snmts national council of - amazon s3 › rdcms-snmmi › files › ... · snmts national council...

SNMTS National Council of Representatives

Thursday, June 2, 2011 8:00am – 3:00pm Grand Hyatt Hotel

Lonestar AB

1. Call to Order (8:00am – 8:15am)

A. Quorum Call, Secretary, Kathy Krisak, CNMT, FSNMTS

B. Welcome and Introductions, Speaker, Brenda King, CNMT, FSNMTS

C. Approval of Meeting Agenda and Standing Rules

i. ACTION: Approval of Meeting Agenda, Brenda King, CNMT, FSNMTS

ii. ACTION: Approval of Standing Rules, Brenda King, CNMT, FSNMTS

1. Standing Rules

D. Approval of Prior Minutes

i. ACTION: Approval of Minutes, Kathy Krisak, CNMT, FSNMTS

1. NCOR Minutes, March 17, 2011

2. NCOR Minutes, May 3, 2011

E. Review of Confidentiality Policy, Kathy Hunt, MS, CNMT

F. Special Acknowledgements, Kathy Hunt, MS, CNMT and Brenda King, CNMT, FSNMTS

2. Committee Reports and Items for Discussion (8:15 –10:00am)

a. Membership Committee, Kathy Krisak, CNMT, FSNMTS

i. ACTION: Approve SNMTS Student Transition Dues Proposal

b. Finance Committee, Cindi Luckett-Gilbert, MHA, CNMT, FSNMTS

i. Finance Committee Report

ii. Management Fee Task Force

1. Review Management Fee Proposal

2. ACTION: Approve Management Fee for FY2012

c. Program Committee, Ellie Zimmer, CNMT,NCT, RT(N)

i. ACTION: Approve New Abstract Submission Categories

ii. Mid-Winter Meeting Site Locations 2013 & 2014

iii. 2018 Annual Meeting Site Selection

a. ACTION: Approve Philadelphia as 2018 AM Site

iv. 2019 Annual Meeting Site Selection – Narrow Down Sites

d. Nominating Committee Update, Cybil Nielsen, MBA, CNMT

i. Announcement of National Election Results

ii. Announcement of NCOR Pre-Meeting Election Results

iii. NCOR On-site Election

1. Nominating committee

2. Director-at-Large

e. NMT Clinical Performance Standards, Kathy Hunt, MS, CNMT

i. ACTION: Approve NMT Practice Standards

f. Awards Committee, Anne Stachowiak-Fisher, BS, CNMT

i. Review Proposed New Advanced Certification Award

ii. ACTION: Approve New Advanced Certification Award

g. Specialty Area Representatives, Leo Nalivaika, CNMT, RT(N), MBA, FSNMTS

i. Review Report and Recommendation Regarding Specialty Area Representatives

h. Name Change Task Force, Kathy Hunt, MS, CNMT

i. Discussion of Name Change

i. 2020 Task Force, Kathy Hunt, MS, CNMT and Ann Marie Alessi, BS, CNMT, NCT

i. Review SWOT Analysis

j. Research Committee, Anthony Knight, MBA, CNMT, RT(N), NCT

i. Review Task Analysis Survey Results

k. CMSS Code of Interactions with Companies, Kathy Hunt, MS, CNMT

l. Nuclear Medicine Advanced Associate Council, Bill Hubble, MA, CNMT, FSNMTS

i. Update on Council Activities and Elections

ii. ACR Resolution

3. Break (10:00 – 10:15am)

4. Break-out Groups (10:15 – 11:30am)

A. Stable Supply of Medical Isotopes, Robert W. Atcher, PhD, MBA and Danny Basso,

CNMT, NCT, FSNMTS

B. Media Response to Radiation Exposure, Nanci Burchell, BS, CNMT, FSNMTS

C. SPECT/CT and PET/CT, George Pluchino, CNMT

D. Job Market, Rebecca Sajdak, CNMT, FSNMTS

5. Break For Lunch (11:30am – Noon)

6. Break-out Group Reports (Noon - 1:00pm)

A. Stable Supply of Medical Isotopes (Noon – 12:15pm) i. Summary

ii. Discussion

B. Media Response to Radiation Exposure (12:15 – 12:30pm) i. Summary

ii. Discussion

C. SPECT/CT and PET/CT (12:30 – 12:45pm) i. Summary

ii. Discussion

D. Job Market (12:45 – 1:00pm) i. Summary

ii. Discussion

7. Liaison Reports (1:00 – 2:00pm)

A. American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT), Jerry Reid, PhD

B. American Society for Radiologic Technologists (ASRT)

C. Education and Research Foundation (ERF), Peggy Squires, BS, CNMT, NCT

D. Intersocietal Commission for the Accreditation of Nuclear Laboratories

(ICANL), Mary Beth Farrell, MS, CNMT, NCT, FSNMTS

E. Joint Review Commission on Nuclear Medicine Technology (JRCNMT),

Jan M. Winn, CNMT

F. Nuclear Medicine Technology Certification Board (NMTCB), David J.

Perry, CNMT, PET, FSNMTS

G. Society of Diagnostic Medical Sonography (SDMS), Donald F. Haydon

CAE 8. Written Reports from the SNMTS Leadership (2:00 – 2:30pm)

A. Report from the NCOR Speaker, Brenda King, CNMT, FSNMTS

B. Report from the President, Kathy Hunt, MS, CNMT

C. Report from the President-Elect, Ann Marie Aless, BS, CNMT, NCT, RT(N)

D. Report from the SNM President, Dominique Delbeke, MD, PhD

E. Report from the SNM President-Elect, George Segall, MD

F. Report from the SNM Vice President-Elect, Fred Fahey, DSc.

G. Report from the Chief Executive Officer, Virginia Pappas, CAE

H. Report from the SNMTS Administrator, Nikki Wenzel-Lamb, MBA

9. Special Reports/Updates, Kathy Hunt, MS, CNMT

10. Written Informational Reports

A. Reports of the Chapter Delegates i. Central

ii. Eastern Great Lakes iii. Greater New York iv. Mid-Eastern v. Missouri Valley

vi. New England vii. Northern California

viii. Pacific NW ix. Pacific SW x. Pittsburgh

xi. Southeastern xii. Southwestern

B. Reports of the Specialty Area Representatives i. Cardiology

ii. Emerging Technologies

iii. Education iv. Manager v. Student

vi. Industry

7. Old Business

8. New Business

9. Adjournment (3:00pm)

10. Informational Items

a. Committee Reports

b. Informational Reports

11. Committee Minutes

12. Executive Board Minutes

Call to Order

Quorum Call

Welcome and Introductions

Meeting Agenda and Standing Rules

RESOLUTION FORM National Council of Representatives

June 2, 2011 ACTION ITEM: Approval of Meeting Agenda SUBMITTED BY: Brenda King, CNMT, FSNMTS Speaker of the National Council of Representatives PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Resolved, that the meeting agenda for the June 2, 2011

National Council of Representatives Meeting be adopted. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A BACKGROUND: Robert’s Rules of Order (current issue) provide that it is

customary to adopt an agenda for each session in organizations that meet less than quarterly. An Agenda requires a two-thirds vote (or unanimous consent) in order to be changed.

ACTION

DATE (year-mo-day)

AYES

NAYS

Unanimous

NOTES

Adopted

Defeated

Revised

Other

RESOLUTION FORM National Council of Representatives

June 2, 2011

ACTION ITEM: Approval of National Council of Representatives Standing

Rules SUBMITTED BY: Brenda King, CNMT, FSNMTS Speaker, National Council of Representatives PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Resolved, that the standing rules of the National Council of

Representatives be adopted for this meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A BACKGROUND: 30 minutes maximum of discussion of an item unless the

National Council votes to extend; acceptance of Robert’s Rules of Order; no one speaks twice until all who wish have spoken once

ACTION

DATE (year-mo-day)

AYES

NAYS

Unanimous

NOTES

Adopted

Defeated

Revised

Other

Approval of Prior Minutes

RESOLUTION FORM SNMTS National Council of Representatives

June 2, 2011 ACTION ITEM: Approval of March 17, 2011 SNMTS National Council

meeting Minutes SUBMITTED BY: Kathy Krisak, CNMT, FSNMTS SNMTS Secretary PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Resolved, that the minutes from the March 17, 2011 NCOR

meeting minutes be adopted. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A BACKGROUND: N/A SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: March 17, 2011, SNMTS NCOR meeting Minutes

ACTION

DATE (year-mo-day)

AYES

NAYS

Unanimous

NOTES

Adopted

Defeated

Revised

Other


Conference Call March 17, 2011

Minutes Members in Attendance: Brenda King, CNMT, FSNMTS; Kathy Hunt, MS, CNMT; Ann Marie Alessi, BS, CNMT, NCT, RT(N); Kathy Krisak, CNMT, FSNMTS; Danny Basso, CNMT, NCT, FSNMTS; Nanci Burchell, BS, CNMT, FSNMTS; Mark Crosthwaite; Elma Ferrer-McNeal, CNMT; Cindi Luckett-Gilbert, MHA, CNMT, FSNMTS; Seyed Mohammadi, CNMT,RT(N),PET, RT(CT); Leo Nalivaika, CNMT, RT(N), MBA; Frances Neagley, CNMT, FSNMTS; Cybil J. Nielsen, MBA, CNMT; George Pluchino, CNMT; Rebecca Sajdak, CNMT, FSNMTS; Anthony Sicignano, BS, CNMT, RT(N); Peggy Squires, BS, CNMT, NCT; Laura Wall, MBA, CNMT, NCT Members Not in Attendance: Lauren Cabral, BS, CNMT, RT(N)(CT); Chrissy Cook-Coe, BS, RT(R)(M)(N); Valerie Cronin, CNMT, FSNMTS; Marcia Hess-Smith, BS, CNMT; Steven Kantor, CNMT, RT(R)(N); Sheila Knepfle, CNMT, NCT; Anthony Knight, CNMT, NCT; Mike Kroeger, BHS, CNMT, NCT, PET; Nancy McDonald, CNMT; Nancy McDonald-Deloatch, CNMT; Lyn Mehlberg, BS, CNMT, FSNMTS; Laura Norman, CNMT, PET; Alison Ramos, MBA, CNMT, RT(N); Sherry Reuter, CNMT, NCT; Paul Reaume, BS, CNMT, NCT, RT(N); Kelly Reese; Lynne Roy, MBA, MS, CNMT, FSNMTS; Aaron Scott; John Sperrazza, CNMT; Ellie Zimmer, CNMT,NCT, RT(N); Guests in Attendance: Sara Johnson, MBA,CNMT, NCT; Kathy Thomas, MHA, CNMT, PET, FSNMTS; James Timpe, MS, RT (N)(MR) Staff in Attendance: Nikki Wenzel-Lamb, MBA I. Welcome and Call to Order

Brenda King, CNMT, FSNMTS, Speaker of the NCOR, called the National Council of Representatives (NCOR) conference call to order at 5:05pm. Kathy Krisak, CNMT, FSNMTS, SNMTS Secretary indicated that a quorum was not present. At 5:10pm it was established that there was a quorum.

II. Approval of Meeting Agenda and Minutes A motion was made to approve the March 17, 2011 conference call meeting agenda. It was moved, seconded and voted to approve the March 17, 2011 conference call meeting agenda. A motion was made to approve the minutes from the January 20, 2011 meeting. It was moved, seconded and voted to approve the minutes from the January 20, 2011 meeting.

