Medicine laboratory - Too much government in healthcare professions

Author

Too much government in healthcare professions

nickzelinski@hotmail.com

2005-08-16, 8:56 am

It's a well known fact that nurses are leaving their
profession in droves. And they are leaving it in
such numbers that the new nurses coming out of
shools are not enough to replace them.

Job dissatisfaction is perhaps higher in nursing
than in other health professions. But other health
professions also have a problem with people leaving
well before their retirement age.

I happen to be one of those other health
professionals. And I too will probably leave my
profession soon.

It's not only poor working conditions and lack of
control over my work that upsets me. I also don't
like the unreasonable government interference in my
work and in my life.

Local governments in most places have recently
created many new rules and regulations that govern
health professionals. And now I find myself in a
ridiculous situation where my many years of
work-experience and continuing self-education count
for nothing. According to these new government
regulations, I'm now actually less qualified to do
my work than the new graduates who have no
work-experience.

I suppose this is what happens when some bureaucrats
in a far away place take it on themselves to judge
who is competent to do his or her work and who is
not.

I have more than kept up with the advances my
profession through continuing self-education.
Whenever I come accross something I'm not familiar
with in my work, then I go on the internet and find
out about it in much greater detail than is really
necessary for me to do my work. And what I learn
this way actually stays in my head. The information
has real meaning for me because it is relevant to my
everyday work.

But the new government rules and regulations
completely ignore this kind of learning. And they
penalize people like me.

According to my local government, I'm now not
qualified to do my work because I've not taken
enough formal courses and I've not memorized a bunch
of facts most of which have little to do with my
everyday work.

I can accept that the government and employers have
an interest in making sure that health professionals
are competent in their work. And would have no
problem, if periodically I had to write an exam to
assess my knowledge. And if I fail the exam, then I
can accept that I need to take a course or two to
upgrade my knowledge.

But I do have a problem when the government tells me
that I'm not qualified to do my work, despite the
fact that my supervisors praise me for my competence
and the good quality of my work and I have not
failed any exams.

I've recently looked up the internet site of the
organization created by my local government for
regulating and registering people in my profession.
And what I've read there really turned me off.

This internet site reminds the reader that their
organization has been created by government
legislation to regulate workers like me. They have
the authority to do it. And what's more, practicing
in my profession is a "priveledge", not a right.

In other words, 'Workers like me have to do as they
say, or else'.

Well, I don't need this kind of bulshit from the
government. There are many other professions where
the pay and the working conditions are better. And
there are many other professions where employers
recognize and value the competence and the years of
work experience of their employees.

I don't need some far away government bureaucrat
whom I've never met telling me that I'm not
competent, when both I and my employer know that I
am competent.

I will leave my profession. And my only regret is
that I chose to go into this profession in the first
place. If I had known that the government will
start interfering in my work and in my life this
way, then I would have chosen some other profession.

JEDilworth

2005-08-16, 11:57 am

So, what exactly is your profession? What are you being asked to do by
the government? Has your state of residence recently become a licensure
state and you don't have the qualifications to complete licensure
requirements?

It sounds as if your profession is requiring a college degree or
equivalent, and you don't have one. It also sounds as if you are
dissatisfied with your employer. You seem fixated on government causing
all of your problems instead of possible lack of initiative on your own
part. It's easy to blame the "gumment" for lots of things.

I have a great employer and have no complaints. No profession is
perfect. For me to start over now would require a big investment in
school and probably a pay cut. I would expect it would be the same for
you.

Why don't you lay the cards on the table in your posting, instead of
writing a "black helicopter anti-government rant" and perhaps you will
get some empathy? What's REALLY going on here?

Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP)
Microbiology

<nickzelinski@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124200332.164488.223790@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I happen to be one of those other health
> professionals. And I too will probably leave my
> profession soon.
>
> It's not only poor working conditions and lack of
> control over my work that upsets me. I also don't
> like the unreasonable government interference in my
> work and in my life.

nickzelinski@hotmail.com

2005-08-16, 11:57 am

JEDilworth wrote:
> So, what exactly is your profession? What are you being asked to do by
> the government? Has your state of residence recently become a licensure
> state and you don't have the qualifications to complete licensure
> requirements?
>
> It sounds as if your profession is requiring a college degree or
> equivalent, and you don't have one. It also sounds as if you are
> dissatisfied with your employer. You seem fixated on government causing
> all of your problems instead of possible lack of initiative on your own
> part. It's easy to blame the "gumment" for lots of things.
>
> I have a great employer and have no complaints. No profession is
> perfect. For me to start over now would require a big investment in
> school and probably a pay cut. I would expect it would be the same for
> you.
>
> Why don't you lay the cards on the table in your posting, instead of
> writing a "black helicopter anti-government rant" and perhaps you will
> get some empathy? What's REALLY going on here?
>
> Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP)
> Microbiology
>
I work in the laboratory and I have a degree.
And I have no problem with my education or
qualifications, except for the continuing
education.

My point is that there is more than one way to
keep competent in your work and profession.
And professionals like myself should have the
freedom to do it in their own way. The
government has no business telling me that I
need to upgrade my competence, when they haven't
tested my knowledge and when they haven't checked
the quality of my work.

This is government interference in my life for no
good reason. And I resent it.

But I agree with you that changing professions is
costly and difficult. And you really have to be
dissatisfied in order to do it.

Apparently, you are satisfied with your work and
profession. And I wish you all the best. Perhaps
your employer and your local government treats
healthcare workers with more respect than it does
in my area. Not every place is the same.

But I think I'm right in saying that in general,
many health professionals including laboratory
workers often leave their profession well before
their retirement age. And dissatisfaction with
their profession is often the main reason why
they leave.

Who exactly I am and where exactly I work is not
important. I am still working in my profession.
And I don't feel free to speak out openly against
government regulators who have the power to make
some trouble for me.

JEDilworth

2005-08-16, 5:56 pm

I am the head of our lab's CE committee. We recently instituted a
requirement that every tech have 12 hours of CE a year. This keeps us in
line with the new ASCP requirement of newly graduated techs that are
required to have 12 hours yearly in order to keep their registry in good
standing. These hours are not required by any governmental entity; they
are required by my employer.

Our lab allows many options to fulfill this 12 hour requirement. Reading
articles, attending conferences, online CE, in-house lectures,
membership in a committee all count towards the 12 hours.

I personally don't think this is too much to ask to keep current in the
field. I also don't think it's too much to ask to do some of this stuff
off the clock. It's a small "price" to pay to stay knowledgeable.

Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP)
Microbiology

<nickzelinski@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> My point is that there is more than one way to
> keep competent in your work and profession.
> And professionals like myself should have the
> freedom to do it in their own way. The
> government has no business telling me that I
> need to upgrade my competence, when they haven't
> tested my knowledge and when they haven't checked
> the quality of my work.

John Gentile

2005-08-16, 10:55 pm

Well, Judy hit on a couple of points, but I would like to add that most of
the direction in education requirements is coming from us professionals and
not from the government. Look at NCA, ASCLS and ASCP for these efforts - all
NON governmental. As a matter of fact I'm disappointed in the latest
iteration of the CLIA regs. On the one hand they try to make the profession
sound more "professional", and on the other hand they allow OJT techs to do
highly complex testing.

--
John Gentile MS M(ASCP) yjgent@cox.net
Laboratory Information, QA Manager
VA Medical Center
Providence, RI

The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any
position of the Government or VA.

in article 1124200332.164488.223790@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
nickzelinski@hotmail.com at nickzelinski@hotmail.com wrote on 8/16/05 9:52
AM:

