On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an outbreak of a
novel coronavirus traced to a wet market in Wuhan, a city in the Hubei province of
China, a “public health emergency of international concern.”
1
WHO classified the Coronavirus outbreak, commonly known as novel Coronavirus Disease
2019 (COVID-19), as a pandemic on March 11, 2020,
2
and to date, COVID-19 has had a profound impact on the United States health care system
and economy.
Anesthesiologists in the United States have responded in several important ways to
the clinical surge in demand for inpatient medical and critical care services. Associated
fundamental major impacts to anesthesiologists’ practices have included eliminating
nonessential surgeries and other procedures, shifting efforts from perioperative to
critical care services, and planning for a “new normal” after the first wave of the
pandemic.
The uncertainty and rapid pace of responses to mitigate clinical and socioeconomic
impacts of the pandemic are causing added stress to the professional environment for
anesthesiologists and their practices. The number and timing of COVID-19 cases varyby
locality, which leads to additional uncertainty regarding timing of surges in health
care utilization in each community as it responds to the pandemic. This article provides
a reflection on the rapid set of fundamental changes in hospital and anesthesia services
with a discussion of the responses that might have longer-term implications.
The COVID-19 pandemic represents an “economic shock,” or an unexpected or unpredictable
event, that impacts the ability of markets to function normally, leading to a broader
economic impact.
3–5
Depending on the situation, economic shocks can affect supply, demand, or both. Examples
of past disruptions to the overall United States health care system that have had
broad economic impacts include (1) implementation of new payment policies such as
Medicare prospective payment systems for inpatient care and bundled payments by some
insurers, which led to different incentives regarding the resources used to treat
hospitalized patients; (2) the “baby boom” after World War II that shaped many health
care planning strategies to project the impact of a surge in the aging population
on demand for medical and surgical services in relation to resource allocations, demographics,
and preferences that differed from previous generations; and (3) the 1918 influenza
virus, whichdemonstrated that controlling the pandemic was the key to economic recovery.
6
The recent COVID-19–related disruptions have happened both rapidly and globally, which
has limited the ability of the overall health care system and economy to absorb the
shocks.
In this article, we use a health economics lens to focus on the various shocks to
hospital and anesthesia services in response to the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Current public health emergency efforts have centered around limiting exposures, reducing
transmission, and “flattening the curve” so that the gap between health care capacity
and patient care needs is smaller when the number of active cases peak.
7,8
Epidemiological data analyses forecast a peak in the number of new COVID-19 cases
that varies widely by locality, with the large metropolitan areas of New York, Seattle,
New Orleans, and Detroit experiencing earlier surges―prototypic experiences that may
help other areas identify with more certainty how many diagnosed cases transition
into requiring acute care hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and often
prolonged mechanical ventilation.
9–12
We discuss the immediate COVID-19 shocks, what might be expected in the near future,
and likely future ebbs and flows of response to COVID-19.
COVID-19 SHOCKS TO THE MARKET FOR ANESTHESIA SERVICES
Anesthesia Workforce:Direct and Indirect Effects
Although not universally implemented, nonessential surgical procedures were placed
on hold as an initial response to prepare for an impending surge in COVID-19–related
inpatient hospital stays and to mitigate potential spread of the virus within health
care facilities. This sudden decrease in demand quickly and directly reduced the planned
workload and related financial stability for many anesthesiology practices.
However, the impact of and response to this demand shock can differ depending on the
anesthesia practice size, financial structure, and types of services offered within
the practice. Reductions in workforce of anesthesia providers and other staff whosupport
practices are a standard, although feared, response to the short-term reduction in
nonessential procedure workload. Small- to medium-sized private practice groups whose
professional compensation is directly linked to payment for services may be forced
to reduce staffing levels more quickly than larger practices and those with other
payment arrangements. In a practice arrangement that supports physician anesthesiologists,
certified registerednurse anesthetists (CRNAs), and anesthesiologist assistants, decisions
regarding the number and type of anesthesia professionals who are furloughed (laid
off) arechallenging and stressful for practice leaders. Planning for when or if they
can be rehired is not feasible until the pandemic subsides. Anesthesia professionals
employed by large academic medical centers and health systems may be relatively more
protected from labor force reductions during the initial wave of COVID-19 response
due to the overall diversity of services and financial structure of these organizations.
The federal government has issued the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(CARES) Act to provide financial support to small businesses and individuals who will
be adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
13
Signed on March 27, 2020, the CARES Act will offer financial support to practices
facing furloughs and layoffs, and is expected to temper the direct impact of the short-term
reduction in nonessential procedures on anesthesiologists and those they employ.
