Since about 1994 off and on and about 15 minutes
Posted By: darwin on 2005-07-08
In Reply to: Congrats! How long have you been a MLS and how long did you study for the test! - anon
I've been a transcriptionist off and on for years, probably 5-6 years FTE. I've always thought about getting the certification, but it used to be somewhat involved to do the testing. Of course, it's always been expensive with limited payoff.
I was applying for jobs about a month ago, and all the potential employers asked if I had my CMT. That tells me they think it is worth something even if we, the workerbees, don't.
I didn't really study for it. I opened my notebook and looked at Latin/Greek pluralizaiton rules, and then put the book down. I figured if I didn't know it yet from my day to day work and from college, I wasn't going to be able to learn it in time. Really, I don't know how a person could study for it. The questions came from such a broad area. I really think AAMT has come up with a good test.
I'm glad I took it, and I will do the CEs to keep the designation and to make me better at what I do.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Hospital account since 1994
nn
1994 Jaguar -- love it.
Oldie but goodie.
Hey FC girl--I graduated in 1994 at FCHS
/
Camaros..three 1994, 1998, and 1999 and a truck,
Chevy truck 2005
in 1994 I typed IME reports and was paid $5.00 per page, wish I had that now!
nm
I have not had a raise since 1994, should I blame Clinton or Bush? At any rate, see inside...
Musky Income Myths
by Alan Reynolds
Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and a nationally syndicated columnist.
Democratic presidential candidates advocating really humungous tax increases -- Howard Dean and Wesley Clark (until he withdrew on Feb. 11) -- appear to have lost ground to two favoring merely enormous tax increases, John Kerry and John Edwards. It would seem to follow the latter two should rethink their plans before challenging the only candidate who thinks tax rates are plenty high enough, George W. Bush. Amazingly, however, the Democrats are pulling out the old "income inequality" card. It worked so well for George McGovern and Walter Mondale.
Business Week says Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards "believe a Democrat can repeal top-tier Bush tax cuts with impunity because income inequality has widened under Bush." Taking a less partisan and more statistically defensible line, the Socialist Equality Party says, "Until the Bush administration, the Clinton years saw the greatest growth in social inequality in American history."
Such claims suggest the top 20 percent, or 5 percent of families, have been collecting a rising share of "our" personal income -- hence "income inequality has widened under Bush." Any candidate who says that has to be lying. The latest available data on income shares is for 2001, and they show no increase in inequality.
The recession was no picnic for top earners: There were 690,000 fewer managerial jobs in 2002 than in 2000. If these cash income figures included capital losses, they would reveal ample pain among "the rich" in 2001-2002. The poverty rate did rise from 9.2 percent to 9.6 percent in 2002, but that was still lower than the poverty rate in any year from 1980 to 1998.
To defend President Clinton from socialist egalitarians, prolonged increases in real output per worker (like 1996-2000) translate into increases in real income per worker. Since there are typically two workers in top income groups and less than one full-time worker in the bottom income group, it is mathematically unavoidable that the gap between two-earner families and no-earner families must grow wider whenever the economy is doing well. Real median income among families with two full-time workers was 43.6 percent higher in 2001 than it had been in 1991 -- an annual increase of nearly 4.4 percent a year. Families with no full-time workers did not do that well.
Most important, it is simply a statistical hoax to make long-term comparisons between the average (mean) income in any top income group with averages in lower groups. That is partly because the upper threshold on the group just below the top rises over time whenever real incomes in general are rising. As a result, increases in general prosperity mean incomes that once would have been large enough to make it into the top 5 percent no longer qualify.
Census figures say the top 5 percent collected 21 percent of all personal income in 2001, up from 20.3 percent in 1993. Measured in constant 2001 dollars, however, a family needed more than $164,104 to be counted among the top 5 percent in 2001, while anything above $136,539 would have qualified in 1993.
So long as that threshold kept rising, the share at the top was almost certain to rise, too. After all, an average of all income above $164,104 is almost certain to be larger than an average of all income above $136,539 simply because all incomes between those two figures were included in the top average in 1993 but excluded in 2001.
