Nurses; certified registered nurse anesthetist to order and administer anesthesia and an anesthesia plan under certain conditions; provide
Summary
House Bill 251 amends Georgia law governing nurses to expand the role of certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs). Under the bill, a CRNA may order and administer anesthesia, and develop and carry out an anesthesia plan, in situations where a physician could lawfully administer anesthesia. The bill defines key terms such as “anesthesia plan” and “coordination,” emphasizing collaboration between the CRNA and a licensed physician.
The measure requires that anesthesia be administered under the direction and responsibility of a licensed physician, working in coordination with a physician licensed in Georgia. It also clarifies that nothing in the bill limits a healthcare facility’s authority to adopt its own anesthesia policies. In addition, the bill provides that a physician who is not personally delivering the anesthesia is not liable for the acts or omissions of a CRNA acting under this section. The act would take effect immediately upon gubernatorial approval or becoming law without approval.
Impact
HB251 would amend Chapter 26 of Title 43 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, specifically Code Section 43-26-11.1, to broaden the statutory authority of certified registered nurse anesthetists in Georgia. It would allow CRNAs to order and administer anesthesia and create anesthesia plans under defined conditions, while preserving physician oversight and facility-level policy authority. The bill also modifies liability rules by shielding non-participating physicians from liability for CRNA actions performed under the statute, which could affect malpractice exposure, hospital credentialing, and anesthesia staffing practices.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears neutral to supportive of expanding CRNA practice authority. The bill’s structure suggests an effort to balance access to anesthesia services with physician oversight and institutional control, which may appeal to healthcare providers seeking flexibility. No formal opposition or recorded controversy is shown in the available context.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the scope of practice expansion for CRNAs and the liability protections for physicians. Supporters are likely to view the bill as improving access to anesthesia care and recognizing CRNA expertise, especially in settings where physician anesthesiologists may be limited. Opponents or cautious stakeholders may focus on whether physician direction and coordination are sufficient safeguards, and whether the liability provision could alter accountability in anesthesia-related care. Healthcare facilities may also be attentive to how the bill interacts with their internal policies and staffing models.
Requires health insurance policies include coverage for anesthesia for the entire duration of a procedure for which a licensed medical practitioner has issued an order for such anesthesia.