Limitations on nonessential surgical procedures will temporarily limit opportunities
for training new anesthesiologists because many residents will be unable to participate
in as many procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. There will be differences in impact
depending on the various types of services delivered by attending anesthesiologists
and their trainees. For example, pain medicine specialists with limited critical care
or surgical experience may be wellpositioned to offer consultations using telemedicine
technologies, while anesthesiologists who primarily work in ambulatory surgery settings
will be more impacted by the sudden reduction and delays in resuming nonessential
surgical procedures. Short-term demand for some essential procedures with some flexibility
to preschedule, notably those related to normal labor and delivery, have increased
temporarily in preparation for anticipated COVID-19 cases. However, the relative number
of these proceduresis low in comparison to the overall workload reductions from canceling
or delaying nonessential procedures.
The increase in COVID-19 patients admitted to hospitals created a sudden surge in
demand for anesthesiologists to support critical care. As the disease spreads and
the numbers of cases increase, there is an immediate need for even more critical care
services. This response will partly hinge on the availability of anesthesiologists
for sedation, intubation, and monitoring of ventilator patients. Surge demand for
delivering care to criticallyill patients will undoubtedly lead to increased risk
to the mental health, including stress and burnout, because the role of trained anesthesiologists
in caring for ventilator patients is central to supporting the pandemic response.
14
Caring for critically ill patients with COVID-19 also carries an added risk to the
health of anesthesiology professionals and their families. The need to ensure the
health and safety of all health care professionals has been a consistent message during
the preparations and response to the pandemic.
15,16
Unfortunately, the ability to ensure that safety with adequate supplies of personal
protective equipment (PPE) has been met with challenges in the supply chain that are
not thus far being easily remedied.
Availability of Anesthesia Inputs and Other Practice Resources
Several resource inputs commonly used to provide anesthesia services have been rapidly
depleted during the early wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. They are anticipated to remain
in short supply as the pandemic grows. The impact of this shock is a reduction in
the supply of anesthesia services because it reduces the ability of providers to deliver
care using the same types of inputs. Lower availability of some inputs will have a
more dramatic impact on anesthesia services than others, such as the conversions of
anesthesia equipment for use as ventilators. In the shortterm, this equipment cannot
be used to support perioperative care. In a quick response, 3-dimensional (3D) printers
have been used to improvise on parts needed to supplement existing machines or repair
equipment that was out of service.
As state and federal government agencies along with industry respond to this debilitating
shortage in the near and longterm, new innovations in ventilator technology are expected.
Economic theory maintainsthat holding all else fixed, innovations will lead to lower
costs and more efficiency. The immediate impact of ventilator shortages means that
anesthesia services will lack an important resource. The response to increase the
supply of ventilators during the current pandemic has come from nontraditional manufacturers,
including firms in the automobile and vacuum cleaner industry,
17
which may lead to further innovations through the expanded diversity of design and
engineering of new equipment. The influx of new ventilators will remain in the marketplace
even after the pandemic subsides, and this equipment can continue to support anesthesia
services as either reserve supply or to replace older ventilators.
The increased demand for ventilators to support critically ill COVID-19 patients also
increases the demand for and availability of anesthesia drugs and related supplies.
Potential shortages of fentanyl, propofol, other sedatives, and muscle relaxants used
for ventilator patients are a growing concern. Until this supply recovers, anesthesiologists
supporting surgical services will likely increase the use of regional anesthesia,
nerve blocks, or other methods that may require advanced skills and more intensive
monitoring.
Other supplies that are necessary for infection control, including face shields, gloves,
sanitization supplies, and other PPE are scarce, but there have been consistent efforts
to improvise, rapidly increase production, and identify priorities in allocating these
supplies to address critical shortages. Health care entities and government authorities
have been coordinating efforts in many states to identify needed resources that can
be provided either through the federal strategic stockpile of health care supplies
for emergencies or through purchases directly from domestic and international manufacturers.
Beyond ventilators and supplies, physical locations of care have rapidly shifted to
increase surge capacity for inpatient care. Impacts on anesthesia services due to
changing the locus of care from prepandemic settings in hospitals or ambulatory surgical
centers to other venues, which are being used to temporarily increase capacity, likely
depend on where the temporary surge capacity is housed. Tents, convention centers,
hotels, or other temporary facilities may be more disruptive to anesthesia service
delivery compared to surge capacity efforts that expand or redeploy existing hospital
units/floors or entire hospitals for use during this emergency.
Based on their organizational and governance structures, integrated health care or
hospital systems are anticipated to have resource allocation advantages over standalone
hospitals. For example, NorthShore University HealthSystem in Evanston, IL, is a 5-hospital
system that has designated one of its hospitals to treat only COVID-19 patients.
18
Even when more critical care beds become available and operations return to a new
normal, sustained supply chain issues related to basic inputs may persist.
Future Surge of Postponed Nonessential Surgeries and Procedures
Service disruptions due to emergencies typically lead to pent-up demand, or an opposing
positive shock, after the emergency subsides. Methods to track disruptions to scheduled
care and workloads due to emergencies are available to gauge the severity and impact
on individual practices and health care systems.
