Re: Dosimetry

[Jim Abraham <jimabe@lamar.colostate.edu>]

Bob Flood wrote:
> 
> A relevant point here is that most of the items mentioned above are fixed
> cost items, and they seem to have gotten lost in this discussion.
> 
> Most of the cost of operating a dosimetry program has nothing to do with
> the length of the monitoring period. The number of readers needed to
> process the dosimeters in the time alloted is the same whether the period
> is monthly or quarterly. Same for the number of people required to get the
> processing done, the computers that control laboratory processes, the
> software for process control - these all cost the same no matter how often
> they are exercised. The software that prints the dose reports costs the
> same to develop whether it is run monthly or quarterly. The reduction in
> expense for paper that comes from switching to quarterly is a small
> fraction of the overall cost of doing dosimetry.

I disagree with your overall assessment.  Bottom line - Pricing relies
on income generated.  To suggest that software development, computer
use, number of readers employed, personnel required for the service,
etc. justifies an increase when moving from monthly to quarterly is in
my opinion, bull.  AGAIN, the drop in work given to the vendor is so
significant that pricing should reflect the decreased workload.  (I'm
sot saying that unit prices should be lower, but there should be a
significant price break.  I think of some explanations I've heard thus
far as a nice tidy excuse to justify the increase for the REAL reason as
to which you state below.
> 
> A dosimetry company is like any other service company - it has to generate
> enough income when it provides its services to survive and therefore be
> available to provide the service again in the future. Services obviously
> can survive on the income from monthly processing, but cutting that income
> substantially because of a switch to quarterly processing can't work
> (unless the company was doing monthlies at an enormous profit and can
> afford to absorb the drop in income despite having the same capital
> investment and labor costs). Three months of work has to generate enough
> income to keep the company running for three months; a change from monthly
> badging to quarterly really cannot be expected to make a huge difference in
> the quarterly cost to the customer.

Bob, as I've said in my previous posts, I am all for offering a fair
price to the vendor.  I understand about running a business as I have
run my own at one point.  I do agree that the vendor needs to stay in
business by increasing the unit costs of badges to account for
decreasing revenue.  My problem is that the pricing should be fair. 
What's fair ?... a 52% increase as one RADSAFER reported to me...  OR
...  a greater than 300% increase which I saw on my last statement. 
This is lopsided !!!  How about it RADSAFERS ?  Are you paying a 300%
increase in unit price of a badge for quarterly service (compared to
monthly)?? Are you paying more or less ??  

By the way, my views reflect those of my employer who is not happy with
our pricing at this point.

-- 
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
James P. Abraham
Alt. Radiation Safety Officer
Radiation Control Office - Environmental Health Serv.
Colorado State University - Fort Collins, CO 80523-6021

Phone: 	(970) 491-3928		Fax: 	(970) 491-4804
email: 	jimabe@lamar.colostate.edu
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

> 
> Bob Flood
> Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
> bflood@slac.stanford.edu
> (650) 926-3793
> 
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html