The American Medical Association (AMA) has voiced strong opposition to a proposed regulation in Washington, D.C., which would allow certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) to adopt the title “nurse anesthesiologist.”
In a letter to the D.C. Department of Health, the AMA expressed concerns that the change could cause confusion and undermine clarity in healthcare roles.
Regulation 3969 and AMA’s Concerns
The regulation, known as Regulation 3969, is currently under consideration by the District of Columbia’s Department of Health. If passed, it would allow CRNAs to use the title “nurse anesthesiologist.” The AMA’s letter, signed by CEO and Executive Vice President James L. Madara, M.D., firmly opposes the proposal. The organization argues that the regulation contradicts existing D.C. law, which reserves the term “anesthesiologist” exclusively for licensed physicians.
The AMA contends that the introduction of the term “nurse anesthesiologist” would “muddy the waters” by blurring the distinctions between healthcare providers with different qualifications. According to their letter, such a change could lead to confusion among patients, making it unclear which professionals are authorized to practice medicine.
Legal and Professional Implications
Currently, Washington D.C. law under Section 3-1210.03(g) of the DC Code specifically designates the term “anesthesiologist” to those who are licensed to practice medicine. The AMA’s letter emphasizes that allowing CRNAs to use the term would violate this statute. They argue that this shift could undermine public trust in the healthcare system by misrepresenting the level of education and training required to be an anesthesiologist.
Broader Debate Over Professional Titles in Anesthesiology
The proposal has sparked ongoing debate within the healthcare community. Earlier this year, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) filed a complaint against the American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology (AANA) over its use of the term “nurse anesthesiologist” in its name, citing trademark concerns.
Supporters of the proposed regulation argue that the title “nurse anesthesiologist” reflects the advanced education and extensive responsibilities of CRNAs. However, critics, including the AMA, believe it could mislead patients about the qualifications of their care providers and the scope of their practice.
As the D.C. Department of Health considers Regulation 3969, the outcome could set a precedent for other regions grappling with similar questions about professional titles in the healthcare field.
