Nowadays, many people related to anesthesia are concerned due to the recent executive order, which occurred in 2019. Because of the possibility of canceling the strict anesthesia requirements and inclusive implementation of a new medical unit in this market, some of the medical representatives noticed interesting possibilities for professional growth. For instance, when a certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) is allowed to provide the procedure without a professional’s obligatory participation, it is much easier and cheaper to get the same result. The main issue is a denial from Florida House Bill 607, which rejected the possibility to process anesthesia but allowed to do the same for nurse practitioners. While only professionals benefit from the demandable procedure, certified but not mature specialists seem to be disadvantaged due to their quality and professionalism.
On the one hand, the vast majority of CRNAs are willing to proceed with their professional career in making anesthesia. Following this, they are motivated to become experienced in this sphere, which excludes the risk of lack of experience.1 In this case, people may benefit from the opportunity to gain the less expensive service for the same quality, while the number of death cases is equal to the NPs. Nevertheless, the law was applied in the other direction. This has lessened the customer’s chances to economize on such operations and give a stable job to the widespread professional group. It is clear that when the FANA misses such opportunities, the whole economy, especially Florida state, faces the issue of “excess reserves.”
On the other hand, turning to the liability side, many nurse practitioners face the problem of excess obligations when CRNAs make professional operations. This lowers the possibility of NPs taking care of themselves. However, if the law could be introduced again, it is assumed that it will provide both both-side benefits from a medical and economic standpoint.
Overall, Florida House Bill 607 should be revised and corrected due to its significant importance for CRNAs, NPs, and patients who want anesthesia. By denying CRNAs to proceed with anesthesia operations, the whole market experiences a considerable downside tendency. In addition, surgeons should not be responsible for CRNAs when processing the anesthesia because new medicines are certified and do not differ in quality and the number of death cases from NPs.
Reference List
Goudreau K, Smolenski C. Health policy and advanced practice nursing. Springer Publishing Company.