For the same reason, it makes no sense to compare long-term growth of average income in any top income group with growth below. Only the top group has no income ceiling, and the lower threshold defining membership in that top group rises whenever incomes in general are rising.
Because only the top group has no ceiling, increases in a small number of very high incomes (e.g., trial lawyers) can make the mean average in the top group rise much more than the incomes of typical members of that group. This is why it is considered misleading to refer to mean rather than median income as "average" in every other case, and why it is particularly misleading in this case.
Rising real income also raised the definition of the "middle class." The lower and upper limits defining the middle three-fifths were $20,262 to $64,241 in 1975 (in 2001 dollars) and $24,000 to $94,150 in 2001. Periodic fables about the "vanishing middle class" miss the obvious: Those who "vanished" moved up.
The main reasons some families earn more than others are not as shocking as politicians would have you believe. Consider these horribly shocking Census Bureau facts about inequality:
Families with two people have incomes at least 3 times larger than families in which nobody works. Median family income in 2001 was $51,407. But that figure combines median income of $21,958 among families with no workers and $66,151 among families with two earners. Among married couples where both work full-time, median income was even higher -- $76,150.
Mature, experienced employees earn at least 3 times as much as they did when they were young apprentices and trainees. Average family income was $16,014 among families in which the household head was younger than 24, but $45,978 when the household head was 45 to 54.
College grads earn at least 3 times as much as middle-school dropouts. For family heads with a bachelor's degree, median income was $78,518; for those with less than a ninth-grade education, median income was $25,077.
If all this rampant inequality strikes you as grossly unfair, you should indeed consider electing politicians promising to do something about it. But they can't really do much unless they promise to take money from two-earner families and give it to no-earner families, to take money from those who go to college and give it to those who didn't bother attending a free high school, and to take money from those who are at an age where they're trying to put the kids through college and give it to those in their early 20s.
The taking half of that policy is a reasonably precise description of who indeed would have their pockets picked under the tax plans of Messrs. Kerry, Edwards (and Clark). In whose pockets the expected booty would actually end up, however, is apt to prove as mysterious as figuring out what Mr. Dean did with all those millions he collected with Internet spam
I used to say he nursed for 30 minutes every 30 minutes. I was trying to figure
out a way to strap him across my chest so he could help himself while I went about whatever it was I had to do. I really miss those days too.
ATT- I was paying $320 for 7000 minutes, I am now paying $175 for 5000 minutes in CA. nm
nm
It has taken me 20 minutes to look up
addresses for one patient report. That's a whopping four lines there. Someone mentioned earlier making sure that the platform was user friendly. It's simple enough to use, but this looking up information has got to go if I'm going to make any money at all. I wish I could find something where I could just cruise. Any ideas on companies without all the extra research done for free?
60 minutes
Depending on which account but 60 minutes to me is about $100 to $175 for me. If it would be my surgeons would be over $200. Sure they did not mean for 60 minutes of transcribing -- $40 per hour? Even dividing by minute that is less than $1 per minute. Way too low.
So, you are saying then that 90 minutes sm
would take approximately 4.5 to 5 hours?
I think 60 minutes and all of you should
Enough already! I'm sorry, but quite frankly your energy could be spent on much more important issues than offshoring medical records. Let's bring the fathers and mothers home. There are still physicians/facilities that use U.S. MTs. JMO. 
minutes
Anywhere from 175-250 depending on account.
It's on again in about 45 minutes.
Should be, anyway.
i had an 800 # before and yes we had to pay for minutes used. sm
i am sure there are different options out there and this was 5+ years ago though. could you rerecord and send to her via net?
I just saw one a few minutes ago
x
I sent it to 60 Minutes
I sent the link to 60 Minutes. If I hear anything back, I will let you all know. Something needs to be done. To be truthful, I feel almost as bad for poor Indian workers being used by US companies and paid nothing, when they don't have the ability to do the job they are hired for. It's bad all around. I am sure there's plenty of work in their own country where they would at least be able to do a halfway decent job. It sure would spare us in the US having to re-do their reports before they are acceptable to send to clients.
