Insurance Companies/ACR Accrediation

Do you know how soon the insurance companies will be requiring certification? We have kicked the idea around here, but no one seems in favor of it.

I don't believe that it is ethical for insurance companies to be dictating how our health care system is managed. Have tried the ACR and it was a huge waste of my time and the hospital's money. And the cost does not end once you are accreditied. There are annual fees and re-accreditation every 3(?) years or so.

I am in no way a proponent of insurance companies, but I must agree with them in ensuring accreditation of imaging facilities. Yes, remember mammography, and why the MQSA came about? It was because of the lack of quality care thrown at people; the substandard films; the misdiagnoses; the false positives/false negatives; the misdiagnoses… and the list goes on. Some one had to step in and stop the madness! And look at it now. I am not saying things are perfect, there is still room for improvement, but we are in a much better shape than before MQSA, even with the expense of getting there. When a facility is accredited, it means that its feet are held to the fire to uphold the quality standards as mandated by the FDA and the ACR. It ensures that patients (which we all become at some point or another) are receiving the best care possible, under those standards. Where radiation protection is concerned, it forces us to utilize the ALARA principle in order to minimize radiation dose for each radiologic exam. Accreditation also enforces accountability and responsibility. Sure it adds to the cost of healthcare, and the paperwork is mind boggling, but isn’t it the most wonderful feeling when you know that you have done all your very best in the name of patient care? This is just a small price to pay to ensure patient satisfaction and ultimately, patient retention. Isn’t it a wonderful feeling when you read that glowing letter from a patient that cannot say enough about how wonderful the technologist was, and how caring and professional the facility staff was, and how quickly the report was generated, or follow-up care was given, etc., etc.

These days, lay people are more educated about their healthcare than in the past. They are told to seek out accredited facilities to have their exams done, and they are doing so.

Cheryl Duncan, M.A.S. (RT) (R) (M)

I agree that accreditation is necessary and do not agree that it is a waste of time. i wish my facilty was interested in doing accreditation. MQSA was done for a reason, only wish that it had been done for all imaging and radiation therapy. do all of you know about the CARE bill? Do all of you realize that all states DO NOT HAVE minimum standards for imaging operators? The state where Shane works is Georgia, they do not have minimum standards required. And yes there are hospitals, even, where RTs are not hired to do our jobs. It is not required. Michigan, Idaho, Oklahoma, Alabama, and others make up 9 states and the District of Colombia that have nothing. even for Radiation therapy. You can add Ultrasound and MRI to the list for minimum standards as well. No state regulates them since there is no ionizing radiation in those modalities. So all technologists need to get on board with this, we have licensure for a reason and it needs to be available to all patients in all of the states.

Lorenza Clausen, RT
CSRT Director at Large
Legislative Chair

It would be nice that beside equipment standards the insurance companies start demanding that the employees meet certification standards as well, so the current RT’s that are doing CT, MRI, Mamo, NM and other modalities and have no registry will either take the registry or find something else to do. It is about time that the bar is raised on that as well.