Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Workforce topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ohio anesthesiologists and policy experts testify on HB 52, debating CRNA scope and 'clinical support function' language
Summary
At a fourth hearing on House Bill 52, the Ohio Society of Anesthesiologists described training differences between anesthesiologists and CRNAs, said it is neutral with technical assistance after negotiations, and asked for clarity on an undefined 'clinical support function'; the Buckeye Institute urged modernizing supervision to address provider shortages.
Dr. Keith Roller, president of the Ohio Society of Anesthesiologists (OSA), and Reyes Hedderman Jr. of the Buckeye Institute testified on House Bill 52, a bill that would revise the practice and supervisory language governing certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs).
Dr. Roller told senators that OSA worked with the bill sponsor and now takes a neutral position with technical assistance after changes from the initial version. He highlighted differences in training and certification between physician anesthesiologists and CRNAs and said the association supports physician‑led anesthesia teams. "We agree that anesthesia patient care should continue to be physician led," he said.
Why it matters: HB 52 would change supervisory language and define collaborative relationships between physicians and CRNAs; proponents argue the change would expand access in underserved and rural areas and align Ohio law with other states that reduced supervisory requirements after temporary pandemic waivers.
Points of contention and clarification: Dr. Roller and committee members noted that the bill does not define "clinical support function," leaving room for interpretation about which tasks fall within a CRNA's responsibilities. The OSA described the term as ambiguous and said their neutral position is premised on language that preserves physician‑led care.
The Buckeye Institute's witness, Reyes Hedderman Jr., urged removing restrictive supervisory structures and emphasized workforce shortages, citing other states' experience and federal guidance cautioning against overly restrictive supervisory agreements.
What the hearing did not decide: No amendments or votes occurred; the committee closed the fourth hearing after questions and testimony. Future committee action was not announced on the record.
Next steps: The bill will remain in committee for further consideration; committee members requested clarity on undefined statutory terms and may seek additional stakeholder input.