> It's a well known fact that nurses are leaving their
> profession in droves. And they are leaving it in
> such numbers that the new nurses coming out of
> shools are not enough to replace them.
>
> Job dissatisfaction is perhaps higher in nursing
> than in other health professions. But other health
> professions also have a problem with people leaving
> well before their retirement age.
>
> I happen to be one of those other health
> professionals. And I too will probably leave my
> profession soon.
>
> It's not only poor working conditions and lack of
> control over my work that upsets me. I also don't
> like the unreasonable government interference in my
> work and in my life.
>
> Local governments in most places have recently
> created many new rules and regulations that govern
> health professionals. And now I find myself in a
> ridiculous situation where my many years of
> work-experience and continuing self-education count
> for nothing. According to these new government
> regulations, I'm now actually less qualified to do
> my work than the new graduates who have no
> work-experience.
>
> I suppose this is what happens when some bureaucrats
> in a far away place take it on themselves to judge
> who is competent to do his or her work and who is
> not.
>
> I have more than kept up with the advances my
> profession through continuing self-education.
> Whenever I come accross something I'm not familiar
> with in my work, then I go on the internet and find
> out about it in much greater detail than is really
> necessary for me to do my work. And what I learn
> this way actually stays in my head. The information
> has real meaning for me because it is relevant to my
> everyday work.
>
> But the new government rules and regulations
> completely ignore this kind of learning. And they
> penalize people like me.
>
> According to my local government, I'm now not
> qualified to do my work because I've not taken
> enough formal courses and I've not memorized a bunch
> of facts most of which have little to do with my
> everyday work.
>
> I can accept that the government and employers have
> an interest in making sure that health professionals
> are competent in their work. And would have no
> problem, if periodically I had to write an exam to
> assess my knowledge. And if I fail the exam, then I
> can accept that I need to take a course or two to
> upgrade my knowledge.
>
> But I do have a problem when the government tells me
> that I'm not qualified to do my work, despite the
> fact that my supervisors praise me for my competence
> and the good quality of my work and I have not
> failed any exams.
>
> I've recently looked up the internet site of the
> organization created by my local government for
> regulating and registering people in my profession.
> And what I've read there really turned me off.
>
> This internet site reminds the reader that their
> organization has been created by government
> legislation to regulate workers like me. They have
> the authority to do it. And what's more, practicing
> in my profession is a "priveledge", not a right.
>
> In other words, 'Workers like me have to do as they
> say, or else'.
>
> Well, I don't need this kind of bulshit from the
> government. There are many other professions where
> the pay and the working conditions are better. And
> there are many other professions where employers
> recognize and value the competence and the years of
> work experience of their employees.
>
> I don't need some far away government bureaucrat
> whom I've never met telling me that I'm not
> competent, when both I and my employer know that I
> am competent.
>
> I will leave my profession. And my only regret is
> that I chose to go into this profession in the first
> place. If I had known that the government will
> start interfering in my work and in my life this
> way, then I would have chosen some other profession.
>

nickzelinski@hotmail.com

2005-08-17, 8:56 am

JEDilworth wrote:
> I am the head of our lab's CE committee. We recently instituted a
> requirement that every tech have 12 hours of CE a year. This keeps us in
> line with the new ASCP requirement of newly graduated techs that are
> required to have 12 hours yearly in order to keep their registry in good
> standing. These hours are not required by any governmental entity; they
> are required by my employer.
>
> Our lab allows many options to fulfill this 12 hour requirement. Reading
> articles, attending conferences, online CE, in-house lectures,
> membership in a committee all count towards the 12 hours.
>
> I personally don't think this is too much to ask to keep current in the
> field. I also don't think it's too much to ask to do some of this stuff
> off the clock. It's a small "price" to pay to stay knowledgeable.
>
When continuing education is done during
your working hours. And the employer
provides much of the education. Then
of course there is nothing to complain
about.

But you have to realize that not everyone
is in such a lucky situation as you are.
There are many technologists who work in
small labs and in rural areas, where the
employer does not provide any continuing
education.

Some technologists travel to foreign
countries and work there for a while.
And they too have a problem, when they
come back.

And there are many states in USA and
provinces in Canada where the government
has created licensing organizations that
do require official continuing educaton
in order to have any right to work (or
'priviledge' as they say).

Perhaps not everyone values their freedom
to the same extent. And perhaps for you
lack of professional freedom is a small
price to pay. But that's not how it is for
me.

My employer does not provide any continuing
education. It's all up to me. And this
means that I know better than some far away
bureaucrat what I need to know for my work.
And this is why I'd like to have the freedom
to choose what I learn and how I learn it.

All these licensing organizations including
ASCP should give people the option to
continue their education completely on their
own. And they should give these people the
option of writing some competence exam to
renew their professional certification.

Such an arrangement would be a small price
to pay. And it would give many people the
professional freedom they need.

Is this too much to ask for?

Since when did freedom for the individual
become unimportant?

