In an August 17 Becker’s editorial, Bill Bruce, representing the nurse anesthetist trade association, argued that a governor’s decision to exempt a state from Medicare’s physician-supervision requirement for nurse anesthetists — a policy known as opt-out — improves rural anesthesia access. The evidence says otherwise: opt-out does not create access, removing physician involvement can expose patients to unnecessary harm, and the real solution to rural anesthesia shortages is economic — not scope expansion.
Nurse anesthetists are important to rural health care. Anesthesiologists are as well. The question is not whether nurse anesthetists play an important role in rural communities. They clearly do. The question is whether removing physician involvement creates more anesthesia access.
The best contemporary evidence says it does not. A 2025 Journal of Rural Health study examined 4,464 hospitals across nearly 36,000 hospital-year observations from 2010 through 2021. Investigators found that opt-out did not universally increase nurse anesthetist service provision and, importantly, did not improve access in rural counties.
That is consistent with the nurse anesthetist trade association’s own prior description of the evidence. In an access-to-care briefing, the association acknowledged that studies of opt-out found “no measurable impact on access to services” and argued that “increased access was not the intended goal of opt-out policy.”
If three nurse anesthetists work in a rural hospital before opt-out, there are still three nurse anesthetists working there after opt-out. The difference is that they may now practice without physician input, oversight and accountability. Opt-out has not added a single anesthesia professional to the community.
If opt-out does not increase access, what does it actually do?
It removes physician involvement in patient care.
No new nurse anesthetist arrives. No new anesthesiologist arrives. No additional operating room can be staffed.
Rural patients can lose access to a physician
The consequences of opt-out can be more dramatic in a rural setting than in a metropolitan community.
In metropolitan areas, surgeons and patients generally have multiple hospitals, anesthesia groups and models of care available, and anesthesiologist-led care remains readily accessible even in opt-out states.
A rural community may have only one hospital. If that hospital eliminates anesthesiologists from its medical staff, the community gains no clinician. Instead, patients and surgeons can lose the option of anesthesiologist-led care when patient complexity or procedural risk warrants it. Public policy should not make it easier for the physician option to disappear entirely where no alternative hospital exists.
That is not expanded access. It is reduced access to a physician.
Modesto shows why accountability matters
California’s experience provides a cautionary example.
At Stanislaus Surgical Hospital in Modesto, the California Department of Public Health described a patient for whom a physician had ordered general anesthesia but whose anesthetic was changed by a nurse anesthetist to spinal anesthesia and sedation without documentation that the patient consented to the change. The patient later became unresponsive, his blood pressure plummeted, and he required emergency transfer to another hospital. Regulators identified additional unstable patients requiring higher levels of care.
At nearby Doctors Medical Center, regulators declared an immediate-jeopardy situation and identified significant deficiencies involving nurse anesthetist credentialing and privileging.
Physician involvement and clinical safeguards matter even more in rural hospitals, where critical-care resources may be limited and tertiary referral centers may be hours away.
Anesthesiologists lead systems, not simply anesthetics
An anesthesiologist’s impact on a rural facility extends beyond an individual patient or operative encounter. Effective perioperative medicine reduces cancellations and unexpected admissions, lowers the incidence of adverse events, and improves efficiency, length of stay and patient satisfaction. Removing an anesthesiologist from a system does not simply change who is giving an anesthetic; it degrades the system’s ability to optimize perioperative care.
The real rural access problem is economics
Rural anesthesia shortages are fundamentally economic.
Anesthesia requires prerequisite resources regardless of volume. Hospitals must maintain personnel, call coverage, equipment, medications, airway devices and emergency capability whether they perform twenty procedures a day or two.
Rural hospitals spread those fixed costs across fewer patients while caring for proportionately more Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and fewer commercially insured patients. That is particularly difficult in anesthesiology, where Medicare reimbursement averages only a fraction of commercial payment.
Changing scope does not fix that equation.
Economic solutions can.
Policy options include strengthening rural anesthesia payment programs such as the Rural Pass-Through. Just last month, the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee unanimously approved ASA-supported H.R. 9642, the Medicare Access to Rural Anesthesiology Act. The bipartisan bill would expand the rural incentive payment program to include anesthesiologists and will next move to the House floor for consideration. Other options include expanding physician loan-repayment and recruitment incentives for rural practice and increasing Medicare and Medicaid anesthesia reimbursement in designated rural or shortage areas — just as federal payment policy already recognizes geographic and workforce-related differences in other settings.
The goal should be simple: make it economically possible for rural hospitals to maintain more viable workforce options — including nurse anesthetists, anesthesiologist assistants and anesthesiologists — not fewer.
Two decades of data from opt-out experiments show that opt-out does not increase rural anesthesia access. It does not create clinicians, but it can reduce physician involvement and the choices available to rural patients.
The path to greater rural access is not scope expansion. It is making the rural anesthesia workforce economically sustainable.
At the Becker's 11th Annual IT + Revenue Cycle Conference: The Future of AI & Digital Health, taking place September 14–17 in Chicago, healthcare executives and digital leaders from across the country will come together to explore how AI, interoperability, cybersecurity, and revenue cycle innovation are transforming care delivery, strengthening financial performance, and driving the next era of digital health. Apply for complimentary registration now.
