Let's Talk About...AHDI and MTs
Barb Marques, CMT, AHDI-F, 2011 AHDI President, has written the latest installment in the "Let's Talk About..." series of open letters to medical transcription professionals. The article is entitled, "Let's Talk About...AHDI and MTs" and focuses on what Barb feels are some critical misperceptions that exist with regard to AHDI and its efforts on behalf of working MTs.
Barb's letter examines three basic questions:
- What is AHDI able to do for MTs?
- What are we not able to do?
- Of the things that can be done, how is AHDI working to accomplish those things?
In the "can't do" category, Barb talks about issues such globalization, technology, and compensation as areas where AHDI has little power to influence the industry. The "can do's" include job preservation and credentialing.
This letter is the first of four which will serve as lead-ins to an upcoming AHDI Town Hall webinar on the topic of "The Value of Association" to be held Tuesday, April 19 at 4 p.m. Pacific/7 p.m. Eastern, hosted by Barb Marques and Ava George.
Barb's letter is well worth reading, and I welcome your comments on what she has to say.
Jay Vance, CMT
AHDI Lounge Administrator/Moderator
Every single time this organization has had anything to say about how lines are determined, it has had a substantial impact on my compensation and reduced my pay. First it was moving away from gross lines to 65 characters including spaces, then it was using visible black characters. Don't tell me you have no impact on compensation. My negative experience with these "standards" for over 25 years now convinces me otherwise. Employers will use any excuse to lower payrolls, and in my opinion, AHDI is facilitating this.
@Anonymous (12:44)
AHDI is not responsible for issuing the "VBC". This standard was issued by MTIA and AHIMA. When MTIA and AHIMA released that standard, AHDI very specifically said that our position was NOT IN FAVOR of using the VBC for compensation without adjusting to an equivalent pay.
“Financial analysis must be completed to establish the equivalent VBC pricing in comparison
with the existing rate and unit of measure.”
http://www.ahdionline.org/Portals/0/downloads/VBCWhitePaperFAQs.pdf
If your rate of pay was adjusted downward by the application of the VBC, then it is your employer that has either interpreted the standard incorrectly or chosen to cheat you, not AHDI.
That is a very good letter.
It is really unfortunate that over the years, in an organization whose membership deals daily with words to make a living, there really have been so very few with the ability to truly articulate the incredibly complex and complicated issues that face the process of MT and what a professional organization can and cannot do in such a direct, no nonsense style, without leaving those reading with the feeling that they are being lectured, talked down to, or just plain old confused.
I can darn sure admire the skill (and the amount of time it must have taken to get those words just right)that went into this.
Nae
I find the letter enlightening and one every MT should read. I also find the majority of those who speak out against the AHDI are not members.
In a profession such as ours where you get out of it what you put into it, I would think more would realize that same thinking goes into play in other areas.
You don't want to be credentialed or see it mandatory? Then don't be surprised when you are not taken seriously as a true healthcare professional.
You want the AHDI to fix all your problems but you don't want to be a member and get involved? Then don't be surprised when you see little change.
Medical transcription goes way beyond our little home offices. It is sad to see so many MTs finding time to go onto "certain" message boards and complain all day but cannot take that same energy and put it towards something positive for this profession.
Maybe working from home has made many so secluded from the professional enviornment it is difficult to get involved all by yourself, but we must try. The AHDI is not bad or against us. I have been a member for 3 years now and every year I learn more and more about them and our profession and I am thankful to them and grateful to be a member.
I encourage everyone to become a member for one year and during that year do at least one thing, just one, through the association...be it joining an alliance, volunteering an hour or two a month, going to an ACE event...anything. One year and one activity and I truly believe you will have a lot of misconceptions about the AHDI, and medical transcription in general, put to rest.
Let's be honest, AHDI changed a lot over the years from working for the MT (those whose money supports the industry) to the profession and bigger ideas that are very long term. I am a member, but disappointed. We missed the boat on scribes, we are only minorly relevant in the EHR, MTs are leaving because in the time they spend to learn MT they can get a different degree and make a lot more money.
We need a letter from the board titled: Let's Talk About...The Relevance of AHDI
In very few cases do you get to have your cake and eat it, too.
Why wasn't AHDI part of the task force on standard units of measurement in medical transcription?
It makes one wonder what other crucial points in medical transcription industry have been missed.
@Julie, the standard was intended to address BILLING, not compensation. The MTSOs and AHIMA are most involved in billing negotiations.
@Laura -
Anyone who thinks billing and compensation aren't related hasn't been paying attention.
@Julie, I didn't say they weren't related. But it is common knowledge that billing is not necessarily calculated the same way as compensation. The standard was not intended to address methods of calculating line rates for the purpose of compensation.
It is apparent that people are not actually applying the VBC standard as it is described. It was never supposed to lower billing rates or actual compensation. Line rates are *supposed* to be recalculated to give an equivalent rate.
The problem is not the recommended billing methods-it is the "application" of those standards (or lack thereof) that continues to make a mess of things.
We are such "semantics" people in our profession. The MTIA paper does state: The adoption of a standard of measure will prove useful in determining the productivity
of an in-house staff or in evaluating the various proposals and billing methodologies from
suppliers of transcription service.
So it's pretty clear to see that IF it's used as an evaluation tool for in-house staff, it's an easy jump to tie it to compensation.
Laura, I do agree that it's all about "application," which is exactly the same issue we had years ago with the "AAMT Line" and why we backed away from it. I had to chuckle when this one came out because it's no different. It will only be valid if it's truly applied the same across the board, which just isn't reality in our industry.