John Gentile

2005-08-17, 10:55 pm

In Rhode Island, the state licensing board refused to set up a licensing
system for Medical Lab techs - the state's local ASCLS branch headed by a
couple of professors and many, many technologists petitioned and helped
write the rules. The state only went for it after a very hard fought several
year battle with the politicians. It's not the "government" doing this it is
your fellow professionals who care about quality health care and quality
laboratory results.

As far as continuing education - there are plenty of free or low cost CE
credits that can be had. Have you looked around the web, in some of the
monthly lab mags. Do you have a membership in either ASCP or ASCLS? Their
monthly magazines always have CE courses.

I am fortunate that I live in a city with many education opportunities.
However I am responsible for my own profession and made the effort to find
CEUs and even take an MS course in Clinical Lab Science. There are ways to
keep current and to take courses on-line. It's all up to you!

in article 1124267589.880330.30530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com,
nickzelinski@hotmail.com at nickzelinski@hotmail.com wrote on 8/17/05 4:33
AM:

>
> And there are many states in USA and
> provinces in Canada where the government
> has created licensing organizations that
> do require official continuing educaton
> in order to have any right to work (or
> 'priviledge' as they say).

--
John Gentile Editor, Rhode Island Apple Group
yjgent@cox.net RIAG Web page: www.wbwip.com/riag/
"I never make mistakes, I only have unexpected learning opportunities!"

JEDilworth

2005-08-18, 8:57 am

There is lots of CE available via internet. Rural labs have computer
access, and obviously you do also, or you wouldn't be able to post your
messages.

I run an online CE group through Yahoo. I won't post the address her
because spammers can pick it up. If you go to Yahoo, click on Groups;
search for microbiology continuing education. It's the first group that
comes up. I am moderator and have to approve memberships (to keep
spammers out). I have LOTS of links to online CE. I personally don't
think 12 hours a year is hard to accomplish online. Try www.medscape.com
for lots of free online CE.

I just don't understand your "lack of freedom" rant. I am perfectly
capable of finding microbiological articles, etc. online for my CE. My
employer doesn't provide 12 hours of CE per year in-house. We have
discussed this many times in our CE committee meetings. It is pretty
much felt by management that, since we are considered professionals,
that doing some CE off the clock is not too much to ask, although we are
allowed to web surf for work related stuff if we have the time during
our working hours.

What exactly are you being "forced" to do by the government? I agree
with John - these rules are driven by professional societies and not
governments, unless there are rules in your state for licensure. I am in
a state that doesn't require licensure. Our rules are all set by our lab
management.

You can subscribe to ADVANCE for Medical Lab Professionals online or via
magazine and it's FREE. They have lots of good articles that would
qualify for CE. Try www.advanceformlp.com.

I looked into becoming a Registered Sanitarian for the state of Ohio
about ten years ago. The continuing education required for this position
was very rigorous and had to be documented. If it wasn't, you would lose
your license. By contrast, our CE requirements for MT's seem pretty
namby-pamby.

You're welcome to join my Yahoo group. The links could help you out.

Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP)
Microbiology

<nickzelinski@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124267589.880330.30530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> My employer does not provide any continuing
> education. It's all up to me. And this
> means that I know better than some far away
> bureaucrat what I need to know for my work.
> And this is why I'd like to have the freedom
> to choose what I learn and how I learn it.

nickzelinski@hotmail.com

2005-08-18, 8:57 am

John Gentile wrote:
> In Rhode Island, the state licensing board refused to set up a licensing
> system for Medical Lab techs - the state's local ASCLS branch headed by a
> couple of professors and many, many technologists petitioned and helped
> write the rules. The state only went for it after a very hard fought several
> year battle with the politicians. It's not the "government" doing this it is
> your fellow professionals who care about quality health care and quality
> laboratory results.
>
>
We had a similar situation in my place.
Except, not so many technologists participated
in writing the rules. And it came as a big
surprise to me and many other technologists
that the government has set up this licensing
body for technologists.

And many technologists, including myself, were
upset about it.

This new licensing body immediately imposed hefty
membership fees. And my employer eventually had
to tell all the technologists in the lab that they
had to register with this organization because this
was the government law.

This new licensing body now says that their main
madate is to protect the public against
malpractice by technologists. And they claim that
their authority is from the government, which is
true of course.

