User login
The turf war between two types of anesthesia providers is escalating:
At issue: Who can be called an anesthesiologist?
In its complaint, filed in June 2024 with the US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the 54,000-member physician society seeks to deny the nurse group the registration of its trademark. If ASA wins, it could sue AANA in federal court.
AANA denied the physicians’ allegations in its recent response to the complaint.
The dispute between the two associations comes at a time when physicians are facing challenges from providers such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants who seek new titles and more autonomy in medical decision-making.
A Controversial Name Change
In 2021, the 61,000-member AANA changed its name from the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, saying the change “clarifies” the role of its members.
The ASA declared it was “gravely concerned” by the name change, which “confuses patients and creates discord in the care setting, ultimately risking patient safety.
“ ’Anesthesiologist’ has always been used to differentiate physicians trained in the science and study of anesthesiology from nonphysicians, including nurse anesthetists,” the physicians’ group said in a news release.
Chicago Intellectual Property Attorney Laura M. Schaefer, who represents AANA, told this news organization that certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) — “also known as nurse anesthesiologists or nurse anesthetists — have a 150-year track record of administering safe, effective anesthesia to patients in need of care. Not only are CRNAs highly trained and capable, they also use the exact same techniques to provide anesthesia as other anesthesiology professionals.”
Ms. Schaefer declined to comment further, and ASA declined to comment at all, citing pending litigation.
The scope of practice of nurse anesthetists has long been disputed. In mid-September, California health officials clarified what nurse anesthetists can do on the job after complaints about lack of oversight, The Modesto Bee reported.
According to nursing education site NurseJournal.org, CRNAs and anesthesiologists “perform many of the same duties,” although CRNAs are in more demand. Also, the site says some states require CRNAs to be supervised by anesthesiologists.
“It is possible that scope of practice debates are increasing in prominence due to the increase in demand for healthcare services, coupled with workforce shortages in certain areas,” Alice Chen, PhD, MBA, vice dean for research at the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy in Los Angeles, told this news organization. “For example, during COVID, the federal government temporarily expanded scope of practice to help address healthcare needs.”
She added her group’s research has shown that despite the large stakes perceived by both sides of the debate, changes in practice behavior were actually quite small in states that allowed CRNAs to practice without supervision.
“In fact, we found only modest reduction in anesthesiologist billing for supervision, and we did not find an increase in the supply of anesthesia care,” she noted.
Trademark law specialists told this news organization that they couldn’t predict which way the board will rule. However, they noted potential weaknesses of the ASA’s case.
Rebecca Tushnet, JD, a professor at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, explained that a trademark “can’t misrepresent those goods or services in a way that deceives consumers.” However, if insurers, doctors, and hospitals are considered the “consumers” — and not patients — “then confusion is probably less likely because they will have relevant expertise to distinguish among groups.”
Christine Farley, JD, LLM, JSD, professor at American University Washington College of Law, said attacking the AANA’s trademark as deceptive may be one of the ASA’s strongest arguments. The suggestion, she said, is that “nurse anesthesiologist” is an oxymoron, like “jumbo shrimp.”
On the other hand, she said it’s not clear that people will miss the word “nurse” in AANA’s name and say, “ ’Well, obviously these people are doctors.’ So that that’s an uphill battle.”
What happens now? The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will decide whether AANA’s trademark application should be granted or denied, said Kayla Jimenez, JD, a San Diego trademark attorney and adjunct law professor at the University of San Diego. The entire process can take 2-3 years, she said.
The board “cannot award attorneys’ fees or force a party to stop using a trademark,” she said. “You would have to go file a lawsuit in federal court if that is your endgame.” Also, she said, the board’s ultimate decision can be appealed in federal court.
Eric Goldman, JD, MBA, associate dean for research and professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, Santa Clara, California, doesn’t expect the trademark case will spell the end of this dispute.
“ASA is signaling that it will challenge AANA’s use of the term in multiple battlegrounds,” he said. “I see this as a move by ASA to contest AANA in every potentially relevant venue, even if neither side can score a knockout blow in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.”
Dr. Chen, Ms. Farley, Ms. Jimenez, and Mr. Goldman had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The turf war between two types of anesthesia providers is escalating:
At issue: Who can be called an anesthesiologist?
In its complaint, filed in June 2024 with the US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the 54,000-member physician society seeks to deny the nurse group the registration of its trademark. If ASA wins, it could sue AANA in federal court.
AANA denied the physicians’ allegations in its recent response to the complaint.
The dispute between the two associations comes at a time when physicians are facing challenges from providers such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants who seek new titles and more autonomy in medical decision-making.
A Controversial Name Change
In 2021, the 61,000-member AANA changed its name from the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, saying the change “clarifies” the role of its members.
The ASA declared it was “gravely concerned” by the name change, which “confuses patients and creates discord in the care setting, ultimately risking patient safety.
“ ’Anesthesiologist’ has always been used to differentiate physicians trained in the science and study of anesthesiology from nonphysicians, including nurse anesthetists,” the physicians’ group said in a news release.
Chicago Intellectual Property Attorney Laura M. Schaefer, who represents AANA, told this news organization that certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) — “also known as nurse anesthesiologists or nurse anesthetists — have a 150-year track record of administering safe, effective anesthesia to patients in need of care. Not only are CRNAs highly trained and capable, they also use the exact same techniques to provide anesthesia as other anesthesiology professionals.”
Ms. Schaefer declined to comment further, and ASA declined to comment at all, citing pending litigation.
The scope of practice of nurse anesthetists has long been disputed. In mid-September, California health officials clarified what nurse anesthetists can do on the job after complaints about lack of oversight, The Modesto Bee reported.
According to nursing education site NurseJournal.org, CRNAs and anesthesiologists “perform many of the same duties,” although CRNAs are in more demand. Also, the site says some states require CRNAs to be supervised by anesthesiologists.
“It is possible that scope of practice debates are increasing in prominence due to the increase in demand for healthcare services, coupled with workforce shortages in certain areas,” Alice Chen, PhD, MBA, vice dean for research at the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy in Los Angeles, told this news organization. “For example, during COVID, the federal government temporarily expanded scope of practice to help address healthcare needs.”
She added her group’s research has shown that despite the large stakes perceived by both sides of the debate, changes in practice behavior were actually quite small in states that allowed CRNAs to practice without supervision.
“In fact, we found only modest reduction in anesthesiologist billing for supervision, and we did not find an increase in the supply of anesthesia care,” she noted.
Trademark law specialists told this news organization that they couldn’t predict which way the board will rule. However, they noted potential weaknesses of the ASA’s case.
Rebecca Tushnet, JD, a professor at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, explained that a trademark “can’t misrepresent those goods or services in a way that deceives consumers.” However, if insurers, doctors, and hospitals are considered the “consumers” — and not patients — “then confusion is probably less likely because they will have relevant expertise to distinguish among groups.”
Christine Farley, JD, LLM, JSD, professor at American University Washington College of Law, said attacking the AANA’s trademark as deceptive may be one of the ASA’s strongest arguments. The suggestion, she said, is that “nurse anesthesiologist” is an oxymoron, like “jumbo shrimp.”
On the other hand, she said it’s not clear that people will miss the word “nurse” in AANA’s name and say, “ ’Well, obviously these people are doctors.’ So that that’s an uphill battle.”
What happens now? The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will decide whether AANA’s trademark application should be granted or denied, said Kayla Jimenez, JD, a San Diego trademark attorney and adjunct law professor at the University of San Diego. The entire process can take 2-3 years, she said.
The board “cannot award attorneys’ fees or force a party to stop using a trademark,” she said. “You would have to go file a lawsuit in federal court if that is your endgame.” Also, she said, the board’s ultimate decision can be appealed in federal court.
Eric Goldman, JD, MBA, associate dean for research and professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, Santa Clara, California, doesn’t expect the trademark case will spell the end of this dispute.
“ASA is signaling that it will challenge AANA’s use of the term in multiple battlegrounds,” he said. “I see this as a move by ASA to contest AANA in every potentially relevant venue, even if neither side can score a knockout blow in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.”
