Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Workforce Anesthesia topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears competing views as bill to license anesthesiologist assistants advances in hearing
Summary
House Bill 2368 would license certified anesthesiologist assistants and set training, supervision and oversight rules; proponents said licensure would increase anesthesia‑care team capacity in centers that employ anesthesiologists, while opponents warned it could reduce clinical training slots for nurse‑anesthesia students and not expand rural access.
House Bill 2368 would create an Anesthesiologist Assistant Licensure Act, set education and licensing requirements, require supervision by an anesthesiologist, establish an oversight council and add related background‑check and discipline language to existing statutes.
Jenna Moyer of the Revisor of Statutes office summarized the bill for the committee, noting it defines anesthesiologist assistants, sets licensure qualifications and limits supervising anesthesiologists to medically directing no more than four assistants at a time. The bill also requires an anesthesiologist to be physically present or immediately available in the same facility for an assistant to practice and directs the Board of Healing Arts to oversee licensure and discipline.
Supporters included the Kansas Medical Society, the Kansas Academy of Anesthesiologist Assistants and anesthesiologists and training‑program directors who described CAAs as trained for a physician‑supervised anesthesia care‑team model. Rochelle Colombo of the Kansas Medical Society said the medical society supports a regulated, team‑based model with physician direction and supervision and that licensure would provide clear statutory authority and oversight for a provider type already operating in nearby states.
Spencer Jones of the Kansas Academy of Anesthesiologist Assistants and Dr. Matthew Pinniger, a practicing anesthesiologist, described experience in states where CAAs and CRNAs work alongside each other; they said CAAs are used primarily in larger tertiary centers and surgery centers that employ anesthesiologists. Jones said CAAs typically work under the anesthesia care‑team model and that billing and reimbursement are the same where the team model is used.
Opponents included the Kansas Association of Nurse Anesthetists and academic faculty from the University of Kansas nurse‑anesthesia program. Jeremy Salisbury, president of the Kansas Association of Nurse Anesthetists, said CAAs are trained to be dependent and require anesthesiologist supervision, whereas CRNAs are trained for independent practice and serve rural Kansas. Salisbury and longtime nurse‑anesthesia educators warned that hiring CAAs at urban hospitals could reduce the availability of clinical cases and sites for CRNA students, potentially shrinking the nurse‑anesthesia pipeline that supplies rural facilities.
Dr. Donna (retired KU anesthesia educator) told the committee that KU increased its class size in recent years and relies on urban hospitals for specialty case exposure; she said accrediting standards prevent CAAs from supervising CRNA students, so CAAs in urban hospitals could reduce clinical opportunities available to nurse‑anesthesia trainees.
Witnesses also addressed workforce and cost questions. Proponents said CAAs increase capacity under physician medical direction and that in the anesthesia care‑team model salary and billing modifiers for CAAs and CRNAs can be comparable; opponents said CAAs would not expand independent access to care in rural areas because CAAs must work under anesthesiologist supervision.
The committee took testimony, including written proponent and opponent submissions, and closed the hearing on HB 2368 without a committee vote during this session.