I'm against this kind of goverment involvement in
professional organizations because it often sets up
undemocratic situations. Some clique of professionals
get the backing of the government. And then they start
dictating to all the other not so organized professionals
what they should do.

Even when there are elections in these government-backed
bodies, you often end up in a situation where the majority
dictates to everybody else what to do. And they have no
respect for minorities in their profession who perhaps
would like to have more freedom and more autonomy in their
work.

Government involvment in professional organizations often
has the effect of reducing rights and freedoms of
professionals. It puts professionals into a straight-jacket
where they all have to work and practice in the same way.
And of course it reduces satisfaction for those professionals
who want to have some freedom in how they work and study.

nickzelinski@hotmail.com

2005-08-18, 8:57 am

JEDilworth wrote:
>
> I just don't understand your "lack of freedom" rant. I am perfectly
> capable of finding microbiological articles, etc. online for my CE. My
> employer doesn't provide 12 hours of CE per year in-house. We have
> discussed this many times in our CE committee meetings. It is pretty
> much felt by management that, since we are considered professionals,
> that doing some CE off the clock is not too much to ask, although we are
> allowed to web surf for work related stuff if we have the time during
> our working hours.
>
> What exactly are you being "forced" to do by the government? I agree
> with John - these rules are driven by professional societies and not
> governments, unless there are rules in your state for licensure. I am in
> a state that doesn't require licensure. Our rules are all set by our lab
> management.
>
I have nothing against rules driven by
professional organizations. My problem
is when the government also gets into the
driver's seat.

I come from a place where the government
legislated and gave authority to our
professional body to regulate and license
technologists. And people running this
body now see themselves as being there
mainly to protect the public from
malpracticing technologists.

This kind of government legislation doesn't
make sense. If the public needs protection,
then there should be an independent panel
made up of people who really are
representative of the public at large.

When people running a professional organization
get the backing from their government, then
they often become dictatorial and unresponsive
to the wishes of other professionals who perhaps
are not so well organized.

That's why I'm against this kind of government
involvement.

Perhaps you don't understand my dissatisfaction
with government involvement because your state
does not require licensure. You don't have the
kind of government involvement that I'm talking
about.

JEDilworth

2005-08-18, 11:53 am

I suppose you would have unlicensed pharmacists; unlicensed registered
nurses, unlicensed physicians. Let them all do their own thing. To hell
with the patients.

I personally don't have a problem with licensure. I just happen to live
in a state that doesn't require it. I think it would be a good thing to
have all the techs on the same footing and on the same page, frankly.

I assume you feel the same way about paying taxes, buying licenses for
your car, getting your driver's license, etc.?

I worked for an employer once (back in the 70's - hospital is torn down
and gone now, thank goodness) who hired someone without checking
credentials. She was doing diffs really slowly. It turned out she was
looking at the pictures of the white cells on the manual clicker counter
thingie. She didn't know a thing about lab work - yet she was able to
get a job! It was pitiful. At another job we had a tech who couldn't
even do a rapid strep test without screwing it up. He screwed up a lot
of other stuff, too, and eventually was fired. What is scary is that he
had worked at another hospital for 20 years, and was laid off because
they got rid of all their MLT's and kept their MT's.

I saw a MT student once who couldn't keep numbers straight. She had
severe dyslexia and somehow had gotten into lab work. It took six months
before the powers-that-be finally decided she wouldn't make a good tech
and kicked her out of the program.

I think licensure could have helped avoid all of the above.

Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP)
Microbiology

<nickzelinski@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124365001.320368.319890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> I come from a place where the government
> legislated and gave authority to our
> professional body to regulate and license
> technologists. And people running this
> body now see themselves as being there
> mainly to protect the public from
> malpracticing technologists.

