With apologies for the rant -

Jay, we'll have to agree to disagree.

First and foremost, I am a patient care provider. After that I fill
numerous roles a nurse (BSN, RN), Registered Vascular Technologist (RVT),
Registered Vascular Specialist (RVS), FSVU (originally RSVT?), and I am
Certified in Healthcare Compliance (CHC), etc. Am I "called anything other
than a nurse"? Absolutely. Does it matter? IMHO, not really. If memory
serves, fully half of the founding members of SNIVT were nurses - however,
in their wisdom, they created an association that supports all individuals
performing noninvasive vascular testing, regardless of what they are called.
Should we let 'names' get in the way of patient care?

I do not understand any RVTs objection to being referred to as a Registered
Vascular Technologist, or technologist - after all, why else would one sit
for the examination resulting in a credential that they personally found
objectionable? Options do exist.

Your reference to a "hypothetical increment" is simply incorrect - it is
real. See the reference below. These values are used to determine the RVUs
from which the pool of dollars that funds your salary largely originates.
There is a difference and that is a fact.

However, I do agree that your definition of "Tech" clearly does not reflect
what you believe it means to be a 'professional sonographer' - however,
neither definition is clearly stated.

Have to get back to work - enough of this ... everybody - be what you want
to be ... My 4 yo grandson claims I'm a tuna, and that's fine with me ...

/fww

-----Original Message-----
From: UVM Flownet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of JS
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 9:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Still Techs?? - be careful what you wish for ...