5 minutes (nm)
nm
It took me 30 minutes to look-up a patient.
x
80-100 minutes of dictation
Can anyone tell me approximately how long 80-100 minutes of dictation takes to do with variables I know of a good or bad dictator but on average. A 60 minute microcassette tape on both sides of 120 minutes, is that something to compare this to? Thank you.
Mine only last 30-60 minutes,
but they sometimes come daily for a couple of weeks. My eye doctor said there's not much you can do for them.
Walking 30 minutes per day sm
with the dogs (all 160 pounds worth!) has my back and the leg cramps have nearly disappeared as well as the lower leg edema. I can actually sit longer now and don't need so much in the way of pain meds and no heating pad for the leg cramps. And other benefits too, lost 5 pounds, concentrate better, sleep better, fresh air.
"Oh, Mom" every ten minutes
/
Mine just had one a few minutes ago!
nm
I take on anywhere from 90-150 minutes almost every weekend - sm
every now and then I take off or take on less to give myself a break though and to be with the kids. They think I work all the time (which I do it seems) and are surprised when I don't. Trying to work smarter so I can spend more time with them, I don't want them to remember their childhood saying "well mom was always working". 
minutes vs. per line
I've always worked in-house radiology by the hour. Now, I'm considering going elsewhere but I have no idea what I average as far as lines/day. I know I average 15-20 minutes of dictation an hour, but what is that by the line? And what is a good radiology cpl pay with 4-5 years experience? Thanks for your input!
minutes vs. lines
In my experience, as I get paid per minute, depending on what you get paid per line, let's say anywhere 10-13 cents per line then by the line is the way to go especially if you have a lot of normal reports. I have a speedy radiologist and sometimes get paid nothing for a report because I barely get the name recorded and study recorded.
They just showed it about 5 minutes ago
They said Ryan gave the wrong number to punch when people called in and that they also heard he'd had two offers from well-known bands, including Van Halen.
Yesterday, I did 45 minutes in
an hour (that was my average through the day).
Up to 5 hours to do 60 minutes- since you have to -sm
look up stuff, etc. If it was straight typing I'd say 3-4 hours to do 60 minutes.
Wow! If you do 240 minutes of dictation in...
8 hours, that is great! Congratulations!
Where I work 90 minutes is FT- but I am an IC so - sm
it does not matter in terms of benefits. Though they are changing things some, basically if you work FT you get a better line rate than the PT people.....I am in-between (60-75 minutes a day depending on life) and luckily quite valued so I do okay.
OMG!!! Why do MT's come here and spew every 5 minutes?????
Go to work. Or something.
60 minutes of dictation
I take about 60 minutes of dictation each day and make between 50-60 dollars each day so yes, to me that is low.
60 minutes of dictation for $40
worth it or not?
1000 minutes
1000 minutes, 1000 lines at 65 characters
I think that is fair -- it is only 80 minutes in a day.
At my hospital, we have to type 120 minutes a day as our BASE!! We don't even get incentive until we PASS 120 minutes a day!
That's also 6 time turn around time.
minutes per hour sm
I am old school. I still cannot figure out how they can assume you can type so many minutes per hour when some dictators are horrible and some easy. I think quality has to be of utmost importance. How about the double speed tapes, some get twice as much on a small cassette as others and try explaining this to the docs, and boy do they know how to take advantage of you on this subject. Some won't understand, but the old timers will, you can dictate in either speed and they'll try to tell you it's only a "half tape" when they know they're getting twice as much on there. Shouldn't be "timed", it's quality that counts if you want to be worthwhile in this business IMHO.
What about minutes per hour/day?
Often times for me that is more consistent. Generally average ~140 minutes per day, but that can equal anywhere from 1200-1500 lines--a pretty big discrepancy, I think.
