Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Anesthesia Assistants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Anesthesia‑assistant licensing proposal with capped slots fails after opposition from nurse‑anesthetist students
Summary
A bill to license anesthesia assistants with a limited annual cap and tightened on‑site requirements failed after testimony from student nurse anesthetists and debate over supervision and workforce needs.
Representative Lee Johnson presented an amended version of the anesthesia assistant bill that limited new licenses to 50 people per year and tightened the definition of “immediately available” supervision by an anesthesiologist.
The sponsor said the amendment aimed to open a narrow, controlled pathway for people trained to work under an anesthesiologist’s direction while keeping strong on‑site requirements. “We change the definition of ‘immediately available,’ which is pretty tight,” Representative Johnson said when introducing the amendment.
The committee heard opposition testimony from Devin King, a student registered nurse anesthetist, who raised concerns about the statutory language and supervision terminology. King argued the bill’s use of “supervision” differs from the medical‑direction model used in anesthesia practice and warned that changing workforce incentives while existing cohorts of CRNAs and SRNAs are finishing training could create local shortages. King noted the state had a graduating class of roughly 50 nurse anesthetists and questioned how new positions would align with workforce needs.
The committee discussed federal oversight (CMS) and whether federal ratio guidelines would control practice settings. Representative Johnson responded that CMS defines ratios for portable units and emphasized the bill’s on‑site and immediate‑availability language.
After questions and debate, the committee took a voice vote on the motion to pass. Senators voting in favor noted concerns about moving goal posts for credentialing and the need to expand supervised pathways; however, the noes prevailed on the voice vote and the bill failed to advance.
Opponents, including student providers and representatives of CRNA programs, urged continued focus on existing workforce pipelines and caution about opening new categories without clearly defined supervision ratios and liability protections.