Robert

2005-08-18, 5:55 pm

<nickzelinski@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124363140.618301.102350@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> John Gentile wrote:
a[vbcol=seagreen]
several[vbcol=seagreen]
it is[vbcol=seagreen]
> We had a similar situation in my place.
> Except, not so many technologists participated
> in writing the rules. And it came as a big
> surprise to me and many other technologists
> that the government has set up this licensing
> body for technologists.
>
> And many technologists, including myself, were
> upset about it.
>
> This new licensing body immediately imposed hefty
> membership fees. And my employer eventually had
> to tell all the technologists in the lab that they
> had to register with this organization because this
> was the government law.
>
> This new licensing body now says that their main
> madate is to protect the public against
> malpractice by technologists. And they claim that
> their authority is from the government, which is
> true of course.
>
> I'm against this kind of goverment involvement in
> professional organizations because it often sets up
> undemocratic situations. Some clique of professionals
> get the backing of the government. And then they start
> dictating to all the other not so organized professionals
> what they should do.
>
> Even when there are elections in these government-backed
> bodies, you often end up in a situation where the majority
> dictates to everybody else what to do. And they have no
> respect for minorities in their profession who perhaps
> would like to have more freedom and more autonomy in their
> work.
>
> Government involvment in professional organizations often
> has the effect of reducing rights and freedoms of
> professionals. It puts professionals into a straight-jacket
> where they all have to work and practice in the same way.
> And of course it reduces satisfaction for those professionals
> who want to have some freedom in how they work and study.
>

Let me be your sole backer here. I agree with your government involvement
take and I don't want to see what happened in Canada happen here in the US.
Healthcare in Canada is entirely government run. They have made all
healthcare professionals second class citizens and have eliminated all
choice. The working conditions are pathetic and they have no say. The
politicians are the ones who tell them what and how to do everything.

danthefan73@hotmail.com

2005-08-19, 9:00 am

JEDilworth wrote:
> I suppose you would have unlicensed pharmacists; unlicensed registered
> nurses, unlicensed physicians. Let them all do their own thing. To hell
> with the patients.
>
> I personally don't have a problem with licensure. I just happen to live
> in a state that doesn't require it. I think it would be a good thing to
> have all the techs on the same footing and on the same page, frankly.
>

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said
earlier in my posts.

I'm all for accountability, continuing
education, and licensing of health
professionals. And perhaps government
has some role to play in achieving these
goals. But I object to excessive government
involvement in these professional issues.

Not all government is bad. A democratic
government that balances people's rights,
freedoms, and obligations in a fair way is
good and necessary.

But there is such a thing as 'too much
government'. And you have too much
government, when the government becomes
dictatorial, intrusive, and unresponsive
to people's needs. And that's what I'm
afraid is happening now with government
involvement in regulating health
professionals.

For example, I find it hard to believe
that the healthcare standards are so
different in Ohio from those in Florida
that they need two different licensing
bodies. Why do technologists have to go
through all that bureaucratic hassle to
prove their competence, when they want to
change jobs and move from one state to
another?

This is what I call an intrusive government
that is unresponsive to the needs of medical
technologists.

I find it hard to believe that a national
organization like ASCP cannot help
technologists maintain their competence on
its own. Why do state governments have to
add another layer of bureaucracy and
effectively split up the job market for
technologists into small little pieces?

People, including technologists, have the
constitutional right and freedom to move
from one job to another and from one state
to another as they wish. And when state
governments begin to interfere with this
freedom through administrative barriers,
then people like myself are right to complain.

If people were not allowed to drive their car,
when they moved from one state to another.
If they had to prove that they can drive a
car every time they moved from one state to
another. Then how many people do you think
would complain that this is an unreasonable
government interference with their rights
and freedoms?

I think that virtually everybody who wants to
go from one state to another would complain.

The same is true in licensing health professionals.

I can understand that some state governments
know that there is a shortage of healthcare
workers. And I can understand that they want
to prevent movement of health professionals
graduating from their schools to other states.

But I think that setting up these administrative
barriers which interfere with people's freedom
of movement is unethical. And medical
technologists who care about their profession
and about their personal ethics should not be
participating in this.