60 minutes had this on several years ago
60 minutes had a show about this a couple of years ago. I wrote to them several times but got no answers. They are having Indian physicians read MRI's x-rays, etc. If you think it is bad for health info to go over there, think about your tax forms going over there. Of course with the problems that have been going on here in the US with the VA and a couple of hospitals here in Oregon having patient information stolen, to me that is not the best argument. I simply tell the docs that if we don't keep the jobs here in the US, then no one is going to be in their waiting rooms. Hershey's just announced they are moving to Mexico to make their candy so it is not just us that is getting hit.
Missed 60 minutes but
I missed that show on 60 mintues but I am real close to Hershey as I live in the general area. Heck I used to work for Hershey Park many moons ago. Lots of people around here are refusing to buy any more Hershey's chocolate. Sales will decline even if they are making it for less money. There are other concerns as well. With what just happened to the pet food, around my parts people are stating that they will not eat candy made outside the U.S. for the same reasons. Quality control is not the same off U.S. soil.
Why count minutes??
I'm wondering why you would even bother with counting minutes. That really doesn't tell you anything. I have some docs who may show a 10 minute dictation and you only get one-and-a-half pages out of it because they have stopped and talked with someone on the phone or fell asleep, etc. Minutes don't have any bearing on the quota you type. In my opinion keep track of how many lines or characters you do in a day.
Minutes of dictation, help please
This is the first time I am on an account that gives you large files of work.
My questions are, what is an "average" number of minutes to transcribe a day? Is there a basic rule of estimating how long it takes to type a minute of dictation? What about a basic rule of lines in regards to minutes (X number of lines per hour of dictation, etc)?
I am back - I just did 70 minutes sm
My IT productivity says 12943 Keystrokes for 24447 characters - 1.89 per keystroke. It is a little misleading though because a lot of my production comes from AutoCorrect too - I have a billion things in there that were transferred from MedRite when I moved from that to DQS, so I still actually use it with IT. Also, four of the reports were stress tests that had templates from DQS but the rest of them were discharges, which have lots of typing and little template activity.
All together I did 391 lines in that 70 minutes. Why can't I do that all day long? 
Anyway - I *heart* my IT and think I could transcribe easier with a missing hand than a missing IT.
Minutes/hour
I know everybody measures their line counts by the hour, but I just had someone ask me how many minutes of dictation I could do in an hour. Really not sure. What would most of you say? I can usually crank out about 180 lines per hour when I actually sit down and type.
tracfone minutes
With Tracfone, if you have no minutes, you just don't use your phone. You don't have to buy a "minimum" number of minutes. You keep your same phone number. Just make sure you get more minutes on your phone by the date that shows on your phone. There have been times when I have run out of minutes and I just put the phone on the charger for the duration of being "minuteless." I also think that even if you hvae no minutes on your Tracfone, you can still make a 911 call. Check their website tho, to make sure. To activate your service, you can call or do it online. You need the number from the battery on your phone and it has to be fully charged. That is pretty much it.
130 lines in 15 minutes?
Wow! You are fast. That would be 530 lines an hour! I thought I was doing good at 250. At that rate you can make a lot of money, but I think it would burn me out typing that much every day.
PS: That's 'Sixty' Minutes! (Don't know
Minutes vs. lines
Can anyone please tell me what 75 minutes of dictation should yield in lines (65 char).
TIA
30 MINUTES OF DICTATION
Hello, I was wondering if you could tell me how long it takes you to transcribe 30 minutes of dictation. This is a clinic account that I will be transcribing 30-50 minutes of dictation M-F. I know that there are a lot of variables, inlcuding dictator speed and expanders, but on average how long does this amount of work take you? Thanks so much for your help!
dictation minutes
If anyone would have told me how much this could vary I would have never believed it. Currently I get paid by minutes. All very short reports and for each report we first capture patient info in the EMR, then transcribe in Word, and then save to correct folder in order for clerical to put back in the EMR. In addition, we have access to the EMR and are expected to put in any missing data, date of visit, attending, etc. 10 minutes an hour on average is a really good day, but bottom line for me is what do I average per hour and benefits. In this case, could be better but could be a lot worse.
|