III. Follow-up from Mid-Winter Meeting a. Executive Board vote on Checks and Balances Task Force,

Kathy Hunt, MS, CNMT, SNMTS President, reported that during the Mid-Winter Meeting the NCOR reviewed and approved the proposal from the Checks and Balances Task Force that would initiate a reporting structure to the NCOR from the Executive Board.

The Executive Board discussed this resolution in great details. During the discussion, it became evident that the SNMTS Policies and Procedures Manual had already outlined this reporting process as a responsibility of the Speaker of the NCOR (pg. 21). The specific duties, as outlined in the Policy and Procedure Manual include the following:

1. Liaison between the National Council of Representatives, the Executive Board 2. The Speaker of the NCOR, who is a member of the Executive Board, will submit a

report to the NCOR following each Executive Board meeting with the outcome of any NCOR agenda

The Executive Board agreed that it was somewhat unclear in the Procedures as to whether the NCOR Speaker “has permission” to share the information distributed to the Executive Board, with the members of the NCOR. In recognition of this, the Executive Board agreed that moving forward it is known and understood that the NCOR speaker has permission to communicate the information to the NCOR members (prior to and following) all Executive Board meetings (unless the Executive Board goes into Executive Session).

b. NCOR Speaker Voting Privileges

Mrs. Hunt informed the NCOR that the NCOR Speaker is currently a non-voting position on the Executive Board. As a follow-up to the Checks and Balances conversation, the Executive Board requested that a task force be formed to review the voting privileges of the NCOR speaker on the Executive Board. The task force will be charged with researching the reasons why this position is not a voting member, and the possible benefits of changing the position to become a voting member. The task force will also review the entire SNMTS voting structure, including why officers cannot vote on the NCOR. The task force will be comprised of 2 individuals from the NCOR, 2 from the Executive Board and 2 from the SNMTS Bylaws Committee. (The individuals from the EB and Bylaws Committee have already been selected.) Mark Crosthwaite and Peggy Squires volunteered to serve on the task force.

c. Next Steps for Break-out Groups

Ms. King reminded the NCOR that the agenda for the NCOR meeting at Mid-Winter had been amended to include break-out groups. The break-out group chairs submitted reports and the reports are included as appendix within the minutes. Overall, NCOR members felt that the new agenda structure, including break-out groups worked very well and would like to continue with the new format. In addition, the members suggested keeping the key issues at the beginning of the agenda to ensure enough time for discussion.

IV. Name Change Task Force Mrs. Hunt explained that the Bench to Bedside Campaign will be concluding this June. Over the past several years, the SNM Board of Directors has discussed the possibility of changing the name of the society. During the last board meeting, in January 2011, the topic came up again and a task force was created to research the possibility of changing the name in accordance with the SNM membership. The Name Change Task Force was appointed in February 2011 and is comprised of representation from the SNM Leadership (Fred Fahey), SNM Board of Directors (Carolyn Anderson, Hossein Jadvar), SNM House of Delegates (Mike Middleton) and SNMTS Leadership (Kathy Hunt) and SNMTS (Rebecca Sajdak). The Task Force met via conference call in February and would like to recommend, to the SNM Board of Directors, the following name change for the

society. The Task Force is recommending the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMI). In order to initiate a name change a bylaws change would be required. The SNM Board of Directors must approve the change, and then it needs to be reviewed by the SNM Bylaws Committee and announced in the Journal of Nuclear Medicine, at least 60 days prior to the meeting of the House of Delegates in which the vote is to take place. The HOD votes on the final changes to the Bylaws. The SNM Board of Directors discussed the recommendation of the task force on their conference call last Friday and agreed that an article should be drafted and included in the JNM Newsline informing the membership of the Task Force and asking for feedback. Fred Fahey, DSc and Kathy Hunt will serve as the co-authors of the Newsline article. Following the article, a survey will be created and distributed to either the SNM membership or SNM House of Delegates requesting their feedback on whether a name change is needed. The NCOR members discussed the change and agreed that it was important to keep the term “nuclear medicine” within the title. The integration of molecular imaging is appropriate as the future direction, but nuclear medicine should remain in the name. Several members expressed concern that if we (as nuclear medicine technologists) don’t embrace the future, as leaders, then we are going to get left behind. There is also a concern that if we do not start looking to the future, Nuclear Medicine Technologists are going be left out of PET and MR (which are imaging modalities). Several schools have moved to change their name to include molecular imaging and more and more are going in the same direction. Danny Basso, CNMT, NCT, FSNMTS, informed the NCOR that there was a survey done several years ago that showed that most people recognized with nuclear medicine. Nikki also commented that a follow-up survey was done last year (the focus was not solely on the name of the society) however it asked members what modality they related to. The results of this survey showed a change to molecular medicine and/or molecular imaging. Nikki will distribute both surveys to the members of the NCOR to illustrate the change. It was asked if a vote was made today, if the NCOR would be in favor of moving forward with a name change. A straw poll was done (roll call vote) and it was unanimously agreed to move forward with a name change. Several informational items that the NCOR felt was important to gather prior to making a decision:

1. What was the change in membership from the first name change. 2. Cost 3. Who are we marketing to?

V. State TAG Program

Cindi Luckett-Gilbert, MHA, CNMT, FSNMTS informed the members of the NCOR that the SHPL program as it existed in the past is going to dissolve. The State Technologist Advocates Group (TAG) Program has been created. STAG definition: Nuclear Medicine Technologists interested in advancing the interests of the nuclear imaging/molecular imaging modality. There will also be an additional group - Key Advocates who will focus on hot spot districts where there is an important representative located. HPRA will identify the “key advocate areas” and work with the Advocacy Committee and SNMTS Leadership to appoint an appropriate Key Advocate in that area. Tony Sicignano indicated that he was interested in participating.

VI. Chapter Items for Discussion

This was tabled until another conference call.

VII. Annual Meeting – Administrative Items Ms. King reminded the members that the NCOR meeting at the Annual Meeting will be on Thursday, June 2 from 8:00am – 3:00pm. In addition the chapter and specialty reports are due May 2, 2011.

VIII. Adjournment The NCOR conference call was adjourned at 6:05pm (ET).


June 2, 2011 ACTION ITEM: Approval of May 3, 2011 SNMTS National Council

conference call Minutes SUBMITTED BY: Kathy Krisak, CNMT, FSNMTS SNMTS Secretary PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Resolved, that the minutes from the May 3, 2011 NCOR

conference call minutes be adopted. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A BACKGROUND: N/A SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: May 3, 2011, SNMTS NCOR conference call Minutes

ACTION

DATE (year-mo-day)

AYES

NAYS

Unanimous

NOTES

Adopted

Defeated

Revised

Other


Conference Call May 3, 2011

Minutes Members in Attendance: Brenda King, CNMT, FSNMTS; Kathy Hunt, MS, CNMT; Ann Marie Alessi, BS, CNMT, NCT, RT(N); Kathy Krisak, CNMT, FSNMTS; Danny Basso, CNMT, NCT, FSNMTS; Nanci Burchell, BS, CNMT, FSNMTS; Anthony Knight, MBA, CNMT, NCT; Mike Kroeger, BHS, CNMT, NCT, PET; Mark Crosthwaite; Elma Ferrer-McNeal, CNMT; Cindi Luckett-Gilbert, MHA, CNMT, FSNMTS; Nancy McDonald, CNMT; Seyed Mohammadi, CNMT,RT(N),PET, RT(CT); Leo Nalivaika, CNMT, RT(N), MBA; Frances Neagley, CNMT, FSNMTS; George Pluchino, CNMT; Rebecca Sajdak, CNMT, FSNMTS; Anthony Sicignano, BS, CNMT, RT(N); Steven Wozniak, CNMT, RT(N) Members Not in Attendance: Lauren Cabral, BS, CNMT, RT(N)(CT); Chrissy Cook-Coe, BS, RT(R)(M)(N); Valerie Cronin, CNMT, FSNMTS; Marcia Hess-Smith, BS, CNMT; Sheila Knepfle, CNMT, NCT; Nancy McDonald-Deloatch, CNMT; Lyn Mehlberg, BS, CNMT, FSNMTS; Laura Norman, CNMT, PET; Alison Ramos, MBA, CNMT, RT(N); Sherry Reuter, CNMT, NCT; Paul Reaume, BS, CNMT, NCT, RT(N); Kelly Reese; Lynne Roy, MBA, MS, CNMT, FSNMTS; Aaron Scott; John Sperrazza, CNMT; Ellie Zimmer, CNMT,NCT, RT(N); Cybil J. Nielsen, MBA, CNMT; Peggy Squires, BS, CNMT, NCT; Laura Wall, MBA, CNMT, NCT Staff in Attendance: Nikki Wenzel-Lamb, MBA I. Welcome and Call to Order

Brenda King, CNMT, FSNMTS, Speaker of the NCOR, called the National Council of Representatives (NCOR) conference call to order at 5:06pm. Kathy Krisak, CNMT, FSNMTS, SNMTS Secretary indicated that a quorum was not present.

II. Overview of Purpose of Call Brenda reminded the NCOR members that the purpose of the call was to review the chapter and specialty area reports that were submitted to date and pick the four or five topics that will serve as the break-out group discussion topics. The following breakout groups were agreed upon:

1. Stable supply of medical isotopes a. Co-Chairs – Danny Basso and Robert Atcher

i. Cindi Luckett-Gilbert (participate) ii.

2. Media response to radiation exposure (invite Fred Fahey and Chris Palestro) a. Co-Chair – Nanci Burchell

i. Ann Marie Alessi (participate)

3. SPECT/CT and PET/CT (where things are headed and what legal issues are in place in each state)

a. Co-Chair – George Pluchino i. Steve Wozniak (participate) ii. Elma Ferrer-McNeal (participate)

4. Job Market

a. Co-Chair – Rebecca Sajdak

All co-chairs should prepare some information ahead of time, facilitate the discussion during the meeting, and follow-up after the meeting with a report of the discussion from the meeting.

In addition, all NCOR members and guests will sign up for one of the working groups at door. There will be a limit of 20 people per group in order to ensure that there will be an even spread within all working groups.

III. Chapter and Specialty Area Reports Brenda expressed some concern with the lack of reports from the specialty area representatives. Only two specialty area representatives had submitted their reports on-time. NCOR members agreed that there is some confusion in what role the specialty area representatives play within the NCOR and the overlap between the specialty areas and the various SNMTS committees. In addition, some members were not sure if the specialty area representatives truly understood what they were supposed to be doing. It was suggested that a mentor be assigned to the student specialty area representative to guide them through the process. Nanci Burchell volunteered to mentor Kelly Reese, the SNMTS Student Specialty Area Representative. It was also recommended that the specialty representatives should serve as the SNMTS liaison to the SNM councils. For example, the Emerging Technologies Representative should serve on the PET Center of Excellence, the Cardiology Representative on the Cardiovascular Council, etc.

Brenda requested that Leo Nalivaika begin researching the functionality of the specialty representatives and pull some information together regarding their thoughts into these positions. Leo will contact the representatives to see if there are some issues or additional clarification needed for the specialty positions. A preliminary report will be presented during the Annual Meeting and the specialty area groups will be reviewed again during the 2012 Mid-Winter Meeting.

