Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Professions Scope topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to clarify independent practice for certified registered nurse anesthetists amid medical community opposition
Summary
AB 876, presented by Assemblymember Flora, would affirm independent anesthesia practice by certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) consistent with their training; the bill passed committee over opposition from physician groups that said reduced physician oversight could risk patient safety.
Assemblymember Flora presented Assembly Bill 876 to clarify scope-of-practice for certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), saying the bill “affirms CRNAs’ ability to provide anesthesia services independently consistent with their education, training, and long standing role in California” and that it “helps maintain access to anesthesia care in hospitals, rural, and underserved communities.” The author and witnesses told the committee the change carries no state fiscal cost, and the presenter noted the bill had passed earlier committee stages.
Representatives of the California Association of Nurse Anesthesiology supported the bill; Justin Panzawa (spelled in the transcript as Panzawa/Panzal) testified on behalf of that group and thanked the committee for the analysis. Monica Miller was listed as an expert witness accompanying the author.
Opposition came from several physician and specialty groups. Jason Bryant, representing the California Society of Anesthesiologists, said he was “respectfully opposed to the Bill AB 876,” arguing the measure would expand scope of practice for CRNAs in hospitals, outpatient facilities and dental offices and that physician-led anesthesia care teams are necessary to ensure patient safety. George Stories with the California Medical Association echoed concerns that reducing physician oversight and lowering standards could increase patient harm and said the current practice has functioned for more than 15 years. Additional opposition was recorded from the California Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, the California Society of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery, and specialty society representatives (names and organizations were recorded in the transcript). Those witnesses urged the committee to oppose the bill.
Committee procedure and voting: The hearing record shows a roll call on the bill; the initial roll call was recorded with some members not voting. Subsequent vote-change entries in the transcript indicate members later changed recorded positions and the committee record shows AB 876 moved forward from the hearing (the clerk’s vote-change entry at the end of the session reflects additional aye votes). The transcript does not include a complete named vote tally at the time the excerpt was captured.
Why it matters: The bill would alter how anesthesia services are regulated and delivered in California, with potential effects on staffing in hospitals and outpatient facilities and on access to anesthesia care in underserved areas. Supporters said clarifying independent CRNA practice preserves access; opponents argued the physician-led model is essential for patient safety.
What’s next: The author and supporters will continue to the next legislative steps; transcript entries show the measure advanced out of the committee for further consideration.
