Reply to Dr. Kevin - Linda Posted: Feb 4th, 2016 - 11:54 am In Reply to: Medical Scribes - Mary Roach
Thanks, Mary for sharing this. I did a rather long reply in Word, then found that no more comments are accepted on that page, so I emailed him. If interested, see below. I really would love to hear how the medical community justifies getting rid of experienced, trained MTs to be replaced by inexperienced college students who don't even know medical terminology! My email to him is below:
Dr. Kevin;
This is in reply to your comment on your web site about EMR and the use of scribes.
I have been a medical transcriptionist for 30 years. Medical transcriptionists provided doctors the convenience of dictating into a recorder and all documentation was completed for them. They had twice as much time to spend with their patients and did not have to sit at a screen doing data entry for half the visit. We provided 24-hour turnaround time, as most transcription companies do today, for a fraction of the cost.
With the transition to EMR, JCAHO reports that providers are doing data entry for an average cost of $70 per hour, when we transcriptionists were paid an average of $15 an hour for the same data entry. This makes absolutely no sense!
JCAHO found that any report created using voice recognition should be proofed by the provider. We both know this is not a reasonable expectation. As a result, malpractice suits, due to VR errors, have risen considerably and I think it is a reasonable expectation that malpractice rates will considerably increase as a result. So, not only are facilities paying 4 times as much for data entry and 25% more for transcription, but the malpractice suits from VR errors make it more cost-effective in the long run to keep your medical transcriptionists who provide accurate medical records with zero overhead if you utilize contractors.
You mentioned a list of benefits to using a scribe. You had every single one of those benefits when you used medical transcriptionists and the patients did not have the embarrassment of having another person present during their visit with the doctor. You also did not need to train your transcriptionist the way you would have to train a college student who doesn't know medical terminology, pharmacology, anatomy or have the 20-30 years experience most remaining medical transcriptionists have. So, it's puzzling to me that medical transcriptionists would be replaced by a college student with no experience or education for the position, with the additional expense of benefits. Medical transcriptionists can scribe in house or remotely without being trained.
Over the last few years, medical transcriptionists have taken a 50 to 75% drop in salary. We are paid for production so that the transcription companies can get away with not paying minimum wage. You are now paying transcription services 25% more than we charged as independent contractors for transcription. How does this make sense?
I understand the cost-effectiveness of eliminating transcription departments; however, if you used independent medical transcription contractors, you would save the overhead, as well as 25% less than you are currently paying transcription companies. The hospitals would need to facilitate payroll, distribution of work and administration, but at considerably less than the cost of an in-house medical transcription department.
I wonder if you could shed some light on the decision to terminate the medical transcriptionists and replace them with inexperienced college students to do the job we experienced and unemployed medical transcriptionists could do for the same hourly rate.
Post A Reply Reply By Email Options
Complete Discussion Below: (  marks the location of current message within thread)
- Medical Scribes - Mary Roach (Views: 794, 2016-02-02, 9:36 pm)
- Reply to Dr. Kevin - Linda
|