I agree with Joan. First and foremost I am a sonographer. I am primarily a
professional sonographer who performs vascular exams which may include non
image producing exams. Why would I study sonography for years, then refer to
myself as a "tech" just because I may perform a non imaging exam. Do
doctors, nurses etc. use this same logic based on a perceived fear that if
they didn't use another term that described a lesser part of their actual
work might lose a hypothetical increment of pay? Would a nurse stand be be
called anything else other than nurse. If he/she occasionally performed a
post void residual with US would he/she be a sonographer, if she took a
blood pressure on the ankle would she be RVT or would she primarily be a
nurse? Nursing organizations support and promote their profession and
recognize the benefits of recognition of their title. "Tech" will never
accurately reflect what it means to be professional sonographer.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 8, 2012, at 8:57 PM, Joan P Baker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Frank I know how passionate you are about this issue and I remember
> the arguments on both sides a few years ago. I know Terry is equally
> passionate about words and how they are used in the English language.
> If I remember correctly the defense for using technician or
> technologist was the fact that vascular technologists/icians did other
> things than just "image". When I gave the name to "sonographers" it
> was from my UK roots which said Sono = sound "grapher" those that make a
graph" graph or picture/image with sound.
> Vascular technology's involvement in indirect testing I was led to
> believe was the reason this name change was rejected. The question now
> is do vascular technologists still perform these indirect tests e.g.
> (plethysmography)?
>
> When Prime Time Live had its expose which you featured in so very
> eloquently we had to help the public differentiate between those that
> were qualified (
> ARDMS) versus those that had never taken a certifying exam. The
> easiest way was to call them sonographers if they were certified and
> technologist/icians if they were not. We pushed for technician so that
> vascular could continue using technologist when they were RVT's. As we
> all know in a country that loves to abbreviate everything uses "Tech".
>
> Personally I have never considered this an issue about salary nor have
> I thought that anyone would lose salary because of their label. I
> think this is something the SVU should consider if they see this as
> needing to be revisited. A specialty should control its destiny after
> both sides are heard and in good old democratic fashion vote with majority
rule.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: UVM Flownet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Franklin
W.
> West
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 7:13 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Still Techs?? - be careful what you wish for ...
>
> Under the category of "be careful what you wish for and even more
> careful of what you accept as a valid expert cite" ... OR ..."Do you
> really want an 8% decrease in income?" {in the end, you will see that
> the practice expense for Vascular Technologists is 8% greater than
> DMSs, not the reverse}
>
> Bill is unequivocally correct - This issue was discussed at length by
> RVTs at a number of SNIVT/SVT/SVU meetings. Those who fail to study
> history are doomed to repeat it ...
>
> Terry is equally correct that the US DOL median income for DMS is
> $64,380 per year. The cite is
> http://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/diagnostic-medical-sonographers.htm
>
> Quick Facts: Diagnostic Medical Sonographers
>
> 2010 Median Pay $64,380 per
> year - $30.95 per hour
> Entry-Level Education Associate's
> degree
> Work Experience in a Related Occupation None
> On-the-job Training None
> Number of Jobs, 2010 53,700
> Job Outlook, 2010-20 44% (Much
faster
> than average)
> Employment Change, 2010-20 23,400
>
> Terry is, however, very INCORRECT in his comment regarding the median
> income for "RVT" - this is simply NOT a survey that is performed by
> the DOL. The quote Terry cites is from:
> http://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/cardiovascular-technologists-and-tec
> hnicia
> ns.htm
>
> Quick Facts: Cardiovascular Technologists and Technicians and Vascular
> Technologists
> 2010 Median Pay $49,410 per
> year - $23.75 per hour
> Entry-Level Education Associate's
> degree
> Work Experience in a Related Occupation None
> On-the-job Training None
> Number of Jobs, 2010 49,400
> Job Outlook, 2010-20 29% (Much
faster
> than average)
> Employment Change, 2010-20 14,500
>
> As such, this supposedly appropriate category is in reality an
> incredibly inaccurate merging of a variety of positions including
> invasive and noninvasive cardiac and peripheral vascular technicians
> and technologists (theoretically no less than eight distinct
> positions). Some of these positions are almost exclusively found in
> hospital settings while others vary widely in terms of setting ... and
> while I've met some folks that have multiple credentials and perform,
> e.g., "babies, bellies, etc.", I cannot say I have ever met anyone
> that works in a setting performing invasive cardiac and vascular
> procedures as well as noninvasive cardiac and noninvasive peripheral
vascular studies as a technician and technologist.
>
> The DOL data is considered so invalid and unreliable that HCFA (now
> CMS) encouraged involved medical specialties to fund an independent
> survey of Registered Vascular Technologists (this was further
> supported by HCFA when it was noted that more than 50% of the Medicare
> Carriers at the time required non-physician certification and/or
> laboratory accreditation for vascular procedures).
>
> To make a very long story short, a result with a much greater real
> world impact in measuring income can be found in the Resource Based
> Relative Value Scale "Direct Practice Expense Inputs" for the Medicare
> Physician Fee Schedule, which includes the following
>
> $0.50 per minute ($62,400 per year) for Diagnostic Medical
> Sonographers
> $0.54 per minute ($67,382 per year) for Vascular Technologists
>
> Clearly I have a bias given I am really not interested in a
> significant reduction in personal income ... or, for that matter, a
> scope of practice that limits my ability to provide appropriate
> patient care. As such, I will remain a Registered Vascular
> Technologist and Registered Vascular Specialist ... and if I am not
> given a choice, I will opt to simply use these devices under a state
> license (i.e., RN) that already provides the option ... But that's just me
...
>
> /fww
>
> PS: Along with Terry's request, if you're not interested in an eight
> percent decrease in income, please raise this issue with Dale and Kevin
...
> PPS: A personal opinion - those two surgeons on the ARDMS EC may have
> known something ... this is not an ACR vs SVS issue, although Terry's
> comments might infer that ... or even one of distaste for a word ...
> this has real world implications that can harm those that practice
vascular technology ...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: UVM Flownet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bill
> Johnson
> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2012 6:31 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Still Techs??
>
> Bill Johnson, Port Townsend, WA
> I know the word "tech" is much maligned, or at least not credited.
> And the issue of "technician" vs "technologist" never caught traction,
> in spite of years of discussion on the SNIVT/SVT/SVU Boards. I admit
> I am proud to be a lowly "tech" and the service I have provided our
patients.
> But, regardless, I agree with Terry. While the issue of compensation
> is important, I think the issue of recognition is also important.
> So, Terry, what do you propose we do? I would sign your petition, but
> then no one might take notice since I am only a "Registered Vascular
> Technologist." Catch 22?
>
> On 10/7/12, Jim Mosley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Just so everyone is informed, what would you recommend as the best
>> way to
> pursue this through the ARDMS?
>>
>> Excellent idea, by the way. I'm all for advancing our profession.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Oct 7, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Terry DuBose <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>>
>>> Several years (after the meeting in New Orleans) ago the SVT, now
>>> SVU petitioned the ARDMS to change the vascular credential from RVT
>>> to RDVS so it would be in line with echocardiographer and get rid of
>>> the "T" word.
>>> However, there were two vascular surgeons on the ARDMS Executive
>>> Committee that killed the petition.
>>>
>>> Those guys are gone from the ARDMS and it seems time for the vascular
>>> community to raise this issue again. If you look at the pay for RDMS
>>> and
>>> RVT in the USA Dept. of Labor's OCCUPATION OUTLOOK HANDBOOK (OOH)
>>> you will see that DMS are listed with a median pay of $64,380 per
>>> year, while the RVT
>>> median pay of $49,410 per year. I believe the primary cause of this
>>> discrepancy is the designation of "vascular technologists."
>>> http://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/diagnostic-medical-sonographers.ht
>>> m
>>> http://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/cardiovascular-technologists-and-t
>>> e
>>> chnicians.htm
>>>
>>> If you agree, please raise this issue with the new ARDMS Executive
>>> Committee Chair, Kevin Evans, and the ARDMS CEO, Dale Cyr.
>>>
>>> Good luck, Terry
>>>
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> Terry J. DuBose, MS, RDMS
>>> Associate Professor Emeritus
>>> Diagnostic Medical Sonography
>>> University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences [log in to unmask]
>>> 512-826-8833
>>> ***************
>
> 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

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