This week the topic of mandatory credentialing for medical transcriptionists is again in the forefront, with an article in the For The Record publication. The MT Credentialing Debate takes a look at the issue through interviews with several people, and actually covers those on both sides of the issue. I hope you will go read it. Oh and did I mention? I’m also one of those who was interviewed. :)

What I found pretty consistent to what we have seen so far is that those who advocate for mandatory credentialing are some medical transcriptionists and the representatives from associations. The employer who was interviewed spoke to those things we know: The buyers really don’t care if the workforce is credentialed, and as a result, nobody wants to pay more for it.

I still believe it’s about a compelling story, one that speaks to WHY a credentialed MT is better than one who isn’t. And it’s not just about the words in the story. That story has to be backed up with some hard data that shows a real difference. For example, do we really know that CMTs make fewer errors? Do we have data that shows CMTs send fewer reports to QA for help and thus using a CMT reduces turnaround time? Collecting that kind of data would be valuable information to have. Until then, I’m skeptical that lawmakers will really listen to us just saying people should be credentialed because “they provide better documentation.” It’s like the old Burger King Commercials: Where’s the beef?

How about it? What do you say?