential. However, as providers we can only do our part. If the facility does not pass on those savings onto the patients, then we need to look at what they are doing to drive costs up or down. Regardless, system costs need to be assessed globally not locally. Saving money, here and there, adds up to millions up millions of dollars.

personally, I have no issue working with MDAs at all, but I don't think the ACT model is cost effective or necessary. I haven't personally worked with MDAs for the last 5 years but that doesn't mean I wouldn't...just not in an ACT model - I have a choice. Just my opinion.

jwk....I have to share this as well. I have several personal friends and colleagues who own substantial multi-million dollar anesthesia businesses around the country. I am talking about easily over 100 million in billing and over 100 facilities. Their success has been ALMOST exclusively predicated on eliminating MD/CRNA ACT model type practices who require stipends. Their achievements have resulted in less than 10% of their facilities needing to pay stipends. In the situations where they do require a stipend, it is less than 25% of what the facility had been paying utilizing the ACT model. These practices consist of CRNA only and in many instance MD/CRNA. The difference is, where MDAs are employed or requested for one reason or another, they are working in rooms. This saves money. The fact is, the CRNAs and the MDA that work in these practice also make much more money than they would in an ACT money. I don't care to disclose the amounts, but it is substantial...especially for the MDAs. I wonder why more MDAs wouldn't want this.....these guys are making a killing. The CRNAs do well as well.

jwk....I understand your point about patient savings not being directly affected by this....or should I say the potential. However, as providers we can only do our part. If the facility does not pass on those savings onto the patients, then we need to look at what they are doing to drive costs up or down. Regardless, system costs need to be assessed globally not locally. Saving money, here and there, adds up to millions up millions of dollars.

personally, I have no issue working with MDAs at all, but I don't think the ACT model is cost effective or necessary. I haven't personally worked with MDAs for the last 5 years but that doesn't mean I wouldn't...just not in an ACT model - I have a choice. Just my opinion.

Similarly, I have personal friends and colleagues who are in groups or practices that have been bought out by AMC's. Those who were present prior to and during buyout almost universally regret it and wish things could go back to the way they were. Those who came later simply don't know any better. Much of the sweet-talking about the joys of being an employee rather than an owner were just that - talk. Salaries did in fact increase for some, but was more than offset by the huge decrease in benefit packages leading to an decrease in the value of total compensation. You've simply traded a set of local owners for a set of managers that answer to stockholders.

Of course the facility doesn't pass those savings onto patients. That would be a fantasy.

Specializes in Anesthesia.

Puhleeze.....I am a military CRNA. I do not make more money by seeing ACTs eliminated. I do find benefit in anesthesiologists, but is not through medical direction/supervision.

IMHO AAs are political tools invented and used by the ASA to try control CRNAs.

Puhleeze.....I am a military CRNA. I do not make more money by seeing ACTs eliminated. I do find benefit in anesthesiologists, but is not through medical direction/supervision.

IMHO AAs are political tools invented and used by the ASA to try control CRNAs.

So if you've got no dog in this hunt, why do you care? There's certainly no quality of care/lack of education argument. There can only be a financial/anti-competition argument which translates only to greed.

AA's were not "invented" as a political tool, but I realize it's pointless to argue that with you because we'll never agree. However, CRNA's are doing a fine job shooting themselves in the foot over and over and over again with their claims of equivalency to anesthesiologists, demanding the same practice rights as anesthesiologists without the educational background and training to back it up, and then whining when anesthesiologists say "enough is enough" and stop training student nurse anesthetists, even though they lose their free labor in the process. Do I personally as an AA benefit from all that? Absolutely.

We're not in overproduction mode as CRNA's are. We weren't noticed much when there were just 25 of us graduating each year, but with more than 200 graduating this year and two new schools that just started and more committed, we are much more of a factor than we used to be. Anesthesia groups around the country are hiring AA's as fast as they can find them, and working at enabling AA practice in states where we don't currently practice. If some of the motivation for that is anesthesiologists thumbing their collective noses at CRNA's and CRNA "professional" organizations, I couldn't be happier. True, we're still much smaller as a profession than nurse anesthesia, but we're infinitely more noticeable and recognized than we were 20 years ago.

[quote name=

IMHO AAs are political tools invented and used by the ASA to try control CRNAs.[/quote]

I cannot fathom how anyone could disagree with this. Except an ASA member or AA. And even the more reasonable members of those cohorts would agree with it. I have seen no plausible explanation for the expansion of the AA programs in recent years.

+ Add a Comment