Technologists who help their state governments
set up these administrative barriers are doing
a disservice to their profession. And they
should be ashamed of themselves.

sinister

2005-08-19, 5:58 pm

<danthefan73@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124457891.063177.172130@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> JEDilworth wrote:
>
> Perhaps you misunderstood what I said
> earlier in my posts.
>
> I'm all for accountability, continuing
> education, and licensing of health
> professionals. And perhaps government
> has some role to play in achieving these
> goals. But I object to excessive government
> involvement in these professional issues.
>
> Not all government is bad. A democratic
> government that balances people's rights,
> freedoms, and obligations in a fair way is
> good and necessary.
>
> But there is such a thing as 'too much
> government'. And you have too much
> government, when the government becomes
> dictatorial, intrusive, and unresponsive
> to people's needs. And that's what I'm
> afraid is happening now with government
> involvement in regulating health
> professionals.
>
> For example, I find it hard to believe
> that the healthcare standards are so
> different in Ohio from those in Florida
> that they need two different licensing
> bodies. Why do technologists have to go
> through all that bureaucratic hassle to
> prove their competence, when they want to
> change jobs and move from one state to
> another?

This is the price we pay for federalism.

IMHO there's too much federalism in the economic sphere. The lack of
economies of scale which you refer to is just crazy, and it's hardly limited
to licensing of professionals.

> This is what I call an intrusive government
> that is unresponsive to the needs of medical
> technologists.
>
> I find it hard to believe that a national
> organization like ASCP cannot help
> technologists maintain their competence on
> its own. Why do state governments have to
> add another layer of bureaucracy and
> effectively split up the job market for
> technologists into small little pieces?
>
> People, including technologists, have the
> constitutional right and freedom to move
> from one job to another and from one state
> to another as they wish. And when state
> governments begin to interfere with this
> freedom through administrative barriers,
> then people like myself are right to complain.
>
> If people were not allowed to drive their car,
> when they moved from one state to another.
> If they had to prove that they can drive a
> car every time they moved from one state to
> another. Then how many people do you think
> would complain that this is an unreasonable
> government interference with their rights
> and freedoms?
>
> I think that virtually everybody who wants to
> go from one state to another would complain.
>
> The same is true in licensing health professionals.
>
> I can understand that some state governments
> know that there is a shortage of healthcare
> workers. And I can understand that they want
> to prevent movement of health professionals
> graduating from their schools to other states.
>
> But I think that setting up these administrative
> barriers which interfere with people's freedom
> of movement is unethical. And medical
> technologists who care about their profession
> and about their personal ethics should not be
> participating in this.
>
> Technologists who help their state governments
> set up these administrative barriers are doing
> a disservice to their profession. And they
> should be ashamed of themselves.
>

nickzelinski@hotmail.com

2005-08-21, 8:53 am

sinister wrote:
>
> This is the price we pay for federalism.
>
> IMHO there's too much federalism in the economic sphere. The lack of
> economies of scale which you refer to is just crazy, and it's hardly limited
> to licensing of professionals.
>

I suppose my point is that medical
technologists didn't have to pay this price
until recently. It's only recently that
state governments and some medical
technologists went on a bureaucratic spree.
And it's only recently that they put up
licensing barriers between states which make
it difficult for technologists to move around
and look for work.

And this price for federalism medical
technologists have to pay is a lot more
than what people in most other professions
have to pay.

If you are an engineer, a cook, a driver,
a research scientist, or a computer specialist.
Then you can go and work anywhere in the country
without much interference from the government.

Such a difference of course makes medical
technology less attractive for some people.
And perhaps this is one of the reasons why not
enough people want to go into this and other
health professions.

It's also one of the reasons why people are leaving
health professions before their retirement age.

Sometimes qualifying for a license in another state
is too much hassle. And I can imagine that some
health professionals, who have enough money and have
other opportunities open to them, end up leaving
their profession after they move to another state.

John

2005-08-21, 10:53 pm

Yes you are right about the fact that this is a recent development.
However I think we can trace it back to the CLIA debates and whether or
not we are professionals or plain ordinary lab technicians. If we
accept a result out of a machine and release it to the doc without
thinking then we are just techs. However if we do our job correctly and
analyze the whole lab test from start to finish and decide that the
specimen meets the correct criteria, is not hemolyzed, doesn't have any
interfering substances, and the instruments are working correctly, the
calibrations are correct, the quality control is correct, and the lab
value seems to fit for this patient (doing proper delta checks), well
then that adds much more science into the picture and thus we should be
considered professionals.

All this also leads up to whether we get low level tech pay or
professional pay.

