LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for UVMFLOWNET Archives


UVMFLOWNET Archives

UVMFLOWNET Archives


UVMFLOWNET@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

UVMFLOWNET Home

UVMFLOWNET Home

UVMFLOWNET  March 2004

UVMFLOWNET March 2004

Subject:

Re: RVT Name Change by the ARDMS

From:

Nancy Hohn <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

UVM Flownet <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 06:36:13 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (132 lines)

Thanks Frank, I had not realized that "Vascular Technologist" had
emerged on its own.  Last time I browsed around the gov't website we
were still under CV Technician & Technologist.  I'm glad that has
changed.
Nancy

-----Original Message-----
From: f_west [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 2:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: RVT Name Change by the ARDMS


Nancy,

With apologies for the following stream of consciousness ...

Against my better judgment and at the danger of offending many, I will
attempt to keep this semi-brief ... also, with apologies if my comments
raise anyone's blood pressure ...

First, I have no great desire to be called a technologist, technician,
sonographer, stenographer, etc., simply because I do not believe these
terms remotely describe 'our' role.  That is, IMHO, our role is to
provide patient care, and these terms, at least to me, suggest that our
fundamental role is to work with technology, this inferring that the
patients are incidental. The expertise/technologies we employ, whether
they be in performing patient histories, physical examinations, using
stethoscopes, any of the various forms of plethysmography, various forms
ultrasound can take, etc. are all simple tools that can be utilized to
provide patient care.  At the end of the day, it is not the technology
that is of significance, but the human impact of our actions, without
which the technologies are meaningless. Thus, at the risk of being
viewed as a radical revolutionary, my suggestion is that we discard all
the current suggestions and begin a search for terminology that actually
describes our fundamental focus.  On the other hand, if our job is
simply to 'do studies' we can adopt whatever terminology best describes
those studies (I have read a definition of 'sonographer' that read
'ultrasound technician', both of which I found offensive).  But I will
leave that to others ...

With re to reimbursement:  this is a complex issue, all the impacts of
which (and history) I will not attempt to completely discuss here.  I
invite any interested in a primer to read the 11/1/2001 Federal Register
(Physician Fee Schedule; Final Rule for 2002 - pages 55246 through 55503
inclusive).  This contains (on page 55261) a table of the 'revised' wage
rates for CPEP staff types.  For any that are confused after reading
this FR, I recommend review of each years FR starting with 10/31/97 (at
least) to current - and for any obsessive/compulsive enough to do this,
I recommend talking with your psychiatrist regarding a medication change
- it's obviously not working (;-)).

'Short' version:  for "Vascular Technologist," the wage rate of
$0.35/min was changed to $0.54/min based on the nVision Survey that was
done (funded by SVT is memory serves).  In comparison, for categories of
"Diagnostic Medical Sonographer" and "Cardiac Sonographer," the wage
rate of $0.39/min was changed to $0.50/min based on BLS data.
Consequently, assuming that CMS has or ever gets the formula
straightened out (debatable), the non-physician clinical staff time
(probably the single most significant) inputs will result in vascular
procedures having inputs that are 8% higher than echocardiography and
diagnostic ultrasound procedure codes (this I do not worry about).
While CMS has noted that the "cardiac sonographer" inputs were simply
crosswalked from "sonographer," CMS did note that they would be willing
to reconsider pricing given valid salary data was submitted (here lies
an example of the lumping that can occur simply on the basis of a name).
Given the cardiac sonographers and cardiology associations have not
addressed this issue in the interim, it is my assumption that the input
is viewed as adequate.  However, in the case of deletion of "Vascular
Technologist" as a category, a very real danger exists that the
sonographer rate could be applied, this representing an 8% decrease
(this I would worry about).  While this probably could be avoided, it
would require a coordinated effort (SVU Govt. Relations, attorneys,
etc., & money).  Also, given removal of the vascular codes from the ZWP,
and the rather ill-logical current determination of the -TC based on the
simple difference of the global minus the -26, I doubt that any of this
has any applicability in the current calculation (it is interesting the
true PE seems to have been lost somewhere along the way - plus 10 points
for pragmatism, minus 100 for failing to follow anything that can be
defended as remotely rational - may bite us big time in the long run).

I also fear that from a CMS viewpoint, we may well not be viewed kindly.
That is, in 2001, after roughly a decade of regular visits to HCFA/CMS,
CMS altered our recognized descriptions based on input from a
"Coalition" including AAVS, ASN, SDMS, SVS & SVT - from 'cardiovascular
technologists & technicians' to "Vascular Technologist," - they also
maintained 'cardiac sonographer' (eliminating the description
'ultrasound technician') and changing 'sonographer' to "Diagnostic
Medical Sonographer".  Now here we are a couple of years later
suggesting that "Vascular Technologist" does not in fact describe the
clinical staff type?  It would be all to easy to conclude that we do not
know who or what we are ... but then, that might be accurate.

Personally, having shed enough blood on this field of battle, I'll be
happy to sit and observe from the sidelines, and am erecting a "Somebody
Else's Problem Field" around this issue (10 points to anyone that can
provide a description of, and cite for, this very useful piece of
technology) ...

Franklin W. West
425.398.7774 (voice)


-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Nancy Hohn
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 7:43 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: RVT Name Change by the ARDMS


I agree with the RDVS for consistency among sonography professions.  How
about echo/vasc cross trained?  Can we be RDCVS? This would shorten the
alphabet soup chain a bit. I also thought as far as government
categorizing we wanted to get vascular technology moved from CV Tech
category to the diagnostic sonography category.  This would group our
pay ranges with other sonographers instead of ekg/TM techs.  Then when
medicare was looking at the cost of vascular exams the "average" salary
would be more accurate than it is now, thus increasing reinbursement
(someday) for vascular exams.  Is this correct Frank?

Nancy

<SNIP>

To unsubscribe or search other topics on UVM Flownet link to:
http://list.uvm.edu/archives/uvmflownet.html

To unsubscribe or search other topics on UVM Flownet link to:
http://list.uvm.edu/archives/uvmflownet.html

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager