Comments on: Single Certification Means Good-bye to Med Techs (MTs) and Clinical Lab Scientists (CLSs)!

By: Emmanuel

Emmanuel — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:01:55 +0000

You see the MD’s have cunningly done it again by pulling one of the only independent certifying agency for MT’s and crushing it by the pretext of a merger. NCA was supposed to be the one to pull all the ASCP certifiants to it’s side and request that they drop the P or pathology from their new name. But NO! The doctors, whose only role to go to medical school is to come out and make money at the expense of MT’s prevented our voice to be heard. It is disgusting and a shame that after 23 years as an MT, my little sister who just graduated from an associate degree RN nursing program, should be making the same or more money than me. I feel that laboratory medicine should start offering a professional doctorate program in Clinical Laboratory Medicine, whereby graduates are trained in both anatomy and the clinical laboratory. In that way, the MD’s are kept completely out of the laboratory and only then can we have a voice coming from within the laboratory. As it stands now, the anatomic paths are read by cytotechs, but signed off by MD’s. When that day comes whereby a unique laboratory professional not called an MD could sign an anatomic path report, then will the laboratory be independent of doctors.

By: LT

LT — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:19:11 +0000

For what it seems to be worth now, I am an ASCP certified MLT based on a quarter system, 2 yr degree and I have steadily seen everyone with a HS diploma to a 4 yr biology major be able to work and supervise a laboratory, inclusive of waived, mod and high complexity.

How disappointing that all that theory and experience I have, 18 yrs worth, seems to be reduced to an ABC-123 mentality. I see healthcare workers from other disciplines stepping into the allied laboratory positions, yet these same professionals in their fields have their own credentialing required to work their fields. It really hurts to see my field taken with so little regard to education, training and dedication by everyone, save the poor tech. You can call that certification most anything, what the Laboratory Professional needs is some real bite on the recognition and representation of what our field represents, exactly.

By: Juan

Juan — Thu, 19 May 2011 16:36:59 +0000

Well, I have always argued about the A(American) S(society)c(clinical)p(patholgy/pathologist,i.e. MD, Boss). It is a ruse to think until we get our own national certifying agency, not self-serving agency, that we wil be anything other than second class people in the hospital. I believe an independent agency (Health/ Human services etc.) should qualify MT’s and not some agency that has a monetary reason for keeping the pay low as well as recognition. I WAS certified by ASCP as a MT, but after 5 years or so, (now MT for 30+years) I became disenchanted with the registry and became unregistered period. So what? What are they going to do, fire me? No, because most hospitals don’t even know there is a certification for MT’s. Good Luck with this “merger.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:21:32 +0000

As a former Medical Technologist and Current RN, let me tell you that until the laboratory is governed by laboratorians and their is one standard way of being certified, the laboratory is going to get the short end of the stick.

RN’s have to graduate from a school of nursing. Med Techs can get all most any kind of or combination of a science background degree, apply for cert., and get a job.

Unlike the idea of HEW and other methods of entry for Techs, there is no grandfathering in for nurses. Either you have the degree or you don’t.

Techs have to get it together and get unified. I’m sory that there are people on this site that feel that they’ve been left behind, but Tech’s have to continue to push forward, leaving old ideas behind and make waves in the profession if they want to be considered relevant.

By: paul

paul — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 19:22:03 +0000

The fact is, the more education you have, the better off you are……always in this very tiny insignificant world. In the end, everyone of us will have our eyelids and lips sewn together so we can’t argue about or view the tiny professional bothersome trifles that exist between some of us here on earth. I hope you all have a better day. Remember this: If humans really loved each other and GOD the way we should, we would never require any type of medicine and all this bickering and chaos would never exist. It is interesting to also note that inspite of all this “technology” we have the most obesity and chronic disease per capita on the planet. What are we really striving for fellow scientists? We should look into ourselves first for the answers we seek.

By: Pat

Pat — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:28:43 +0000

I have read all the comments. My case is different, I come from California and live now in Michigan. I applied for both licenses, the California certification and the ASCP, but was only allowed to take the California exam because I did not have the 6 years experience required in the country. I was told that the California certification was the hardest in the country and would be accepted everywhere.
I had 16 years of experience,including several years a supervisor. Then my family moved to Michigan where I have not been able to work in a laboratory for several years now. No one wants to hire me but the big hospitals downtown allow the Canadian workers to work without certifications from the States, what is the logic here?

By: Elaine B

Elaine B — Fri, 21 May 2010 18:36:57 +0000

As a medical laboratory student, I now realize that I have a lot of work to do. There are so many complaints about a lack of respect and pay that I feel that this attitude surrounds the profession. I pose this question, Why do you not change this yourselves? For example, women have the right to vote because women fought against overwhelming odds. I am glad there is a single licensing agency now, and glad that it’s ASCP. From an outsiders point of view, it seems the more reputable of the two.

It seems that there is more complaining here, than actual organizing.
“If you don’t like something, change it. If you can’t change it, change your attitude. Don’t complain.” Maya Angelou

By: RS Boydston

RS Boydston — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:49:59 +0000

I despise ASCP for many of the aforementioned reasons and therefore chose to be certified by AMT as an MT. I see no further reason to continue any education in this field. I have been an MT for almost two decades now and have seen no positive change in this field. I have watch several Universities close and the quality of MLTs from tech schools decline. Pay is substandard but respect from other hospital personnel is non-existent. RNs no nothing of lab techs and consider us all idiots. Most lab administrators perpetuate this by not defending our interests. I truly believe this IS a dieing field. In Georgia to (apparently) address the shortage of MTs state govt decided to repeal legislation that forbids OJT of lab techs. This will only perpetuate other hospital’s poor impression of lab professionals. Unless something seriously significant changes soon, I see no further reason to stay in this field. The ASCP NCA merger will do little since there are still several other certification agencies. It is true to form for ASCP thinking they are the one and only.

By: labrat

labrat — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:47:02 +0000

Well we want a certification and organization that is not led by the pathologists to take the lead…but look at the results you get when people ask about the ONE known group that does just that–AMT??? If someone says they are AMT certified, the ASCP techs jump all over them for being “less educated” or “less qualified”. I just liked the idea that the group was about ME and my job, not about the lab, the pathologist or endless QC! Plus it was CHEAPER to be a freaking member and to keep up my cert!

BY the way, AMT requires a bachelors for the MT as well….it doesn’t have to be in MTechnology, but you do have to have a bachelors.

By: MMarie

MMarie — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:20:17 +0000

Hey Jean I feel your pain, I also took the HEW exam. In fact I took it in 1987 the last time it was offered right after getting my AAS in clinical lab. I also took the ASCP MLT and the NCA CLT. I was told at the time that the HEW certification gave me the title of Medical Technologist. That is what I have been for 23 years now. I have been in several supervisory positions including as a Lab manager and currently am a technical supervisor. Today I was informed that the hospital I work at has decided to raise the pay of the MT’s and Phlebotomists, leave the MLTs at current pay rate and I will now be considered an MLT because my two associates degrees, 23 years and HEW does not qualify me to be called an MT. Now I have to wonder what next? Will they decide I am suddenly not qualified to be a supervisor despite my years of experience? And now I am paid less than the tech with a BS in fine arts because she qualified to take the AMT MT exam. I love my job but have to wonder what the future holds for me and other HEW MT’s

By: Tim

Tim — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 05:48:40 +0000

This thread is just full of misinformation. Art and Gigi are way off.

First off, its AMT and AAB are the certs that do NOT require a Bachelor’s degree. Both NCA and ASCP did/do. For you to say otherwise is just flat out wrong.

Second yes, NCA had routes for you to become a CLS if you had a bachelors degree in another area (IE Biology, Chemistry) accompanied with experience and/or an AS MLT degree, but so did ASCP. Their routes were VERY similar. The only major difference was ASCP required more experience in an area, but otherwise the route was the same.

To say it “degrades” the certification for the two to combine is absolutely ridiculous. You had to fulfill those requirements to be able to take the certification test and again it was similar for both certs.

By: Gigi

Gigi — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:10:03 +0000

I agree with Rick and Art. Why are we still under the Pathologists and not our own organization and certification? I have a niece that just got out of Radiology school and is making starting out what I’m making after being in this field for 20 years. I love being a MT but with this merge, I feel like we are being degraded if there is no difference between degreed and non-degreed techs. I worked hard to get a BS and still not even close to the salary that RN’s make. Somethings got to change and I don’t think this merge is it.

By: hiral

hiral — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:24:18 +0000

I would like to comment on other peoples view here that bs in mt is not required for the exam! actually anybody having science background should be eligible to take the test. And i am an nca certified and my test was not at all simple! that is why nca and ascp are called equivalent and are merged together. And i believe if somebody can pass nca he/she can pass ascp and vice versa.

By: hiral

hiral — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:12:21 +0000

After serving this field for 4 years my salary range has not been changed. Paying far less in comparison to other healthcare field and doing the same amount of work with stress.
Another thing i have noted that ascp has very stringent application process in comparison to other agencies like nca. I did not like the merge, at least people have other options not only ascp.
And if you want to merge why dont you make only one agency because there are other agencies exit after this also.
And so true we need to eliminate doctors influence in this field and make it independent. After all this is a critical field like other health care fields.

By: RICK

RICK — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:12:17 +0000

Our field is the lowest paying ancillary profession, a BSMT gets paid lower than a AS RN. So your saying this will merger will help the field? WRONG!!

We have MD influence in our field, that is why we are paid terrible, we need to take care of our own field and not have the ASCP logo with LABORATORY SCIENCE.

RN, PT, Pharmacy, have NO MD influence, they are paid well. They take care of their own certification and licensing board. There is no MD influence.

Our field will forever be a stepping stone to better paying fields like pharmacy, physical therapy.

I had 24 people graduate with me in my CLS/MT program, only two are left (myself included). I am trying to get into pharmacy schools were they have standards, no MD influence, and one of the highest paying ancillary fields out there.

This field will always have a shortage, the new BOC, has 5 MD on the board, do we have lab techs on a MD board? How is having MD’s going to help our career by attracting students and increasing salaries so people would want to stay in the field?

Good luck, as you see more hospitals are hiring MLT’s b/c the students at the university levels are interesting in a field with potential not a dead end field like the laboratory were the MD’s could care less if a chimp or human was pushing buttons as long as they can lace their own pockets.

By: Jean Heil Otte, MT (AAB)

Jean Heil Otte, MT (AAB) — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:19:52 +0000

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all the different Laboratory Registeries could merge together as one and not just ASCP-NCA. Why is AAB not included in this merger?

As a Registered Medical Technologist (AAB) who passed the HEW testing offered in the ’80′s and fall under the CLIA “88 guidelines, with over 35 years experience working in the Medical Laboratory field I feel ostracized by NCA and ASCP because they will not recognize Medical Technologists like myself. There is already a shortage of good Medical Technologists (CLS) and the merger of ASCP and NCA will just increase the shortage of good Medical Technologists (CLS).

I graduated from Gradwohl School of Laboratory Technique and have 35 years of Laboratory experience and I resent that because I do not have a Bachelors degree I should not be considered a Medical Technologist or CLS. I have gone from being a technician, to passing the HEW that quilfied me to be considered a Medical Technologists under CLIA ’88 and for the last 9 years worked as a Laboratory Director in a County Hospital.

Technologists like myself have 10 to 15 years yet to work in the Lab field before we retire, but with the ASCP-NCA merger Techs like myself will be forced out or only be accepted as Medical Technicians or CLT’s, which is unfair after serving the Laboratory profession for over 35 years. Where is the respect and acknowledgement from ASCP and NCA to these people who have served the Laboratory Profession with such dedication?

By: Le Ann Watson, MSA,MT(ASCP)

Le Ann Watson, MSA,MT(ASCP) — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:58:30 +0000

Standardization of the certification will simplify and clarify the laboratory professional to the “outside world”. However, I feel somewhat like “Art” who commented on the equality of background for MT vs NCA. I knew of some laboratory personnel in the past who could not pass the MT ASCP exam so went for the NCA and became certified.

By: René J. Buesa, BSc. HTL(ASCP)

René J. Buesa, BSc. HTL(ASCP) — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:48:46 +0000

It is about time that this finally happened in the US.
From that point of view we just were a “third world country” and our colleagues of the British Commonwealth just did not understand how was it possible the enormous and unnecessary diversity in our licensing system.
Also the lack of uniformity allowed irregularities in hiring practices and salaries in the US. That will come to an end.
René J. Buesa

By: art

art — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:31:10 +0000

I dislike NCA since even though you dont have BS in CLS or MT, you can still take the exam and then be classified as a MT. In my opinion that just lowers the standards for the rest of us. Decreases our pay and basically tells me that anyone with a BS degree can do what we do.