Dr. Chen, Ms. Farley, Ms. Jimenez, and Mr. Goldman had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The turf war between two types of anesthesia providers is escalating:
At issue: Who can be called an anesthesiologist?
In its complaint, filed in June 2024 with the US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the 54,000-member physician society seeks to deny the nurse group the registration of its trademark. If ASA wins, it could sue AANA in federal court.
AANA denied the physicians’ allegations in its recent response to the complaint.
The dispute between the two associations comes at a time when physicians are facing challenges from providers such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants who seek new titles and more autonomy in medical decision-making.
A Controversial Name Change
In 2021, the 61,000-member AANA changed its name from the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, saying the change “clarifies” the role of its members.
The ASA declared it was “gravely concerned” by the name change, which “confuses patients and creates discord in the care setting, ultimately risking patient safety.
“ ’Anesthesiologist’ has always been used to differentiate physicians trained in the science and study of anesthesiology from nonphysicians, including nurse anesthetists,” the physicians’ group said in a news release.
Chicago Intellectual Property Attorney Laura M. Schaefer, who represents AANA, told this news organization that certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) — “also known as nurse anesthesiologists or nurse anesthetists — have a 150-year track record of administering safe, effective anesthesia to patients in need of care. Not only are CRNAs highly trained and capable, they also use the exact same techniques to provide anesthesia as other anesthesiology professionals.”
Ms. Schaefer declined to comment further, and ASA declined to comment at all, citing pending litigation.
The scope of practice of nurse anesthetists has long been disputed. In mid-September, California health officials clarified what nurse anesthetists can do on the job after complaints about lack of oversight, The Modesto Bee reported.
According to nursing education site NurseJournal.org, CRNAs and anesthesiologists “perform many of the same duties,” although CRNAs are in more demand. Also, the site says some states require CRNAs to be supervised by anesthesiologists.
“It is possible that scope of practice debates are increasing in prominence due to the increase in demand for healthcare services, coupled with workforce shortages in certain areas,” Alice Chen, PhD, MBA, vice dean for research at the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy in Los Angeles, told this news organization. “For example, during COVID, the federal government temporarily expanded scope of practice to help address healthcare needs.”
She added her group’s research has shown that despite the large stakes perceived by both sides of the debate, changes in practice behavior were actually quite small in states that allowed CRNAs to practice without supervision.
“In fact, we found only modest reduction in anesthesiologist billing for supervision, and we did not find an increase in the supply of anesthesia care,” she noted.
Trademark law specialists told this news organization that they couldn’t predict which way the board will rule. However, they noted potential weaknesses of the ASA’s case.
Rebecca Tushnet, JD, a professor at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, explained that a trademark “can’t misrepresent those goods or services in a way that deceives consumers.” However, if insurers, doctors, and hospitals are considered the “consumers” — and not patients — “then confusion is probably less likely because they will have relevant expertise to distinguish among groups.”
Christine Farley, JD, LLM, JSD, professor at American University Washington College of Law, said attacking the AANA’s trademark as deceptive may be one of the ASA’s strongest arguments. The suggestion, she said, is that “nurse anesthesiologist” is an oxymoron, like “jumbo shrimp.”
On the other hand, she said it’s not clear that people will miss the word “nurse” in AANA’s name and say, “ ’Well, obviously these people are doctors.’ So that that’s an uphill battle.”
What happens now? The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will decide whether AANA’s trademark application should be granted or denied, said Kayla Jimenez, JD, a San Diego trademark attorney and adjunct law professor at the University of San Diego. The entire process can take 2-3 years, she said.
The board “cannot award attorneys’ fees or force a party to stop using a trademark,” she said. “You would have to go file a lawsuit in federal court if that is your endgame.” Also, she said, the board’s ultimate decision can be appealed in federal court.
Eric Goldman, JD, MBA, associate dean for research and professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, Santa Clara, California, doesn’t expect the trademark case will spell the end of this dispute.
“ASA is signaling that it will challenge AANA’s use of the term in multiple battlegrounds,” he said. “I see this as a move by ASA to contest AANA in every potentially relevant venue, even if neither side can score a knockout blow in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.”
Dr. Chen, Ms. Farley, Ms. Jimenez, and Mr. Goldman had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.