IV. Adjournment The conference call was adjourned at 5:53pm.

CONFIDENTIALITY POLICY

As leaders and volunteers of the SNMTS we are often asked to deal with sensitive information about volunteers, staff, other organizations, and industry. We are often privy to confidential information critical to the well being on the organization. Confidentiality is important to our organization’s credibility and reputation. Therefore, it is in our best interest to adopt a confidentiality policy. It is understood that leaders and volunteers of the SNMTS will not disclose, divulge, duplicate, publish, or make accessible confidential information to any persons other than those who have a legitimate need to know and whom the SNMTS has authorized disclosure. Leaders and volunteers are expected to hold in confidence materials, manuals, or policies that represent works in progress or drafts. The expectation is that when decisions or documents are finalized they will be publicly disclosed or published. Leaders and volunteers must exercise good judgment and care at all times to avoid unauthorized or improper disclosure of confidential information. Conversations in public should be limited to matters that do not pertain to information of a sensitive or confidential nature. When decisions are made, even if not unanimous, the expectation is that when discussing relevant details with outside organizations the guiding principal shall be that the information shared/imparted/conveyed will be with the best interest of the organization in mind. These policies are not intended to prevent disclosure where disclosure is required by law. Rather, these policies are intended as a template for ethically handling information of a confidential or sensitive nature.

Committee Reports and Items for Discussion

Membership Committee


June 2, 2011 ACTION ITEM: Create a transition member dues price of $52 for Free-

Trial Students transitioning to technologist members. SUBMITTED BY: Joe Hawkins, CNMT, M.S.Ed

SNMTS Student Membership Task Force PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Resolve that the SNMTS NCOR approve the creation of

a transition member dues price of $52 for free-trial students who are transitioning to technologist members. This transition member dues fee would be granted for the first year following the student’s graduation from the program. (During this year, the individual would continue to receive the only online version of the JNMT.)

FINANCIAL IMPACT: For FY2012, we will budget for 200 students (consistent

with prior year) to transition to technologists members at a rate of $52, which will result in potential revenue of $10,400. However, the expectation is to bring in more than 200 students at the rate of $52, resulting in additional revenue about the $10,400.

BACKGROUND: Currently, when students finish the two-year free trial

program, and graduate from their program, they must pay the full technologist member dues of $104. The retention rate for free-trial students transitioning to full members is, on average, 38%. The Student Membership Task Force believes that by reducing the membership fee for the first year following graduation that more students will continue their membership. With the current economic pressures, it is harder for students to find work, and in most cases, it takes 6-8 months for them to find a permanent employer. The reduced fee will allow them to keep the benefits they need and will show that the SNMTS is still supportive of them during their transition period.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: See attached.

ACTION

DATE (year-mo-day)

AYES

NAYS

Unanimous

NOTES

Adopted

Defeated

Revised

Other

Organization Regular Dues Student Membership Post Graudation Post Grad Time Frame Notes SNMTS $104 2 year free trial $52 (proposed) 1 yearASRT $105 $30 $73.50 2 yearsSDMS $145 $40 $60 1 yearSMRT $80 $30 NO N/A Regular dues does not include journal

CAMRT $195 Free N/A N/ARegular dues includes professional liability insurance premium (PLI).

Year # of Students # of Eligible Students

# of Students Transition For 1 Year

Only# of Active Members

(Prior Students)

Total # of Students Transition (For 1 Year Only + Active Members - Prior

Students)2010 1381 717 194 N/A 1942009 1108 748 74 240 3142008 1550 915 144 252 396

Year Revenue if Charge $52 Actual Revenue ($104)Max Loss Assuming

No Add'l Joins2010 $10,088 $20,176 $10,0882009 $16,328 $32,656 $16,3282008 $20,592 $41,184 $20,592

Finance Committee

Finance Committee Committee Report

SNMTS Executive Board June 2011

Committee Charges for 2010-2011: • Provide informational financial reports to the Executive Board regarding assets in the SNM Capital Fund, actual

and budgeted revenue and expense, and the overall financial affairs of the SNMTS. • Make recommendations regarding fiscal policy, strategy, and expenditures for the succeeding year. • Submit the proposed budget for the following year to the Executive Board for approval.

• Identify and prioritize activities for better utilization of human resources, including leadership and staff.

Current Working Objectives/Goals: • The Finance Committee is working to optimize the financial position of the SNMTS and to ensure its short-term

and long-term financial stability. The financial stability goals are achieved via review of the proposed budget for the following year and, after its approval, review the progress toward meeting the budget.

• Evaluate any recommendations from the Management Fee Task Force (MFTF). Progress of Charge/Objectives/Goals to Date: • Thus far in FY 2011, the SNMTS is on track to meet its budgeted bottom line of $1,166. Better than expected

revenue from advertising and educational products along with prudent expense management have helped SNMTS get into position to meet its budgeted bottom line for FY 2011.

• At March 31, 2011, the SNM Capital Fund’s fair market value was $4,427,396 (SNM’s portion totaled approximately $3,528,925 and the SNMTS portion totaled $899,471). Since March 31, 2010, the SNM Capital Fund increased $449,716 or 11.3%. Of the increase, $91,358 is related to the SNMTS portion of the fund’s assets. Overall, the fund’s performance has mirrored that of the benchmarks set forth in the SNM Investment Policy Statement.

• During FY 2011, the SNM/SNMTS Management Fee Task Force (MFTF) met to review the methodology used

to determine the fee. As a result of its review, the MFTF recommended certain changes to the methodology used in prior years. The revised methodology has been presented to the SNMTS Finance Committee for approval.

• During FY 2011, the committee approved two resolutions to (1) reinstate approximately$10,000 of travel

reimbursements and (2) reallocate funding available in the SNMTS budget for purposes of supporting a reception for the outgoing editor of the JNMT.

Additional Goals/Objectives Added for 2010-2011: • Provide support to the SNMTS representatives on the MFTF. • Provide support to those leading any new initiatives arising from the SNMTS strategic planning workshop. • Provide support to any SNMTS leadership group considering activities or proposals that may result in a financial

impact to the operating budget. • Evaluate any SNM resolutions that may have a financial impact on the SNMTS operating budget and, if

necessary, suggest alternatives that will reduce or eliminate losses or generate benefits to the SNMTS.

SNMTS RESOLUTION FORM

SNMTS Executive Board Meeting June 2011

ACTION ITEM: To accept the recommendation of the SNM/SNMTS Management Fee Task Force

that the allocation methodology for determining the management fee for fiscal year 2012 be changed from that used for fiscal year 2011.

SUBMITTED BY: SNMTS Finance Committee PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Resolved, that the allocation methodology for determining the SNM/SNMTS

management fee for fiscal year 2012 be changed to that recommended by the SNM/SNMTS Management Fee Task Force.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The full financial impact will not be known until the operating budget for fiscal year

2012 has been determined. Based on current budgeting parameters within the SNM Strategic Plan, the operating budget for FY 2012 is estimated to be reasonably close to the budget for fiscal year 2011. Accordingly, when using the fiscal year 2011 operating budget, the fee would decrease by approximately $236,000.

BACKGROUND: Periodically, the SNM/SNMTS Management Fee Task Force convenes to review the

current management fee structure and agree on an allocation methodology. The task force will meet during fiscal year 2012 to review the fee for fiscal year 2013 and beyond.

SUPPORT MATERIAL: See attached report of the SNM/SNMTS Management Fee Task Force ACTION: ADOPTED ___ DEFEATED ___ OTHER ___

ACTION

DATE (year-mo-day)

AYES

NAYS

Unanimous

NOTES

Adopted

Defeated

Revised

Withdrawn

Other

Program Committee

RESOLUTION FORM

SNM Board of Directors June 2-3, 2011

ACTION ITEM: 2018 Annual Meeting Location SUBMITTED BY: Frederic H. Fahey, D.Sc. PROPOSED RESOLUTION: To select Philadelphia for the 2018 Annual Meeting FINANCIAL IMPACT: See provided material. BACKGROUND: See provided material. SUPPORT MATERIAL: See provided material. ACTION: ADOPTED ___ DEFEATED ___ OTHER ___

ACTION

DATE (year-mo-day)

AYES

NAYS

Unanimous

NOTES

Adopted

Defeated

Revised

Withdrawn

Other

2018 SNM Annual MeetingPhiladelphia, PA

Accessibility

25% of US Population lives with 400 miles

Convention Center is DowntownVery Walkable!

2 Miles from river to river (Schuylkill to Delaware)

Pennsylvania Convention Center

Pennsylvania Convention Center

•Rental Fee: $0•325,000 sq ft for SNM•38 mtg rooms, 8 offices•32,000 sq ft ball room •225,000 sq ft for exhibits•5 trades at center

Reading Terminal Market

Philadelphia MarriottHeadquarters Hotel

(Connected to Convention Center)

Hotels

1.2 mi

HOTEL PEAK NIGHT

CONVENTION RATES

YEAR ANNUAL CAP %

DISTANCETO PCC

Marriott 1100 $232/242 2011 3% AttachedLoews 250 $229/254 2011 5% 1 MinuteHilton Garden 150 $189/189 2010 3% 1 Minute

Hampton Inn 150 $169/179 2011 4% 1 MinuteCourtyard by Marriott

350 $199/209 2011 3% 2 Minutes

Le Meridien 150 $219 Flat 2011 4% 2 MinutesHI Express 100 $189/189 2010 4% 4 MinutesDoubletree 175 $199/209 2011 5% 7 MinutesSheraton City Center

450 $179/199 2011 6% 8 Minutes

Four Seasons 100 $245 Flat 2011 5% 9 MinutesCrowne Plaza 250 $179 Flat 2010 4% 11 MinutesSofitel 150 $235/235 2010 4% 13 MinutesWestin 100 $249/249 2011 5% 13 MinutesRadisson 150 $219 Flat 2011 3% 14 Minutes

TOTAL 3775

Survey of Organizations with Recent Meetings in Philadelphia

Organizations (year/attendance) American College of Physicians (2009/ 7,000) American Association of Neurological Surgeons

(2010/7,200) American College of Rheumatology (2009/15,000) Infectious Diseases Society of America (2009/6,000) American Association of Physicists in Medicine (2010/4,200)

Pros Attendees love the meeting (very good attendance!)

Good hotel package

Convention bureau works hard for a successful meeting

Cons Challenging for planners

A/V and labor costs

Trades in general

Considering all factors, we feel that Philadelphia is an excellent site for

the SNM 2018 Annual Meeting.

Potential Cities for SNM AM 2019

CITY AnaheimLas VegasLos AngelesPhoenix PortlandSalt Lake City (2010)San Diego (2016)San FranciscoVancouver (2013)Other

BALLOT

SNM Board of Directors June 2-3, 2011

ACTION ITEM: 2019 Annual Meeting Location – West Rotation SUBMITTED BY: Frederic H. Fahey, D.Sc. PROPOSED: Suggest cities for the 2019 Annual Meeting site-selection process. FINANCIAL IMPACT: TBD after lead is sent BACKGROUND: N/A SUPPORT MATERIAL: N/A

CITY

AYE

NAY

COMMENTS

Anaheim

Las Vegas

Los Angeles

Phoenix

Portland

Salt Lake City

San Diego

San Francisco

Vancouver

Other

Nominating Committee Update

Committee Report SNMTS Executive Board

June 3, 2011 NOMINATING COMMITTEE

Committee Charges for 2009-2010: • The Nominating Committee will conduct the annual election process for the SNMTS. • The Nominating Committee will oversee the online voting process for the current year election and will

oversee a complete transition to online-only voting for future years. • The Nominating Committee will review the Election Handbook and provide suggestions to the Bylaws

Committee. Current Objectives/Goals (please reference Strategic Plan): Review candidates for the following open positions: Member-at-Large (NCOR), Education Specialty Rep, Student Specialty Rep, Cardiology Specialty Rep, Manager Specialty Rep. Industry Specialty Rep, and Emerging Technologies Specialty Rep. and approve slate. Successfully hold SNMTS National and NCOR election for above-mentioned positions. Progress of Charge/Objectives/Goals to Date: The SNMTS National Election went live April 4 and closed May 12, 2011. The final results included 786 returned ballots from 9,246 eligible members; totaling a participation rate of 8.5%. By comparison, 748 members participated in last year’s election for a 7.37% response. Overall 76.1% of the voting membership was very satisfied with the online voting system. SNMTS President-Elect – Brenda King SNMTS Secretary – Laura Wall SNMTS Finance Committee (3-year) – David Campbell Delegate-at-Large – Tina Buehner, Cindi Luckett-Gilbert, Anthony Knight, Aaron Scott The slate of candidates has been approved for the Nominating Committee. The NCOR will vote on the Nominating Committee and Director-at-Large positions in June. Additional Goals/Objectives for 2009-2010: None at this time.

NMT Clinical Performance Standards

RESOLUTION FORM SNMTS NCOR June 2, 2011

ACTION ITEM: Approve Nuclear Medicine Technologist

(NMT) Revised Clinical Performance Standards.

SUBMITTED BY: Kathy Hunt, MS, CNMT SNMTS President PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The SNMTS NCOR approved the revised NMT

Clinical PerformanceStandards. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: See attached. SUPPORT MATERIAL: ACTION: ADOPTED ___ DEFEATED ___ OTHER ___

ACTION

DATE (year-mo-day)

AYES

NAYS

Unanimous

NOTES

Adopted

Defeated

Revised

Withdrawn

Other

V3.1 Clinical Performance Standards - May 11, 2011 1

Clinical Performance Standards

FOR THE NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGIST

(Revision 2011)

1 The Performance and Responsibility Guidelines for the Nuclear Medicine Technologist were 2 initially developed by the Socio Economic Affairs Committee and approved in 1994 periodically 3 revised as the profession and educational requirements evolved. Over this past year, the SNMTS 4 Scope of Practice Task Force has worked to revised the SNMTS Scope of Practice to serve more 5 as an overview of responsibilities, allowing the Clinical Performance Standards (Performance 6 and Responsibility Guidelines) to serve as the task list for nuclear medicine technologists. 7 8 _____________________________________________________________________ 9 10 The spectrum of nuclear medicine technology skills and responsibilities varies widely across the 11 country. The broad descriptions of this document will provide a basis for determining the areas 12 of knowledge and of performance for the nuclear medicine technologist. The documents used in 13 the revision and development of these guidelines were the Society of Nuclear Medicine 14 Technologist Section (SNMTS) Performance and Responsibility Standards for the Nuclear 15 Medicine Technologist (2003); Nuclear Medicine Technology Certification Board (NMTCB) 16 Report: Components of Preparedness (2009); NMTCB, SNMTS Scope of Practice (2009); 17 Nuclear Medicine Technology Entry-Level Curriculum Guide, 4th

26

Edition; and the Accreditation 18 Standards for Nuclear Medicine Technologist Education (2011). These guidelines should be 19 considered a helpful checklist of those skills necessary to perform a variety of nuclear medicine 20 procedures. Although the editors tried to be complete, nuclear medicine technology is a dynamic 21 and evolving field; therefore, any list is likely to be partially obsolete as soon as it is issued. In 22 addition, this document is not designed to be a "how to" description for any of the listed 23 activities, nor is it intended to be used to represent entry level competencies, but rather the 24 spectrum of NMT general responsibilities. It is not intended to modify or alter existing tort law. 25

Nuclear medicine which encompasses molecular imaging, is the medical specialty that utilizes 27 sealed and unsealed radioactive materials in the diagnosis and therapy of various diseases. This 28 practice also includes the utilization of pharmaceuticals (used as adjunctive medications) and 29 other imaging modalities with or without contrast to enhance the evaluation of physiologic 30 processes at a molecular level. The nuclear medicine technologist is an allied health professional 31 who, under the direction of an authorized user, is committed to applying the art and skill of their 32 profession to optimize diagnostic evaluation and therapy through the safe and effective use of 33 radiopharmaceuticals and adjunctive medications. 34 35 Nuclear Medicine Technology 36 The practice of nuclear medicine technology requires multidisciplinary skills that are needed to 37 use rapidly evolving instrumentation, radiopharmaceuticals, adjunctive medications and 38 techniques. The responsibilities of the nuclear medicine technologist include, but are not limited 39 to, patient care, quality control, diagnostic procedures, radiopharmaceutical and adjunctive 40 medication, preparation and administration, in vitro diagnostic testing, radionuclide therapy, and 41


radiation safety. The nuclear medicine technologist can also participate in research. 42 43 In order to perform these responsibilities, the nuclear medicine technologist must successfully 44 complete didactic and clinical training. Recommended course work includes, but is not limited 45 to: anatomy, physiology, pathophysiology, pharmacology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, 46 computer applications, biomedical sciences, ethics, and radiation health and safety. Direct patient 47 contact hours are obtained by training in a clinical education setting and are a necessary 48 component in maintaining the skills required to perform the duties and tasks of the nuclear 49 medicine technologist. 50 51 Formal education programs in nuclear medicine technology are accredited by the Joint Review 52 Committee on Educational Programs in Nuclear Medicine Technology (JRCNMT). Graduates of 53 accredited programs are eligible to take the certification examination offered by the Nuclear 54 Medicine Technologist Certification Board (NMTCB) and/or American Registry of Radiologic 55 Technologists (ARRT). 56 57 The scope of performance in nuclear medicine technology includes, but is not limited to, the 58 following areas and responsibilities: 59 60 Patient Care: 61 Requires the exercise of judgment to assess and respond to the patient’s needs before, during and 62 after diagnostic imaging and therapeutic procedures and in patient medication reconciliation. 63 This includes record keeping in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and 64 Accountability Act (HIPAA). 65 66 In Vitro Diagnostic Testing: 67 Involves the acquisition of biological specimens with or without oral, intramuscular, intravenous, 68 inhaled or other administration of radiopharmaceuticals and adjunctive medications for the 69 assessment of physiologic function. 70 Instrumentation: Involves the operation of: 71 Imaging instrumentation: 72

Gamma camera systems with or without sealed sources of radioactive materials or x-ray 73 tubes for attenuation correction, transmission imaging or diagnostic CT (when 74 appropriately educated, trained and/or credentialed). 75 PET imaging systems with or without sealed sources of radioactive materials or x-ray 76 tubes for attenuation correction, transmission imaging or diagnostic CT (when 77 appropriately trained and/or credentialed) 78 Bone density imaging systems with x-ray tubes 79

Non-imaging instrumentation: 80 Dose calibrators 81 Survey instrumentation for exposure and contamination 82 Probe and well instrumentation 83 Ancillary patient care equipment as authorized by institutional policies. 84

85 Quality Control: 86 Requires the evaluation and maintenance of a quality control program for all instrumentation to 87


ensure optimal performance and stability. 88 89 Diagnostic Procedures: 90 Requires the utilization of appropriate techniques, radiopharmaceuticals and adjunctive 91 medications as part of a standard protocol to ensure quality diagnostic images and/or laboratory 92 results. 93 94 Adjunctive Medications: Involves the identification, calculation, documentation, administration 95 and monitoring of adjunctive medication(s) used during an in-vitro, diagnostic imaging, or 96 therapeutic procedure. Adjunctive medications are defined as those medications used to evoke a 97 specific physiological or biochemical response. Also included are the preparation and 98 administration of oral and IV contrast used in the performance of imaging studies. 99 100 Radiopharmaceuticals: 101 Involves the safe handling and storage of radioactive materials during the procurement, 102 identification, calibration, preparation, quality control, dose calculation, dispensing 103 documentation, administration and disposal. 104 105 Radionuclide therapy: 106 Involves patient management, preparation and administration of therapeutic 107 radiopharmaceuticals, under the personal supervision of the Authorized User. 108 109 Radiation safety: 110 Involves practicing techniques that will minimize radiation exposure to the patient, health care 111 personnel and general public, through consistent use of protective devices, shields, dose 112 reduction, and monitors consistent with ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) and 113 establishing protocols for managing spills and unplanned releases of radiation. 114 115 I. Patient Care 116

117 A. A nuclear medicine technologist provides patient care by: 118

119 1. providing for proper comfort and care to the patient prior to, during and 120

after a procedure, including but not limited to the monitoring of 121 intravenous lines (i.e.., central lines, peripherally inserted central catheters 122 {PICC}), oxygen supplies, drains; and operation of blood pressure cuffs, 123 electrocardiogram (ECG) machines, pulse oximeters, glucometer 124 intravenous pumps and oxygen delivery regulators. 125

126 2. insertion of peripheral intravenous catheters 127

128 3. monitoring patients who are under minimal sedation (in those facilities 129

that approve such practice with subsequent documentation of competency 130 of all monitoring staff in accordance with the American Society of 131 Anesthesiology’s [ASA] guidelines for conscious sedation). 132 133


3. establishing and maintaining proper communication with patients (i.e., 134 proper introduction, appropriate explanation of procedure, etc.) 135 136

4. behaving in a professional manner in consideration and observation of 137 patients’ rights resulting in the provision of the highest quality patient care 138 possible. 139 140

5. providing a safe and sanitary working environment for patients and the 141 general public, using proper infection control practices in compliance with 142 accepted precaution policies 143

144 6. Recognizing and responding to an emergency situation at a level 145

commensurate with one’s training and competency including 146 cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) ,

150

the use of automatic external 147 defibrillators (AED), if applicable, advanced cardiac life support (ACLS), 148 advanced pediatric life support (PALS). 149

B. A nuclear medicine technologist prepares the patient by: 151 152 1. reviewing the indication for the study for appropriateness and consulting 153

with the authorized user and/or referring physician whenever necessary to 154 ensure that the proper study is performed. 155

156 2. verifying patient identification, date of last menstrual period, 157

pregnancy/breastfeeding status and written orders for the procedure. 158 159 3. obtaining a pertinent medical history including medications and allergies 160

and confirming the patient’s candidacy for the procedure. 161 162

4. assuring that any pre-procedural preparation has been completed (e.g., 163 fasting, hydration, thyroid blocking, voiding, bowel cleansing, suspension 164 of interfering medications. 165

166 5. assuring that informed consent has been obtained, as prescribed by the 167

institution, whenever necessary. 168 169 6. properly explaining the procedure to the patient and/or family and, where 170

appropriate, to the parent and/or legal guardian, and when necessary, 171 obtain the assistance of an interpreter or translator This includes, but is not 172 limited to, patient involvement, length of study’ radiation safety issues, 173 and post-procedure instructions. 174

175 176 177 7. Collecting and performing pertinent laboratory procedures 178

179


8. In vitro diagnostic testing laboratory analyses, including urine pregnancy 180 testing and fasting blood sugar. Additionally, in vitro diagnostic testing 181 laboratory procedures include, but are not limited to, secretions, saliva, 182 breath, blood, and stool, to measure biodistribution of 183 radiopharmaceuticals. 184

185 C. A nuclear medicine technologist performs administrative procedures by: 186

1. maintaining an adequate volume of medical/surgical supplies, 187 radiopharmaceuticals, storage media, and other items required to perform 188 procedures in a timely manner. 189 190

2. scheduling patient procedures appropriate to the indication and in the 191 proper sequence. 192 193

3. maintaining appropriate records of administered radioactivity, quality 194 control procedures, patient reports, and other required records. 195 196

4. Developing and revising, when necessary, policies and procedures in 197 accordance with applicable regulations. 198 199

5. Actively participating in total quality management/continuous quality 200 improvement programs (i.e., age-specific competencies, patient education, 201 and patient restraint and immobilization). 202

203 II. Instrumentation/Quality Control 204 205 A. A nuclear medicine technologist evaluates the performance of instrumentation 206

by: 207 208

1. obtaining uniformity images on scintillation detectors. 209 210

a) selecting a radionuclide source of appropriate type, size, quantity 211 and energy; 212

213 b) selecting an appropriate pulse height analyzer (PHA) photopeak 214

and window; 215 216

c) obtaining uniformity images using standardized imaging 217 parameters; 218 219

d) evaluating the images qualitatively and/or quantitatively in 220 comparison to the manufacturer’s specifications and the 221 performance requirements based on the studies for which unit is 222 used; 223 224

e) identifying the source of any nonuniformity (e.g., checking 225


collimator, PHA peak setting); 226 227

f) initiating corrective action when necessary; and 228 229

g) maintaining required records for the quality control 230 program. 231

232 2. performing a detector linearity evaluation on scintillation detectors. 233

234 a) selecting a radionuclide, a linearity phantom and obtaining images; 235

236 b) identifying any nonlinear distortion in the image; 237

238 c) determining the source of nonlinearity. (e.g., detector-source 239

geometry); 240 241

d) initiating corrective action when necessary; and 242 243

e) maintaining required records for the quality control 244 program. 245

246 3. performing spatial resolution checks on scintillation detectors. 247

248 a) selecting an appropriate radionuclide; 249

250 b) choosing a phantom that is compatible with the specified 251

resolution of the camera; 252 253

c) analyzing the resulting images for degradation of resolution; 254 255

d) initiating corrective action when necessary; and 256 257

e) maintaining required records for the quality control program. 258 259

4. conducting sensitivity checks on scintillation detectors. 260 261 a) selecting a source with an appropriate level of activity and half-262

life; 263 264

b) assuring identical geometry, source placement and measurement 265 parameters for repetitive checks; 266

267 c) evaluating results; 268

269 d) initiating corrective action when necessary; and 270

271


e) maintaining required records for the quality control 272 program. 273

274 5. performing single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) 275

quality control procedures. 276 277 a) obtaining a high count uniformity flood; 278 279 b) verifying center of rotation correction; 280

281 c) verifying energy correction and spatial coordinates; 282

283 d) verifying multi-head detector alignment; 284

285 e) evaluating reconstruction results of phantom acquisition; 286

287 f) analyzing the results for degradation; 288

289 g) initiating corrective action when necessary; and 290

291 h) maintaining required records for the quality control 292

program. 293 294

6. performing and evaluating quality control procedures for positron 295 emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) imaging 296 systems. 297

298 a) evaluating the performance of PET and hybrid PET/CT 299

systems: 300 301

(i) with an intimate knowledge of PET detectors, types of 302 crystals (e.g., BGO, LSO, GSO, NaI), transmission sources 303 of various configurations, retractable rod sources/septa, 304 ring planes, and methods of coincidence detection. 305

306 (ii) identifying system-specific quality control requirements by 307

following recommended initial acceptance, daily, weekly, 308 monthly, quarterly, and annual quality control procedures 309 to evaluate allowable parameter ranges for: 310 311

a) photon detection/discrimination 312 b) spatial resolution 313 c) scatter reaction 314

d) count loss 315 e) random measurement 316 f) sensitivity 317


g) deadtime loss and random count correction 318 accuracy 319

320 (iii) recognizing image artifacts requiring imaging system 321

correction and performing corrections and quality 322 assuranance as directed by institutional and manufacturer 323 recommendations. 324

325 a) sinogram acquisition and evaluation 326 b) well counter SUV calibration; 327

c) PET/CT system alignment calibration; 328 d) CT system quality assurance; 329

e) glucometer quality assurance using high and low 330 standards; 331

f) rubidium generator quality assurance to include 332 dose calibrator/generator calibration and 333 parent/daughter breakthrough is this in the correct 334 location?? 335

336 (iv) assisting with the development of 2D and 3D tomographic 337

normalization algorithms used for image acquisition, 338 recontruction, and display. 339

340 (v) demonstrating knowledge and technical skills in computed 341

tomography (CT) when used to perform PET/CT 342 examinations. Is IV contrast in this document? The next 343 version can have expanded tasks. 344

345 a) x-ray production 346 b) radiographic techniques 347 c) scanning parameters (MA, kVp, pitch, and helical 348

scanning) 349 350

7. verifying computer parameter settings and data interface. 351 352 a) assuring that the camera detector and computer register the same 353

count rate at the maximum frame rate; 354 355

b) verifying that the camera detector and computer have the same 356 image orientation; 357 358

c) obtaining a dead time measurement on the computer; 359 360

d) verifying accuracy of ECG gating; 361 362

e) performing pixel calibration; and 363


364 d) operating PET computer hardware, processing software and basic 365 Windows and Unix platforms. 366

367 8. ensures the proper performance of imaging systems, 368 storage media, and radiation detection and counting devices, 369 including but not limited to scintillation cameras, dose 370 calibrators, survey instruments, scintillation probes and well 371 counters, and data processing and image production devices. 372 373

9. Maintaining and operating auxiliary equipment used in nuclear medicine 374 procedures 375

376 10. A nuclear medicine technologist actively participates in total quality 377

management/continuous quality improvement programs by: 378 379

a) identifying indicators to be analyzed; 380 381

b) gathering and presenting data in appropriate formats; and 382 383

c) analyzing data and recommending changes. 384 385 B. A nuclear medicine technologist evaluates the performance of NaI (TI) 386

scintillation probes, well counters and other laboratory equipment by: 387 388

1. calibrating a spectrometer with a calibrated, long half-life radionuclide 389 source. 390

391 2. determining energy resolution. 392 393

3. conducting sensitivity measurements at appropriate energies. 394 395

4. checking background and determining the cause for levels greater than 396 established normal levels. 397

398 5. conducting a chi-square test. 399 400 6. maintaining required records for quality control programs. 401

402 C. A nuclear medicine technologist operates survey meters by: 403 404

1. ensuring that calibration is completed with an approved source. 405 406

2. performing a check-source test and comparing with previous results. 407 408

3. maintaining required records for quality control program. 409


410 D. A nuclear medicine technologist evaluates the operation of a dose calibrator by: 411

412 1. determining precision (constancy). 413

414 2. determining accuracy. 415

416 3. ascertaining linearity over the entire range of radionuclide activity to be 417

measured and determining correction factors when necessary. 418 419 4. testing for significant geometric variation in activity 420

measured as a function of sample volume or configuration and 421 determining correction factors when necessary. 422

423 5. maintaining required records for the quality control program. 424

425 E. A nuclear medicine technologist operates and maintains image processors by: 426

427 1. verifying the calibration of the instrument. 428 429 2. ensuring that materials required for image processing are at acceptable 430

levels. 431 432 3. maintaining required records for quality control program. 433 434

435 III. Diagnostic Procedures and Adjunctive Medications 436 437

A. A nuclear medicine technologist performs imaging procedures by: 438 439

1. determining imaging parameters. 440 441 a) preparing, evaluating and properly administering the appropriate 442 radiopharmaceuticals and/or pharmaceuticals and contrast (under the 443 direction of an authorized user) 444

445 b ) selecting the appropriate imaging or data collection parameters; 446

and 447 448

b) ) establishing and/or properly maintain venous access routes of 449 various configurations (in accordance with hospital policies and 450 procedures) 451

452 2. administrating radiopharmaceuticals and/or pharmaceuticals through 453

various routes, including but not limited to oral, intravesical, inhalation, 454 intravenous, intramuscular, subcutaneous, and intradermal (under the 455


direction of an authorized user). 456 457

a) verifying patient identity prior to the administration of medication 458 or radiopharmaceuticals; 459 460

b) determining route of administration according to established 461 protocol (e.g., subcutaneous, intramuscular, intravenous, etc.); 462 463

c) establishing and/or verifying venipuncture access using aseptic 464 technique; 465

466 d) using and maintaining established venous access routes (e.g., 467

heparin infusion, IMED); 468 469

e) establishing patient patterned breathing when introducing 470 radiopharmaceuticals (e.g., inhalants or aerosols); 471 472

f) NMT also performs med reconciliation to assure no drug 473 interaction with patient’s current meds. Consider adding allergy 474 information acquisition- next on The Joint Commission’s list to 475 survey and sites are currently doing this 476

477 g) administering oral radiopharmaceuticals; 478 479 h) Preparing and administering adjunctive pharmacologic agents 480

including oral and IV contrast agents 481 482

i) properly documenting medications and/or radiopharmaceutical 483 administrations on the patient medical record 484 485

3. Positioning the patient and obtaining images. 486 487 a. waiting an appropriate length of time following the administration 488

of a radiopharmaceutical to begin the imaging procedure; 489 490 b) acquiring imaging views according to established protocols and 491

acquiring additional views to optimize information content; 492 493

c) properly positioning the patient using supportive materials and 494 immobilizers, as necessary; 495 496

d) exercising independent judgment in positioning a patient or 497 detector unit to best demonstrate pathology and to adapt to the 498 patient’s limitations; 499 500

e) indicating appropriate anatomic landmarks for each view of the 501


procedure; and 502 503

f) reviewing images to ensure that required information has been 504 acquired, processed properly and is of the highest quality. 505 506

4. assisting in exercise and pharmacologic cardiac stress testing procedures 507 508 a) preparing patients for placement of ECG electrodes; 509

510 b) recognizing and responding to any ECG changes; 511

512 c) recognizing the parameters that indicate termination of 513 cardiac stress study; and 514 515

d) recognizing ECG patterns that are appropriate for image gating. 516 517

e) determine whether the appropriate test has been ordered based on 518 the ECG rhythm 519

520 5. performing data collection, processing and analysis. 521

522 a) performing data collection, processing and analysis in accordance 523

with established protocols; 524 525

b) exercising independent judgment in selecting appropriate images 526 for processing; 527 528

c) selecting appropriate filters, frequency cutoff, attenuation and 529 motion correction when reconstructing SPECT images; 530 531

d) defining regions of interest (ROI's) with reproducible results and 532 correctly applying background subtraction; 533

534 e) performing computer data manipulations as required by standard 535

nuclear medicine procedures, e.g., activity curve generation, 536 quantitation, SPECT slice production; 537 538

f) labeling processed images (e.g., anatomical positioning, 539 ROI's, date, etc.); 540

