Welcome to Health Care POV | sign in | join
The XY Files in an MT World

The Visible Black Character Debate Continues

Published August 25, 2009 10:40 AM by Jay Vance
My colleague and fellow blogger Julie Weight recently wrote an article revisiting the visible black character (VBC) method of measurement recommended by the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) and the Medical Transcription Industry Association (MTIA). Julie’s comments came on the heels of the publication of an article entitled “Buyer Be Aware” in For The Record magazine’s online edition, which examines the current state of VBC adoption in the industry. The VBC method has been touted as an easily verifiable means of measuring transcription production. The question remains, though, of whether or not VBC is really any more impervious to manipulation than other counting methods.  

From the standpoint of defining a unit of measure, there’s no question in my mind that VBC is a vast improvement over other counting methods. What you see is literally what you get. However, there’s more to measuring than simply defining a unit of measure. There’s also the question of determining what exactly is being measured, what instrument is being used to do the measuring, and an equivalent cost per unit.

The only foolproof way to verify a VBC count is to manually count visible characters in a report, which is not practical in the real world. In actual practice, VBC counting is done by software, with its inherent potential for manipulation. In order to ensure that clients can duplicate the character counting methodology used by a transcription provider, both parties would need to use the exact same software application in the exact same manner. This application would need to be supplied by a neutral third party, not by the service provider.

But even after ensuring that the measuring methodology can be exactly duplicated by both provider and client, there still remains the issue of agreeing on how much of the commodity being provided is subject to measurement and remuneration. In the case of medical transcription specifically, is the client paying for the information contained in document headers and footers? What about demographic information that may be automatically populated into the document by the transcription platform?

As if that weren’t enough, there’s yet one other issue to be resolved, and that is setting a cost per VBC that will result in the client paying and the provider receiving the same net compensation for the work being performed. I’m old enough to remember the 1970s when there was a push for the U.S. to begin converting to the metric system of measurement. Needless to say, much attention was focused on the issue of converting one unit of measure to another; if the speed limit is 65 mph, what’s that in kilometers per hour?

Likewise, if an MT service has been charging 12 cents for a 65-character line including spaces, what is an equivalent charge per visible black character? Obviously a conversion formula must be devised in order to set the baseline cost per unit, which is yet another opportunity for potential manipulation to occur. The process of determining an equivalent price per unit must be carried out in a totally transparent fashion in order for both client and provider to be satisfied that the cost of providing transcription remains the same even though the counting methodology has changed.

Not only is it important that there be transparency between service provider and client with regard to setting a price per VBC, the same is also true when it comes to setting compensation for transcriptionists. One of the primary reasons many MTs have been skeptical of the move to a VBC counting methodology is the fear that in the process their net compensation will be cut. This is particularly true if spaces have been included in the line count methodology MTs have been accustomed to using.

When all is said and done, the fact is that there’s no process that can’t be manipulated to one degree or another. I personally believe that the VBC unit of measure is a positive development, but by no means is it foolproof. Adopting a new unit of measure does not ensure honesty in the marketplace; only an unstinting commitment to ethical behavior on the part of all parties involved will do that.

2 comments

Thanks for your comment, Alisha. I think it's important to point out that ALL of the current counting methods--gross lines, lines with spaces, lines without spaces, characters, etc.--are really just mechanisms (and imperfect ones at that) designed to put a value on what it is that transcriptionists do. The issue isn't really whether a counting method includes spaces, or how a line is defined, or whether an MT gets paid for headers and footers. What really matters at the end of the day is whether or not MTs are being fairly compensated for the work they do. So when it comes to converting to the VBC counting method, the fact that VBC doesn't count spaces isn't a problem AS LONG AS the VBC rate is set so that the MT is getting paid the same as if she were being compensated by the line including spaces. The compensation RATE is the key. It wouldn't matter if MTs got paid only for typing the letter "e" as long as the RATE for typing each "e" was set high enough so that in the end you get paid the same as if you were getting paid for typing every letter.

The other problem with getting hung up on whether or not we get paid for spaces is the issue of canned text, macros, etc. If you make getting paid for every keystroke the hill you're willing to die on, what do you do about the text that you DON'T type? Why should we get paid for text we don't type? The answer is that MTs should be fairly compensated for producing accurate transcripts in a timely manner, period. It really doesn't matter what arbitrary mechanism is used to satisfy the client's need to quantify what they consider a commodity (transcription), as long as at the end of the day the MT is treated fairly.

Jay Vance August 27, 2009 9:44 AM

While the VBC might, as so explicitly related by Mr. Vance, MIGHT be a positive development, payment for medical transcriptionists by VBC seems to be asking us to "give away" a goodly number of keystrokes by not being paid for usage of spacebar, carriage return (enter key), bold/unbold, underline/un-underline, etc.  In one document, I counted 14 words in a line--there were 12 spaces in that line until it wrapped to the next line.  VBC counting does not account for that keystroke.

As well, when "editing" speech recognition transcription, MTs are using keystrokes that are certainly not VBC strokes but require a lot of highlighting and deletion of extraneous information and reformatting, creating headings, numbered lists, and more; sometimes requiring more time to edit the document than it would take to transcribe it.

Certainly, we need a valid means for accurate line counting, but I agree with Jay that the VBC is not a foolproof method nor does it currently seem to address the adequate payment for those transcribing the dictation.  

I also agree that "only an unstinting commitment to ethical behavior on the part of all parties involved" will ensure honesty in the marketplace.

Thank you, Jay!

Alisha Henri CMT, Medical Transcription - QA Mentor, Webmedx, Inc. August 26, 2009 10:35 PM
Chickamauga GA

leave a comment



To prevent comment spam, please type the code you see below into the code field before submitting your comment. If you cannot read the numbers in the image, reload the page to generate a new one.

Captcha
Enter the security code below:
 

Search

About this Blog


    Jay Vance, CMT
    Occupation: Medical Transcription Industry Consultant
    Setting: Yuma, AZ
  • About Blog and Author

Keep Me Updated