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
> 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:
> 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."
>>> 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:
> To unsubscribe or search other topics on UVM Flownet link to:

To unsubscribe or search other topics on UVM Flownet link to: