TEXAS CRNA's Call to action. Stop the potential AA bill!

Specialties CRNA

Published

WHY SB 1314 AND HB 3313 ARE BAD PUBLIC POLICY

THIS IS A SCOPE OF PRACTICE FIGHT!

FACTS:

With insufficient funds for critical needs in the state, why create a licensure advisory board and licensure process for fewer than 20 people in Texas?

The Texas Medical Board (TMB) already has a backlog of over 2500 applications from badly needed physicians who cannot get licensed in Texas because TMB does not have adequate staff. The problem is so severe that TMB is receiving a supplemental appropriation to begin to address the backlog.

Anesthesiologists Assistants (AAs) do not improve access to anesthesia services because AAs can only work under the supervision of a board certified Anesthesiologist.

Anesthesiologists practice in only 70 Texas counties and one-fourth are NOT board certified.

Once licensure occurs, the next move will be to start an AA school that will drain money away from the existing anesthesiology and nurse anesthetists educational programs.

This legislation increases liability of the supervising Anesthesiologist in all cases and the health care facility if it employs an AA.

This is a pocket book issue. Anesthesiologists can make twice as much supervising 4 providers than they can actually providing care to a patient.

Passage of SB 1314 and HB 3313 WILL effect YOU!

Action Required:

Call, write, e-mail or visit your State Senator

Call, write, e-mail or visit your State Representative

Ask your friends, family and co-workers to call, write, e-mail or visit their legislators, and

Visit your legislator at the Capitol in Austin or in their district office to voice your displeasure on SB 1314 and HB 3313.

Texas must focus on accessible, affordable, high quality health care by Anesthesiologists and Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists.

hmm, my post was tongue in cheek, hence all the smilies. i said there was a shortage, not a critical shortage. the point i was trying to make was that i would like to see more crna's, not aa's. yes, crna's advocate for their profession just like everyone else. if we don't advocate for our profession who else will? sure isn't the mda's. i have no reason to make up the 80k salary i mentioned. i know for a fact that is why the salary in that particular place is so low. do some research, and you will see for yourself. i am well aware of what the average crna salary is, but thanks anyway (it is an average, i know you know what an average is so i will not insult you by explaining how some crna's don't make 100k) i personally don't complain about mda's, because i know they are advocating for their profession. this is not something i lose any sleep over, but i will never support aa's. sorry guys...:lol2:
the difference is that we advocate for our profession without disparaging yours. you don't see aa's advocating getting rid of crna's. you don't see aa's trying to limit crna practice. you don't see aa's getting legislation passed to make crna practice illegal.

now turn this around - crna's seek to get rid of currently practicing aa's. they try to limit aa practice at every turn. and they got legislation passed in louisiana to make aa practice illegal, even though aa's couldn't practice there anyway.

can't you simply promote your own profession on it's own merits without knocking everyone else in the process?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Nurses, not CRNAs, with 1 month or less of training could safely administer anesthesia to 99% of the population. I don't think we really need AAs or CRNAs when it comes down to the safety argument.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Would you want your mother, father, sister, wife, daughter, son etc...anesthetized by an RN with 1 month or less of training or are they in the 1% of the population they would not be allowed to anesthetize. If not, your point is irrelevent.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
the difference is that we advocate for our profession without disparaging yours. you don't see aa's advocating getting rid of crna's. you don't see aa's trying to limit crna practice. you don't see aa's getting legislation passed to make crna practice illegal.

now turn this around - crna's seek to get rid of currently practicing aa's. they try to limit aa practice at every turn. and they got legislation passed in louisiana to make aa practice illegal, even though aa's couldn't practice there anyway.

can't you simply promote your own profession on it's own merits without knocking everyone else in the process?

nope. :lol2:

you have to realize that i don't have a problem with aa's now; i'm not trying to ruin anyone's livelihood. i don't want to see the aa profession expand. with out getting into a deep serious discussion, i will say that i understand where aas are coming from. in fact, i almost chose that route myself. i decided i didn't want to be a mda's puppet (meaning i can't function w/ out them). as outdoor so eloquently put it, "there is a shortage of providers to mostly rural areas. the problem is aa's will not fill this gap they can only work under the supervision of an anesthesiologist (who most don't live in these areas)." aa's like to say the fact crnas are not required to work under the supervision of an mda is a very insignificant difference. the reality is, it is a very significant difference when it comes to discussing the shortage of anesthesia providers. it is ironic that aas make a big fuss about the shortage of anesthesia providers, when they are not the solution... :idea: i would go on, but i will leave it at that.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

The only relevancy ultimately will be based on valuation of skills at the lowest price. It may surprise you but RNs, not CRNAs, can and do give anesthesia in increasingly large numbers, and do it quite safely. Of course they are under the supervision of the evil MDs that CRNAs so despise, but the numbers of cases are starting to add up to the point that RNs (perhaps we should call them RNAs ...oops that is already taken I suppose)...

Anyway, when a RN can do the same job as a CRNA for 1/3 the cost and can do the work safely, why should we have MDs, AAs, or CRNAs administering anesthesia in the vast majority of cases? With CRNA base salaries in my area averaging $135,000 and in benefits push that number up to $175,000 per year in the midwest (go to salary.com to find out just how inflated CRNA incomes are compared to the rest of nursing). In Anaheim, the average salary is $162,000 and benefits push the average way over $200,000. And this is just the average...the 90th percentile CRNA in Anaheim makes $173,000 in salary alone. These numbers are simply astronomical given the relative safety of the anesthetics currently being used and the monitoring equipment in use. AAs will work for only a fraction of what CRNAs command and will probably do just as good a job. RNs may ultimately be a viable alternative to the bloated salaries of CRNAs and MDs.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

"Nurses, not CRNAs, with 1 month or less of training could safely administer anesthesia to 99% of the population. I don't think we really need AAs or CRNAs when it comes down to the safety argument."

