Doctors Sue To Stop Unsupervised Nurse Anesthetists from Administering Anesthesia
Surgical patients are being put at risk because a new California regulation allows nurse anesthetists to administer anesthesia without the supervision of a physician, claims a lawsuit filed against California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger by two large physician groups Tuesday.
"It's a patient safety issue when you have absolutely no supervision from a physician; it's very risky," says Francisco Silva, general counsel for the California Medical Association, which filed the complaint jointly with the California Society of Anesthesiologists.
He adds that there isn't a severe shortage of anesthesiologists to require the revision. "Our concern is, no one has shown that there was ever the need to require doing something this drastic," Silva says.
Additionally, the governor "completely ignored" federal law, which requires a number of procedural steps and consultations with state licensing agencies before taking the action, Silva says. The doctors last year asked Schwarzenegger to withdraw his June letter, but "the governor refused ... asserting that it was consistent with California law," according to the lawsuit, which was filed in San Francisco Superior Court.
Contacted for comment, Schwarzenegger spokesman Mike Naple replied, "The Governor has not yet been served with a lawsuit, but the Administration complied with the law. We are confident that the Administration would prevail in any challenge on this issue, which maintains patient safety at a lower cost to consumers."
The California Hospital Association also weighed in on the scope of practice conflict.
"CHA has historically supported independent practice by highly skilled nurse anesthetists under the oversight of a physician," says spokeswoman Jan Emerson. "The Administration acted on its own, in accordance with federal law, in making this decision. Nurse anesthetists can be an important part of the healthcare team, especially at small and rural hospitals where anesthesiologists are not always available. Without the services of CRNAs, patient care may be put at risk—especially when emergency surgery is needed."
Under Medicare rules, a hospital may be exempted from the requirement in a state if the governor of that state signs a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services requesting it.
But Medicare rules also say the governor must consult with that state's Medical Board and Board of Nursing regarding issues such as the quality and accessibility of anesthesia services in the state, according to the physicians' lawsuit.
The governor didn't consult with those licensing agencies, the physicians claim. On the contrary, "the Medical Board, in a letter dated March 2, 2009 . . . did in fact state that it 'appears that a nurse anesthetist is required to have physician . . . supervision,'" the lawsuit claims. The governor ignored that requirement, Silva says.
Robert Hertzka, MD, a San Diego anesthesiologist and former CMA president, explains that allowing nurse anesthetists to deliver anesthesia to surgical patients is a bad idea because they're not trained for it.
"There's a huge gulf of training and experience" between an anesthesiologist and a nurse anesthetist, he says, comparing their respective roles to those of a cardiologist and a coronary care nurse, or an obstetrician and a labor and delivery nurse.
"We're worried about degradation of quality of care," Hertzka says. "And for what? There's no evidence that there's increased access."
He adds that nurse anesthetists are not trained to respond to complications from anesthesia, or problems in the recovery room. "You need a physician to oversee and assess."
He adds that the federal rule allowing states to opt out of the Medicare requirement that anesthesiologists supervise nurse anesthetists came "out of the blue" in 2001, when then-President Bill Clinton, "whose mother was a nurse anesthetist," put the rule into effect.
Today, Hertzka says, only about seven states have used the opt-out provision, and all of them are small states with large rural populations, such as Idaho, and where, in general, surgeons remain in charge to observe anesthesia administration.
- 10 Major Changes to Health Reform in House's Reconciliation Bill
- Match Day a Reminder of Primary Care's Struggles
- Can 'Deadly Deliveries' Be a Wake-Up Call to Physicians, Hospitals?
- Physicians Generate $1.5M Annually for Their Hospitals, Says Survey
- Cardiology Group Fights Medicare Pay Cuts by Offering Concierge Services
- 3 Lessons U.S. Healthcare Can Learn from France to Cut Infections
- Hospital Monitors Infectious Diseases Using Real-Time Surveillance
- Six Reasons Proposed Hospital Advertising Ban Will Never Pass
- Hospitals Make Employee Flu Vaccinations a Patient Safety Issue
- Ranking Physicians Based on Cost May Be Misleading, Says Study

Bill (3/11/2010 at 11:58 PM)
I've worked with lots of CRNAs and found them to be completely competent and well trained at what they do. That being said, I've witnessed numerous situations in which the MDA had to come into the room and handle something that was beyond the scope of the CRNAs training. There is nothing wrong with the CRNA, it's just the training difference. Both professions are highly valuable to medicine and I would hate to see one of them edged out of their practice. I, personally, would have no problem undergoing anesthesia by CRNA, as long as an MDA was available in case of a complicated emergency.
Daniel devins (3/9/2010 at 10:42 AM)
@Tina McCoy you are a complete fool. if you can not practice as a CRNa without an Anesthesiologist supervising you. hmmm let me guess you went to oneof those southern schools with the rest of your sorority girls and had a rolodex of all the rtest answers. say hello to your anesthesiologist husband. btw he's gay.
Andrew (3/3/2010 at 12:41 PM)
My apology for all of the spelling and gramatical errors on the last post. I posted with my iPhone that thinks it knows what it's doing when it automatically makes changes. I am not that much of an idiot regardless of what posters might suggest.