John Gentile, MS M(ASCP)

nickzelinski@hotmail.com wrote:
> sinister wrote:
>
> I suppose my point is that medical
> technologists didn't have to pay this price
> until recently. It's only recently that
> state governments and some medical
> technologists went on a bureaucratic spree.
> And it's only recently that they put up
> licensing barriers between states which make
> it difficult for technologists to move around
> and look for work.
>
> And this price for federalism medical
> technologists have to pay is a lot more
> than what people in most other professions
> have to pay.
>
> If you are an engineer, a cook, a driver,
> a research scientist, or a computer specialist.
> Then you can go and work anywhere in the country
> without much interference from the government.
>
> Such a difference of course makes medical
> technology less attractive for some people.
> And perhaps this is one of the reasons why not
> enough people want to go into this and other
> health professions.
>
> It's also one of the reasons why people are leaving
> health professions before their retirement age.
>
> Sometimes qualifying for a license in another state
> is too much hassle. And I can imagine that some
> health professionals, who have enough money and have
> other opportunities open to them, end up leaving
> their profession after they move to another state.

nickzelinski@hotmail.com

2005-08-22, 9:03 am

John wrote:
> Yes you are right about the fact that this is a recent development.
> However I think we can trace it back to the CLIA debates and whether or
> not we are professionals or plain ordinary lab technicians. If we
> accept a result out of a machine and release it to the doc without
> thinking then we are just techs. However if we do our job correctly and
> analyze the whole lab test from start to finish and decide that the
> specimen meets the correct criteria, is not hemolyzed, doesn't have any
> interfering substances, and the instruments are working correctly, the
> calibrations are correct, the quality control is correct, and the lab
> value seems to fit for this patient (doing proper delta checks), well
> then that adds much more science into the picture and thus we should be
> considered professionals.
>
> All this also leads up to whether we get low level tech pay or
> professional pay.

I have no problem with establishing higher
professional standards. And I have no problem
with clearing up the differences between medical
technologists and laboratory technicians.

But this should be done on the national level
through licensing organizations such as the ASCP.

When you establish many licesing bodies on the
local level. Then perhaps you solve the problem
of professionalism. But at the same time you
create another problem of licensing barriers
between the states that interfere with people's
freedom of movement.

People have a constitutional right to live and
work anywhere they want in the country. And when
they see that the government limits this right in
health professions such as the medical technology.
Then it's only logical to assume that many people
would not want to go into health professions just
for this reason. Nobody likes to have his or her
constitutional rights restricted by the government.

When you fix the problem of professionalism, then
you have to take care that you don't violate
people's rights. And you have to take care that
you don't make your profession so unattractive that
there won't be enough people to do the necessary work.

Robert

2005-08-22, 5:52 pm

<nickzelinski@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124705972.493293.80650@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> John wrote:
>
> I have no problem with establishing higher
> professional standards. And I have no problem
> with clearing up the differences between medical
> technologists and laboratory technicians.
>
> But this should be done on the national level
> through licensing organizations such as the ASCP.
>
> When you establish many licesing bodies on the
> local level. Then perhaps you solve the problem
> of professionalism. But at the same time you
> create another problem of licensing barriers
> between the states that interfere with people's
> freedom of movement.
>
> People have a constitutional right to live and
> work anywhere they want in the country. And when
> they see that the government limits this right in
> health professions such as the medical technology.
> Then it's only logical to assume that many people
> would not want to go into health professions just
> for this reason. Nobody likes to have his or her
> constitutional rights restricted by the government.
>
> When you fix the problem of professionalism, then
> you have to take care that you don't violate
> people's rights. And you have to take care that
> you don't make your profession so unattractive that
> there won't be enough people to do the necessary work.
>

That's the way government works is to act on a perceived threat.
The perceived threat was that unqualified workers were performing
incompetent testing. The Feds come along and sets minimum standards to have
every state happy and federal employees happy. In California those standards
were lowered and not raised by CLIA. You can work without a 4 year degree as
a CLS if you have work related experience now. There has been MLT instituted
in California for the first time ever.
The lowering of standards is to make it easier to get people into the
laboratory and the continued education is intended to have them assure
competence.
Maybe they will allow high school graduates do the work and have 24 hours of
continuing ed.
CLIA already has mandatory competency testing on the job. That should have
been enough. It is all over-kill and as you say a loss of freedom taken away
by the federal government.