Paindoc...

...sophistry,

What is your agenda here on this board?

Regards,

Up Vote Up Vote ×

"Nurses, not CRNAs, with 1 month or less of training could safely administer anesthesia to 99% of the population. I don't think we really need AAs or CRNAs when it comes down to the safety argument."

Paindoc...

...sophistry!

What is your agenda here?

Regards,

Up Vote Up Vote ×
[/b]

as outdoor so eloquently put it, "there is a shortage of providers to mostly rural areas. the problem is aa's will not fill this gap they can only work under the supervision of an anesthesiologist (who most don't live in these areas)." aa's like to say the fact crnas are not required to work under the supervision of an mda is a very insignificant difference. the reality is, it is a very significant difference when it comes to discussing the shortage of anesthesia providers. it is ironic that aas make a big fuss about the shortage of anesthesia providers, when they are not the solution... :idea: i would go on, but i will leave it at that.

then why do the majority of crna's work in anesthesia care team practices, with anesthesiologists, in larger hospitals and medical centers in larger cities? i can tell you why - they want better schools for their kids, better access to quality healthcare, better cultural and social activities, etc., the same things that i do.

there are plenty of provider shortages in the cities as well - it's not just a rural phenomenon. for example - people are flocking to the southeastern us like crazy. very few practices are adequately staffed in this part of the country. we can't keep up with the growth. and most of that growth is in the metropolitan areas, not out in the sticks. we can't build schools quick enough, can't build or expand hospitals quick enough, and can't find enough anesthesia providers, aa or crna, to fill all our positions.

if you're so worried about anesthesia care in rural hospitals, by all means, go there! if you're just dying to practice independently, then go to a small hospital in a small town, or to a plastic surgeon's office or endoscopy clinic, and do it. i'll be more than happy to fill your slot at the big hospital in the big city and let you fulfill your independent rural healthcare desires.

and your big nope speaks volumes to your professionalism and your motivations. you're admitting that your profession can't stand on it's own - that's pretty sad.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Increasing the number of anesthesia providers is good for patients. Isn't that what this is really all about? The patient. Stop being so selfish.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

The supervision for AAs varies ont he state, but many states do not require that the MDA be on-site to monitor the AA.

There's also talk of eliminating the supervision requirements or at least toning them down to allow AAs solo practice.

CRNAs have absolutely no logical grounds to oppose the right of AAs to practice their chosen profession. Studies have shown that CRNAs, MDAs, and AAs all have equivalent outcomes.

To oppose AAs because you fear they will take your job is a paranoid delusion, the same paranoid delusion that MDAs used for years to try and outlaw CRNAs and now you CRNAs are using the EXACT SAME IDIOTIC LOGIC against AAs that the MDAs used against you.

I guess CRNAs are exaclty like the MDAs when it comes to using BS tactics to try and create a monopoly. I thought you guys were better than that.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, ICU,ER,Cathlab, PACU.
Nurses, not CRNAs, with 1 month or less of training could safely administer anesthesia to 99% of the population. I don't think we really need AAs or CRNAs when it comes down to the safety argument.

c'mon paindoc...I know you are a lot more intelligent than to exagerate that much. you must have been throwing a couple of beers back when you posted that, then tried to defend it in a later post? please take that bs back so I can regain my respect for your future posts.

as far as filling the void...how many AAs are working in Florida now? I remember that the arguement to allow them to practice there was due to the shortage. It seems that the Texan voters and legislators should use Florida as a model to guide their attention to this "solution".

Up Vote Up Vote ×
The difference is that we advocate for our profession without disparaging yours. You don't see AA's advocating getting rid of CRNA's. You don't see AA's trying to limit CRNA practice. You don't see AA's getting legislation passed to make CRNA practice illegal.

JWK,

Your correct that AAs are not seeking to get rid of CRNAs, but the problem is that anesthesiologists are....and they want to use you guys to do it. How many posts have you seen at SDN lately that say, "Hey, let's get rid of CRNAs and replace them with AAs" or "Hey, let's write every chair of every academic anesthesia department in the country to try to get them start an AA program." Some people might say that SDN is a just a bunch of residents who don't know anything about real world anesthesia, but there are a lot more people than we think reading that board!! That is the real problem that I see with the whole debate....MDs (and obviously not every MD feels that way, but the ASA does) want to use AAs to get rid of us.....and we have to fight to make sure that doesn't happen.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Bottom line is why don't AA's just go to CRNA school if they don't want to be anesthesiologists. Bottom line is most (yes and this is my opinion) AA's have a pre-med background with wishes of getting into med school and don't, or they work as an AA until they can get into med school (which there is nothing wrong with this). My question is if AA's think they are equal to CRNA's as providers then why not go through a program where you can be independent. Why be at the mercy of MD's for life if you can do everything that a CRNA or MD can do. It is so limiting. I think AA's should just have a stipulation on their practice where they can work as an AA until they are accepted to an accretided medical school, or CRNA school. I don't see a problem with there being an inbetween step between MDA or CRNA, but there should be a limit on the license.

.

(edited by moderator for TOS)..What's it like to live in your world? So are all PAs/SAs/AAs just med school flunkies, yet NPs/CRNAs are not? You have a amazingly twisted view of midlevels and their capacities.

(edited by moderator for TOS)

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment