AMA letter expresses opposition to CRNA use of “nurse anesthesiologist” title

Editor's Note

The American Medical Association (AMA) expressed “strong opposition” a proposed regulation in Washington, D.C., that would allow Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) to use the title “nurse anesthesiologist.”

As detailed in a December 2 announcement, a letter to the D.C. Department of Health from AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, emphasized that the term “anesthesiologist” is reserved for physicians and codified in existing D.C. law. The letter concludes by urging the D.C. Department of Health to prioritize clarity and transparency to protect patient welfare.

AMA argues that the proposed change could confuse patients by misrepresenting CRNA qualifications. Surveys cited in the letter indicate that 70% of patients recognize anesthesiologists as physicians, and most differentiate them from nurse anesthetists. Additionally, 91% of patients believe a physician’s extensive training is critical in emergencies or complications.  

According to the organization, anesthesiologists complete four years of medical school and a four-year residency, totaling over 15,000 hours of clinical training. By comparison, nurse anesthetists complete two to three years of graduate education, with approximately 2,600 hours of clinical training. While CRNA programs are transitioning to doctoral degrees, clinical training hours remain significantly lower.

The full announcement also details AMA’s continued resistance to what it terms “scope creep,” where non-physician healthcare providers seek expanded roles that could blur distinctions in expertise.