541 g) processing PET data to produce parametric images; and 542

543 h) archiving and retrieving data from storage media. 544

545 B. A nuclear medicine technologist performs non-imaging in vivo and/or radioassay 546

studies by: 547


548 1. operating laboratory equipment including well counters, probes, and other 549

detection devices to measure the biodistribution of radiopharmaceuticals. 550 551 a) confirming accuracy, precision, and operation of pipetting device; 552

and 553 554

b) using microhematocrit centrifuge and determining hematocrit. 555 556

2. preparing doses and guidelines. 557 558 a) quantitating dose 559

560 (i) determining decay factor and calculating remaining 561

activity; 562 563

(ii) determining volume necessary to deliver activity for the 564 prescribed dose; 565 566

(iii) drawing dose into syringe using appropriate techniques and 567 materials; 568 569

(iv) dispensing appropriate quantity of liquid or capsules, as 570 necessary, for the prescribed dose; 571 572

(v) confirming calculated activity by using a dose calibrator. 573 574

b) preparing standard solutions. 575 576 (i) choosing appropriate volumetric or gravimetric techniques 577

to dilute standard; 578 579

(ii) adding radioactive material identical to that given the 580 patient quantity sufficient (qs) to appropriate volume; and 581 582

(iii) dissolving capsule in appropriate solvent, if necessary, for 583 preparing a standard 584 585

3. collecting appropriate specimen for procedures using standard precaution 586 techniques by: 587 588 a) collecting blood samples. 589

590 (i) selecting proper supplies (e.g., needles, syringes, evacuated 591

tubes, anticoagulants, etc.); 592 593


(ii) Correctly identify patient and labeling patient 594 demographics on collection containers; 595 596

(iii) performing venipuncture at appropriate time intervals using 597 aseptic technique; 598 599

(iv) adding hemolyzing compounds or anticoagulants to 600 samples when necessary; 601 602

(v) centrifuging blood and separating blood components, as 603 required; and 604 605

(vi) storing aliquots of serum, plasma, or whole blood 606 according to protocol. 607 608

b) collecting urine samples by: 609 610 (i) instructing patient and nursing staff regarding the correct 611

method and time of urine collection; 612 613 (ii) aliquoting urine sample and measuring total urine volume; 614

615 (iii) measuring specific gravity of urine, if required; and 616

617 (iv) recognizing and documenting all technical circumstances 618

which would produce invalid results. 619 620

4. gathering, validating and documenting data. 621 622 a) subtracting room or patient background from appropriate samples; 623

624 b) applying appropriate formulas, including conversion and dilution 625

factors; 626 627

c) calculating results according to procedure used; 628 629

d) plotting graph, if necessary, and determining half time by 630 extrapolating to zero time; 631 632

e) reporting both patient calculated values and normal range of 633 specific procedures used; and 634

635 f) evaluating results for potential error. 636

637 5. managing bio-hazardous, chemical and radioactive waste in accordance 638

with applicable regulations and specific facility policy. 639


640 IV. Radiopharmaceuticals 641 642 A. A nuclear medicine technologist displays: 643 644

1. thorough knowledge of molecular level physiological functions that relate 645 to glucose metabolism, blood flow, brain oxygen utilization, perfusion, 646 and receptor-ligand binding rates. 647

648 2. thorough knowledge of physiological and processes that relate to organ 649

system function and anatomy and their radiopharmaceutical demonstration 650 of normal and pathologic states. 651

652 B. A nuclear medicine technologist procures and maintains radiopharmaceutical 653

products and adjunct supplies by: 654 655

1. anticipating and procuring a sufficient supply of radiopharmaceuticals for 656 an appropriate time period in accordance with anticipated need and license 657 possession limits. 658 659

2. storing pharmaceuticals, radiopharmaceuticals and supplies in a manner 660 consistent with labeled product safeguards and with radiation safety 661 considerations. 662 663

3. performing and documenting radiation survey and wipe tests upon receipt 664 of radioactive materials. 665 666

4. recording receipt of radioactive materials in a permanent record. 667 668

5. following Department of Transportation (DOT) and radiation safety 669 guidelines in the transport, receipt and shipment of radioactivity. 670 671

C. A nuclear medicine technologist properly prepares and administers diagnostic 672 radiopharmaceuticals under the direction of an authorized user in accordance with 673 all federal, state and institutional gudielines by: 674

675 1. employing aseptic technique for manipulation of injectable products. 676

677 2. assembling and maintaining radionuclide generators. 678

679 3. eluting radionuclide generators according to manufacturer’s specification. 680

681 4. verifying radionuclide purity of generator eluates. 682

683 5. selecting and preparing radiopharmaceuticals in accordance with 684

manufacturer’s specifications. 685


686 6. measuring and calculating activity of the radionuclide with a dose 687

calibrator. 688 689

7. confirming the quality of a radiopharmaceutical in accordance with 690 accepted techniques and official guidelines (e.g., radiochemical purity, 691 physical appearance). 692 693

8. preparing blood or blood products for labeling and/or labeled blood cells, 694 e.g., 111

696 Indium WBC in accordance with established protocols. 695

9. recording use and/or disposition of all radioactive materials in a permanent 697 record. 698 699

D. A nuclear medicine technologist is responsible for the identification and labeling 700 of all radiopharmaceutical preparations by: 701

702 1. labeling vials and syringes as required by regulation. 703

704 2. recording radiopharmaceutical and medication information on a patient's 705

administration form and permanent preparation records. 706 707

3. labeling and segregating radioactive waste and recording this information 708 in a permanent record. 709 710

E. A nuclear medicine technologist prepares individual dosages under the direction 711 of an authorized user or Radiation Safety Officer by: 712

713 1. applying radioactive decay calculations to determine required volume or 714

unit form necessary to deliver the prescribed radioactive dose. 715 716

2. selecting and preparing prescribed dosages and entering this information 717 on a patient's administration form and other permanent records. 718 719

3. labeling the dose for administration. 720 721 4. checking the dose activity prior to administration in a dose calibrator and 722

comparing this measurement against the identification label of the dose's 723 immediate container. 724

725 726

V. Radionuclide Therapy 727 728

A. Nuclear medicine technologist properly prepares and administers therapeutic 729 radionuclides, radiopharmaceuticals, and pharmaceutical agents by oral and/or 730 intravenous routes when these agents are part of a standard procedure that is 731


required for treatment under the direction of an authorized user in accordance 732 with federal, state, and institutional regulations by: 733 734 1. assuring that the correct radiopharmaceutical and dosage is prepared. 735 736 2. following the NRC mandated quality management program in effect at the 737

facility in regard to patient identification and the use of therapeutic 738 radionuclides. 739

740 3. observing prescribed radiation safety procedures during the preparation 741

and the administration of such treatment. 742 743

4. assisting the authorized user in supplying proper patient care instructions 744 to hospital staff, patient, and/or caregivers. 745

746 5. conducting and documenting radiation surveys of designated patient areas, 747

when indicated. 748 749 6. Instruct the patient, family and staff in radiation safety precautions after 750

the administration of therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals. 751 752

7. coordinating/scheduling pre/post treatment blood draws and/or imaging. 753 754

VI. Radiation Safety 755 756 A. A nuclear medicine technologist performs all procedures utilizing ionizing 757

radiation safely and effectively, applying federal, state, and institutional 758 regulations, including, but not limited to: 759

760 1. notifying appropriate authority when changes occur in the radiation safety 761

program. 762 763

2. assisting in the preparation of license amendments, when necessary. 764 765

3. keeping up to date on regulatory changes and by complying with all 766 applicable regulations. 767 768

4. maintaining required records. 769 770

5. posting appropriate signs in designated areas. 771 772

6. following regulations regarding receipt, disposal and usage of all 773 radioactive materials. 774 775

7. carrying out a program to follow regulations regarding therapeutic 776 procedures and follow-up. 777


778 8. recommending purchase of protection equipment to meet regulations. 779

780 9. packaging radioactive material according to regulations and keeping 781

accurate records of transfer. 782 783

B. A nuclear medicine technologist follows appropriate radiation protection 784 procedures by: 785

786 1. using personnel monitoring devices (dosimeters, film badges, 787

thermoluminescent dosimeters, etc.). 788 789 a) reviewing monthly personnel exposure records in regard to 790

maximum permissible dose limits; 791 792

b) taking appropriate measures to reduce exposure, when necessary; 793 and 794 795

c) notifying proper authorities of excessive exposure upon 796 occurrence; 797 798

2. selecting and using proper syringe shields and other shielding 799 configurations to reduce radiation exposure to patients, personnel and the 800 general public. 801 802

3. identifying specific radionuclides emissions and energies per 803 radiopharmaceutical (gamma, beta, positron) and using proper shielding 804 and disposal procedures in compliance with NRC regulations to maximize 805 patient, technologist, and public protection. 806 807

4. performing technologist bioassays as per state and/or federal regulations. 808 809

5. working in a safe, but timely manner in order to decrease radiation 810 exposure in consideration of ALARA programs. 811

812 6. reviewing personal monitoring device readings to determine if 813

radiation exposure can be further reduced. 814 815 7. working in a manner that minimizes potential contamination 816 of patients, technologists, the public, and work areas. 817 818

C. A nuclear medicine technologist performs radioactivity contamination monitoring 819 by: 820

821 1. ensuring that instruments are calibrated at regular intervals, or after repairs 822

according to regulations. 823


824 2. setting frequency and locations for surveys and following schedules. 825

826 3. using appropriate survey meters for each type and level of activity. 827

828 4. following regulations regarding personnel surveys and reporting to the 829

designated authorized user or Radiation Safety Officer. 830 831

5. performing constancy checks on survey meters. 832 833

6. performing wipe tests where applicable. 834 835

7. performing leak tests on sealed sources, when so authorized. 836 837

8. recording data in required format (e.g., dpm instead of cpm). 838 839

9. evaluating results of wipe tests and area surveys to determine if action 840 is required. 841

842 10. notifying the Radiation Safety Officer when actions are 843 required. 844 845

D. A nuclear medicine technologist performs decontamination procedures by: 846 847

1. wearing personal protective equipment as necessary. 848 849

2. restricting access to affected area and confining a spill. 850 851

3. removing contamination and monitoring the area and personnel and 852 repeating decontamination procedure until activity levels are acceptable. 853 854

5. closing off all areas of fixed contamination that are above acceptable 855 levels, and posting appropriate signs. 856 857

6. identifying, storing, or disposing of contaminated material in accordance 858 with regulations. 859 860

7. maintaining adequate records concerning decontamination. 861 862

8. notifying appropriate authority (e.g., Radiation Safety Officer) in the event 863 of possible overexposure or other violations of regulations. 864 865

E. A nuclear medicine technologist disposes of radioactive waste in accordance with 866 federal, state and institutional regulations by: 867

868 1. maintaining appropriate records. 869


870 2. disposal according to license specifications. 871

872 3. maintaining long- and short-term storage areas according to 873 regulation. 874 875

F. A nuclear medicine technologist participates in programs designed to instruct 876 other personnel about radiation hazards and principles of radiation safety by: 877