19,20
Delays in nonessential elective procedures will lead to an increased need for anesthesia
services in surgical suites afterthe surge demand for COVID-19–related critical care
declines and facilities are able to safely treat other patients.
Shortages of other medical supplies, such as PPE, have led to increased production
of these items, but may cause additional delays in a return to “normal” practice for
anesthesiologists. The supply chain for these items is likely to be a short-term concern
that recovers relatively quickly and in concert with a return to scheduling of elective
surgical procedures.
WAVES OF COVID-19
In the situation and scenarios above, we describe the initial shock to anesthesia
services related to the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.
Most models of the pandemic predict that COVID-19–related illnesses will occur in
several waves, with the most disruptions to health care systems and overall economy
during the first wave. Likely innovations in prevention, testing, diagnosis, and treatment
will be used to more quickly inform best practices to support faster identification
of outbreaks and to lessen the overall consequences to society in each progressive
wave of COVID-19. Because there have already been many lessons learned in the initial
wave of the pandemic, better preparation of the health care system, supply chain,
and population for future outbreaks is also expected.
Along with more readiness for subsequent waves of COVID-19, or other novel influenza-like
illness-causing viruses, there should be less impact in the future on anesthesia services
based on the current COVID-19 response. It is crucial to note the relatively flat
growth curve in locations around the world (eg, China, South Korea, and New Zealand)
where total quarantines and/or strict social isolation were quickly implemented versus
the devastating exponential growth in locations where adequate social distancing was
not achieved. Clinicians can anticipate that the impact on their practices will be
in proportion to the policies enacted in their own location, overall adherence to
those policies, population demographics, and other factors that are well beyond their
immediate control.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Our assessment of the economic shocks suggests an optimistic outlook for anesthesiologists
after the pandemic―a view that may be difficult to accept given the short-term challenges
and perceptions of health care sector chaos. TheFigure summarizes our perceptions
of the economic shocks, including the timing, magnitude, and duration from the first
wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Figure.
Economic shocks caused by initial COVID-19 wave impacting anesthesia services in the
United States (future waves or outbreaks of COVID-19 or other novel influenza-like
illness-causing viruses would lead to similar shocks, but would be expected to have
a more attenuated effect relative to the current COVID-19 pandemic and response).
COVID-19 indicates Coronavirus Disease 2019.
However, we note that “shocks” in economics are defined as interruptions to a system
after which there is a recovery or return to a new normal of operations. With an overriding
concern that the duration and severity of the current pandemic remain unknown, some
anesthesiologists and practices are better positioned for the current economic shocks
due to differences in training and practice environment. It is likely that, on the
margins, some physicians, especially early careerists, may be attracted to organizational
structures perceived to be more protected from demand shocks. However, we believe
variability in practice type will still exist after the pandemic, and small private-practice
groups need not face extinction from the “COVID-19 meteor.”
Based on standard economic concepts, the investments made in most resources needed
for the temporary response―surge capacity―can readily return to pre–COVID-19 norms.
Changes in the health care workforce may take longer to recover. While the federal
stimulus provided through the CARES Act will help mitigate the impact of temporary
workforce reductions caused by stopping nonessential procedures, other policies may
not match short-term changes in demand for anesthesia services. For example, on March
30, 2020, the US Centers for Medicare andMedicaid Services (CMS) issued regulatory
waivers “to rapidly expand the health care workforce,” which included the temporary
suspension of the requirements for physician supervision of CRNAs during the COVID-19
response.
21
Although wellintentioned, there seems to be no economic need to do so in light of
the reduction in nonessential surgical and procedural care. While these waivers are
expected to expire when the pandemic ends, policies that change scope of practice
for health care practitioners could have much longer-lasting effects.
Anesthesiology is a preeminent specialty, and the value of physician anesthesiologists
has been clearly demonstrated during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. The
US surgeon general is an anesthesiologist. The vice president of the United States
recognized the leadership roles of physician anesthesiologists and the American Society
of Anesthesiologists.
22
Anesthesiology will continue to be viewed as a more versatile and desirable specialty
option for medical students due to the ability to have training in perioperative,
pain, and critical care medicine. The number of anesthesiology residency programs
and residents continues to increase. In 2020, anesthesiology had a 99.4% match with
1883 anesthesiology candidates matched to 1894 anesthesiology available positions.
23
These are unprecedented times. The immediate priorities are to mitigate the spread
of the current pandemic, ensure appropriate health care services capacity, and provide
health care professionals with the resources needed to effectively and safely care
for COVID-19 patients. Anesthesiologists have quickly demonstrated their value beyond
the perioperative setting in caring for critically ill medical patients.
DISCLOSURES
Name: Thomas R. Miller, PhD, MBA.
Contribution: This author helped develop the topic and its outline, and with drafting
and review of the manuscript.
Name: Tiffany A. Radcliff, PhD.
Contribution: This author helped develop the topic and its outline, and with drafting
and review of the manuscript.
This manuscript was handled by: Thomas R. Vetter, MD, MPH.