878 1. using the following teaching concepts 879

880 a) types of ionizing radiation; 881

882 b) the biological effects of ionizing radiation; 883

884 c) limits of dose, exposure, and radiation effect; 885

886 d) concepts of low-level radiation and health; and 887

888 e) concept of risk versus benefit. 889

890 2. providing instruction on appropriate radiation safety measures. 891

892 3. providing instruction on proper emergency procedures to be followed until 893

radiation safety personnel arrive at the site of accident or spill. 894 895 4. modeling proper radiation safety techniques and shielding in the course of 896

daily duties. 897 898

900 References: 899

Nuclear Medicine Technology Certification Board (NMTCB) Report: Equipment and 901 Procedures in Current Practice (2002) 902 903 Performance and Responsibility Guidelines for the Nuclear Medicine Technologist, The Socio-904 Economic Affairs Committee, SNM-TS, September 1994. 905 906 Performance and Responsibility Guidelines for the Nuclear Medicine Technologist, The Socio-907 Economic Affairs Committee, SNM-TS, September 1998. 908 909 SNMTS Socioeconomic Affairs Committee. Performance and Responsibility Guidelines for the 910 Nuclear Medicine Technologist. J Nucl Med Technol. 2003;31:222–229. 911 912 Nuclear Medicine Technology Certification Board. Components of Preparedness. 913 http://www.nmtcb.org > NUCLEAR MEDICINE EXAM > COMPONENTS OF PREPAREDNESS. Last 914 updated 2009. 915

http://www.nmtcb.org/�


916 Blondeau K, Hearten S, Pickett M, Bridges J. Critical Task Analysis Report. 2000. Nuclear 917 Medicine Technology Certification Board, 3558 Habersham at Northlake, Bldg I, Tucker, GA 918 30084, [email protected]. 919 920 Joint Review Committee on Educational Programs in Nuclear Medicine Technology. Essentials 921 and Guidelines for an Accredited Educational Program for the Nuclear Medicine Technologist. 922 2011. http://jrcnmt.org/essentials.asp. Last accessed 07/18/07. 923 924 American Registry of Radiologic Technologists. Task Inventory for Nuclear Medicine 925 Technologist. 2010. https://www.arrt.org/examinations/practiceanalysis/NMT_TI_2011.pdf 926 927 American Society of Radiologic Technologists. Nuclear Medicine Practice Standards. 2000. 928 http://www.asrt.org/media/pdf/standards_nm.pdf. Last accessed 07/25/07. 929 930 SNMTS Scope of Practice Task Force. Nuclear Medicine Technologist Scope of Practice. 931 September 2008. 932 933 SNMTS Educators Task Force Curriculum Subcommittee. “NMT Entry-Level Curriculum 934 Guide, 4th

936 Edition. August 2008. 935

937

mailto:[email protected]�

http://jrcnmt.org/essentials.asp.%20Last%20accessed%2007/18/07�

http://www.asrt.org/media/pdf/standards_nm.pdf�

Awards Committee

Specialty Area Representatives

NCOR Specialty Report

After being assigned to take a look at the Specialty Sections of the NCOR at this past May’s conference call I approached this from a member’s standpoint who may sit on that specific committee. I thank Nikki for her assistance in providing the information of the job descriptions as well as participation via written reports for past meetings. This information is toward the end of this report for your reference.

There are two options, both only suggestions and idea’s which the NCOR may act on separately, combine, or act on neither. I thank the respondents for their thoughts as well as idea’s which have been brought forth.

There are six specialty areas: Industry, Student, Education, Manager, Emerging Technologies, Cardiology

All specialty area’s are noted and stated within the bylaws.

Financially only the student specialty representative receives monetary assistance.

All current representatives were emailed for their input on May 16th . The report was submitted on May 22nd, any further response may be introduced at time of discussion of the issue

The main body of the email was as follows: There are several and after looking at these area's I have come to a slight conclusion that many of these positions could either be absorbed by standing committees and or be terminated. I know you sit on the _____specialty area, I just would like to know your opinion on this. We could not just get rid of these positions, it would have to go to bylaws etc. You can email or give me a call with your thoughts, I would greatly appreciate this.

Each one of these positions must be filled with candidates by the nominating committee.

Each one of the individuals should serve their specific area by having a voice on the council as elected by their peers on NCOR

After speaking to the respondents as well as looking at the job descriptions the following suggestions for discussion are presented to the NCOR:

Option 1

-Emerging technologies as well as cardiology remain on NCOR. This is based on the educational need as well as increased information needed by emerging technologies in regard to the new direction in regards to the name change with the addition of molecular imaging. There is no financial loss, but dependent on projects assigned assistance may be needed to help these members.

-The rest of the specialty groups would be either eliminated, assigned , or absorbed by standing committees that report to NCOR:

Manager would go to program committee

Education would go to the education committee

Student would go to educators committee

Industry would either go to committee, eliminated, or stay on with the NCOR. Or if the need be a =n individual representing certain industry could be brought in to provide insight.

With these changes the number of members on NCOR decrease, quorums may be attained due to decreased number of members on NCOR

From a financial standpoint some money is saved via the transferring of the student to the education committee.

Any decisions made at this meeting or in the future then would be forwarded to Bylaws if changes were to be made. A timeline would have to be established of how to proceed.

Option2

All positions are specialty areas as voted by NCOR

On nomination to these positions one has to sign an agreement if elected clause they will fulfill the duties as specified on the job description.

Job descriptions would be examined and re written to explain the position in greater detail

Certain specialty positions once elected would sit on committees (as described above if positions were to be eliminated). In this manner greater participation of the NCOR member both on committee as well as NCOR would keep the NCOR informed much more frequently.

In the job descriptions it would and should be pointed out that if assistance is needed in performing the position one should seek out the speaker of the NCOR for guidance

With this option some items are changed but done so within the NCOR.

Reference Materrial

• Specialty Area Representatives (Cardiology; Emerging Technologies; Education; Manager; Industry; and Student)

Qualifications – Must be active in the SNMTS for at least three (3) consecutive years. Must be presently working or hold a title in that specialty area. If elected must not hold concurrent National Council of Representative positions. Past Presidents are ineligible to serve.

Time commitment: 2 years DUTIES and RESPONSIBILITIES of the SNMTS Industry and Specialty Area Representatives (2 year time commitment)

The Industry Representative and the Specialty Area Representatives shall be elected by ballot by voting members of the NCOR prior to the Annual Meeting. The names of nominees selected by the Nominating Committee shall be forwarded to the National Council of Representatives at least 30 days prior to the Annual Meeting of the Society. The nominee who receives the highest number of votes for any elected position shall be duly elected. In the event of a tie vote, the National Council of Representatives members present at the Annual Meeting shall break the tie. The tabulation of ballots shall be performed by staff present at the meeting and certified by the Secretary/Historian of the Section. Results of the election shall be made known at the NCOR meeting at the Annual Meeting. Unless stated otherwise in the Bylaws, all rules and procedures for the conduct of nominations and elections shall be recommended by the Nominating Committee and approved by the Executive Board.

The following are the duties and responsibilities for these positions:

Attend and be prepared for all NCOR meetings (2 per year) Read all material distributed to the NCOR Review and request information on important matters requiring NCOR action

Engage in Committee, Task Force, and NCOR discussions and contribute fully to the analysis of proposals and presentations

Willingness to serve on Committees and task forces that pertain to the interest of the represented specialty and/or industry

Additional responsibilities and duties of the specialty area representatives are listed below (by specialty area).

Cardiology Specialty Area Representative

Reports to the National Council of Representatives and on issues specific to the Cardiology Specialty

Interacts with Representative from Industry and Emerging Technologies as need be to bring to the table, new technologies or products which may be on the cutting edge and reports that information back to the National Council of Representatives to assure that all members can take this information back to the local level.

Writes articles for UPTAKE and the JNMT on topics related to the Specialty as requested.

Reports (written) at least semi-annually, in conjunction with meetings of the Executive Board on recent activities related to Cardiology.

Education Representative

Acts as a liaison for the various facets of the Educational Process within the Section.

Monitors activities of committees and task forces

Assures that educational issues requiring attention are directed to the appropriate committee or task force.

Monitors initiatives of Accrediting/ Certification Bodies as well as other educators and institutions of higher learning to identify issues of concern and emerging trends in the field.

Writes articles for UPTAKE and the JNMT as requested to cover topics related to the broad field of education.

Reports at least semi-annually, in conjunction with meetings of the Executive Board on recent activities related to the Educational process.

Attends meetings or monitors the results of meetings, as appropriate, and as funding is available.

Emerging Technologies Representative

Acts as a liaison between the Technologist Section and the PET Center of Excellence (or other SNM Councils or centers as warranted).

Communicates with NCOR representative from industry and contacts within the emerging technology to identify hot issues related to the technology.

Communicates and facilitates educational activities related to the emerging technology.

Identifies experts in the field to assist in implementing educational programs to promote excellence in the emerging technology.

Reports at least semi-annually, in conjunction with meetings of the Executive Board on recent activities related to the Emerging Technology.

Liaison with molecular imaging organizations.

Writes articles for Uptake and JNMT as requested.

Management Representative:

Identifies issues relevant specifically to management.

Works in conjunction with the Annual Program Committee to develop an educational offering with content specific to management.

Reports at least semi-annually, in conjunction with meetings of the Executive Board on recent activities related to management.

Reports to the National Council of Representatives on management activities of like minded organizations.

Writes articles for Uptake and JNMT as requested

Student Representative

Liaison for the transfer of information between students of Nuclear Medicine Technology and the National Council of Representatives.

Reports on activities related to Nuclear Medicine Technology training that could be improved.

Reports, at least semi-annually, in conjunction with the meetings of the Executive Board on recent projects and contacts.

Representative from the SNMTS to efforts at recruiting activities.

Attends the Outreach Committee meetings to help identify methods of recruiting new students into the Nuclear Medicine Technology field.

Attends meetings of the Membership Committee to help identify methods of recruiting and retaining student members into the Technologist Section.

AM2011 MWM2011 AM2010 MWM2010 AM2009 MWM2009 Industry Specialty Area NO YES NO YES YES NO Student Specialty Area NO NO NO NO NO NO Education Specialty Area NO NO NO NO NO NO Manager Specialty Area NO NO NO YES NO NO Emerging Technologies Specialty Area YES YES NO NO NO YES Cardiology Specialty Area YES YES YES YES YES NO

Name Change Task Force

Consideration of a Name Change for the SNM

The Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM) is completingits 5-y campaign to embrace all molecular imagingmodalities while, at the same time, its 60th anniver-

sary is rapidly approaching. As a specialty, nuclear medi-cine arose from the application of sophisticated technologyproviding a unique ability to image function and physio-logical processes. Nuclear medicine also provided ways totreat diseases such as thyroid disease and non-Hodgkinlymphoma by utilizing radioactive medicines that specifi-cally targeted fundamental aspects of the organ’s physiol-ogy or the pathophysiology of the disease. Over the past5 y, we have incorporated nonnuclear molecular imagingtechnologies into SNM and SNM-sponsored scientific andeducational programs and publications, such as The Journalof Nuclear Medicine, the Journal of Nuclear MedicineTechnology, Molecular Imaging, and the Molecular Imag-ing Gateway newsletter. This transition was quite natural,as SNM came to realize that molecular imaging andtherapy have always been integral parts of our specialty.However, the society recognized the need to expand itsvision to look beyond radioactive biomarkers into opti-cal, ultrasonic, and magnetic resonance strategies thatutilize multiple modalities to answer scientific questionsas well as to diagnose, treat, and monitor therapy of dis-ease. As an organization we now stand prepared to lead theway in translating novel molecular imaging and therapeuticstrategies for the new era of molecular and personalizedmedicine.

It is appropriate at this critical juncture to considerwhether the name “Society of Nuclear Medicine” adequatelydescribes who we are and where we are headed. It has cer-tainly served us well over these past 60 y and has come torepresent the most prestigious international organization inthe field of nuclear medicine. However, as molecular imag-ing expands, we need to incorporate emerging imaging tech-nologies beyond those that utilize radioactivity.

For these reasons, the SNM Board of Directors andHouse of Delegates, in conjunction with the TechnologistSection leadership, are asking the membership to consider anew name: the “Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molec-ular Imaging.” We recognize that renaming SNM has beenconsidered previously, and many of us opposed a namechange in the past. Although we want to keep our nuclear

medicine identity, now is the timeto once again consider a namechange that embraces our past,present, and future.

The name “Society of NuclearMedicine and Molecular Imaging”retains our identity while openingour arms to new possibilities as wellas to scientists, technologists, clini-cians, and laboratory professionalswhose primary focus is nonnuclearmolecular imaging. It recognizesour growing diversity in imaging,nuclear and nonnuclear, molecularand nonmolecular. It also recognizesthe therapeutic, medicinal aspects ofour specialty by retaining the words“nuclear medicine.” Although noname will suit all of our members,we feel that the Society of NuclearMedicine and Molecular Imagingbest represents where we comefrom, who we are, and where ourfuture lies.

A name change requires that a change in our bylaws beapproved by the SNM House of Delegates. However, theconsideration of a name change is an endeavor that must becarefully considered by all within SNM, including theTechnologist Section, chapters, councils, centers, and, mostimportant, the membership at large. We want to apprise youof these considerations early in the process. In the monthsahead, we will be soliciting opinions in a more formalmanner, because we are very interested in your thoughtsregarding this most important matter. Please contact leader-ship of the SNM Board of Directors, House of Delegates,SNMTS Executive Board, and National Council of Repre-sentatives by sending an e-mail to [email protected]. Welook forward to hearing from you.

Frederic H. Fahey, DScSNM Vice-President-Elect

Kathy Hunt, MS, CNMTSNMTS President

Frederic H. Fahey,DSc

Kathy Hunt, MS,CNMT

14N THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE • Vol. 52 • No. 5 • May 2011

NEW

SLIN

E

Feedback Received from SNM Membership E-mail as of 5-24 (12:47pm)

Total Responses: 325 Yes: 202 (62.2%)

No: 72 (22.2%)

Suggested Other Names: 12 (3.7%) Other (did not specify either way): 34 (10.5%)

____________________________________________________________________________________ I would be in favor of the change Michael Pontecorvo, Ph.D. Vice-President, Clinical Development Avid Radiopharmaceuticals ____________________________________ I support the name change Edward M. Plut, BSPS, Pharm.D. | Vice President, Product Management & Marketing PETNET Solutions | A Siemens Company I favor the proposed name change. James Brasic ____________________________________ Dear SNM, I believe, that the change of name will help to keep the field attractive for the next generation of physicians. Best regards Markus Schwaiger Prof. Dr. M. Schwaiger ____________________________________ I was in total opposition a few years ago when it was first proposed but have decided it would be appropriate. Scott McKoin BS, CNMT, RT(N) ____________________________________ Hello, My vote is to for SNM remain SNM. Thank you, Mariusz Dymerski ____________________________________ like it Keith C Allberg RadQual, LLC ____________________________________ I believe that a name change is just commercial rebranding and not called for.... The Roentgen Ray and the American College of Radiology and the Radiologic Society of North America embrace non-Xray technniques like ultrasound, MRI, and Nuclear Medicine just fine... don't waste your time and my dues on this

Mike Hartshorne I support the name change from SNM to SNMI Paresh Mahajan, MD Attending Physician in Nuclear Medicine and PET Imaging William Beaumont Hospitals ____________________________________ I am in favor of the new name: Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMI) Prof. Alberto Cuocolo ____________________________________ I am in favor of the new name: Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMI) Prof. Alberto Cuocolo ____________________________________ The name change is fine with me! Barbara ____________________________________ My vote would be to not change the name. Rick Lambert, CNMT, PET Nuclear Medicine Cancer Treatment Centers of America at Southwestern Regional Medical Center ____________________________________ Sound like a mouthful! How about SOCIETY OF NUCLEAR AND MOLECULAR IMAGING. One less word but still says the same. Keith Grindle ____________________________________ I am very much in favor of the name change. While I recognize that there a financial cost as well as a recognition cost in changing, I feel that that the benefit/risk ratio is very favorable in having the Society’s name more reflective of the work that we do. I am a long-time member of the SNM, and also have many experiences of interacting with people (healthcare professionals, patients, manufacturers, public, etc.) when people misunderstand SNM for S&M. SNMI captures our purpose much easier. Terry Garner, CNMT Vice President, Sales & Marketing ____________________________________ I agree with the proposed name. I like it. Giuseppe Esposito, MD ____________________________________ Keep the SNM name Daniel Clark ____________________________________ Thanks for the chance for input. Obviously the importance for inclusion of other imaging modalities/technologies is important - although these technologies are in general in their infancy.

However, somewhat surprised that inclusion of reference to therapeutic technologies which nuclear medicine is currently involved - bone pain palliation, thyroid therapy, etc. - or is expected to be more involved in - i.e. targeted therapy with open sources such as Lu-177-DOTATATE/TOC - is evidently not being considered ? For many years it has been felt that therapy is the next important opportunity for nuclear medicine - what's happened ? F. F. (Russ) Knapp, Jr., Ph.D. Manager, Nuclear Medicine Program Fuel Cycle and Isotopes Division ____________________________________ Agree with proposal for Society name change. Victor A. Ferrari, MD ____________________________________ Honestly, this local group thinks changing the name of SNM is a bonehead idea. SNM has its functions and that does include and has always included molecular imaging right back to the first thyroid scan. A name change creates lots of heat and very little light. It makes the SNM appear to feel out of date and irrelevant. I doubt that is the case. What seems more to the point is that SNM may be losing sight of its core values while trying to chase the latest fad or dollar. Marc Berridge Ph.D. President, 3D Imaging Professor of Radiology and of Pharmaceutical Sciences, UAMS ____________________________________ Dear Dr. Delbeke: I support to change the name of the society to the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMI). Sincerely yours, Yasuhito Sasaki ____________________________________ Dear Sir, dear Madam as far I can see from my restricted view as a die-hard radionuclide user :-), who is however aware of the possibilities to make use of the same pathophysiological principles with different tracer substances and detection technologies (a process we have successfully gone through in our former RIA lab, which nowadays is more of an LIA or fluorescence lab...) I decidedly favor the proposed Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMI). Sincerely, Helmut Huber Institut f. Nuklearmedizin & Endokrinologie ____________________________________ I would not favor the name change. The SNM deals with nuclear imaging and in vitro evaluation. Molecular imaging includes non-nuclear technologies as well. Ernest Gordon Depuey ____________________________________ I think that the name of the Society of Nuclear Medicine should not be changed. If Nuclear Medicine is a dead field, the SNM should die with it. If Nuclear Medicine is a vital field, the SNM serves its needs as presently named. I should point out that I belong to the Association for Computing Machinery, which devotes a huge organizational attention to aspects of computing that are not hardware-related and to the IEEE Computer Society, which likewise deals with algorithms, programming languages and many aspects of computing

beyond the devices themselves. Nevertheless, the names of these organizations convey their rich histories without detracting in the least from their current missions and future directions. Similarly, I would argue that “The Society of Nuclear Medicine” is an important name to preserve for historical reasons, especially as the practice of Nuclear Medicine shifts from medicine to radiology in its emphasis. Our present name does not limit the evolution of the Society’s scope of mission and breadth of vision to reflect current and future research and clinical practice. Richard Wendt (member since 1980) ____________________________________ Sounds like a good idea to me. Doug Dischino ____________________________________ I agree with the rationale behind a name/acronym change to SNMI and would support it's implementation. Stephen Messana, DO ____________________________________ Dear Sir, I oppose the name change and advocate keeping the name Society of Nuclear Medicine. Sincerely, Babington Yung, member#138703 Fine with me. John Freitas ____________________________________ I remember when MRI first came out it was called Nuclear Magnetic Resonance but since it had no radiation they thought people would associate it with nuclear medicine. Now with the radiation anxiety in the public radiology departments are changing their names to Imaging rather than X-ray department. Why not do the same with Nuclear Medicine? We could call it Scintigraphy of Molecular Biology or something along that line. Gary L. Rose, M.D. ____________________________________ I support this name change and think that it's a great idea. Thank you Tim Marant CNMT Team Leader ____________________________________ "SNM" is a good name. Li, Shihong ____________________________________ OK for change of name! Prof Pierre BOURGEOIS, MD, PhD, Head of Clinic, Service of Nuclear Medicine, Specialist in Nuclear Medicine and in Radiation Therapy In charge of the consultations of Lymphology, Past President of the European Society of Lymphology, ____________________________________ I like the proposed name change. Monica Geyer, MBA, CNMT

Associate Director, Radiology University of Chicago Medical Center ____________________________________ I believe the name change would be appropriate considering the advancements made in the technologies and coverage of the society. Phil James ____________________________________ I prefer to not change the name. In the next 20 yours, how many more times will we also want to change the name? It can get silly if there will be a long list (remember coke classic?) of former names. I assume there will be more changes to what we do in the next decades, but we should not keep evolving the name of our organization to follow these changes. This would be confusing to our members and to outside organizations that currently have only a peripheral knowledge of who we are and what we do. In my opinion, we will gain little and add lots of confusion. Michael Soucie, MS, R.T.(n) Associate Radiological Health Specialist ____________________________________ Name change is a good idea to include all aspects of molecular imaging, such as optical imaging and etc. Esther Lim, MD ____________________________________ Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Thoughts Nuclear medicine encompasses nuclear molecular imaging so that the title is partially redundant. Nuclear and Nonnuclear Molecular Imaging does not sound as nice. Changing the name would be fine by me. Kinzya Grant ____________________________________ I like the new name but… Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMI) Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to abbreviate it as (SNMMI)… Mark Rucker, MS, CNMT ____________________________________ Dear Dominique and Carolyn: I completely agree with the proposal to change the name of the SNM, because we have to fulfill the present requirements of the medical practice. Congratulations on this initiative. Greetings, we´ll see in San Antonio Prof. Enrique Estrada-Lobato ____________________________________ I think a more accurate name would be: Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Studies (SNMMS). Not all NM studies involve imaging. Plus future types of procedures, not thought of yet, may not involve imaging either. We should not be so narrow in our name change. Thanks for asking for feedback. Judith E. Kosegi, MS,CNMT Indiana University NMT Program ____________________________________ I think the suggested name change is appropriate. However, is the short version, SNMI confusing, as by convention it would be SNMMI. I agree the latter does not flow off the tongue Rehm, Patrice K *HS ____________________________________

It looks good. Michelle Pelescak, Amy and RIP Nyssa ____________________________________ I disagree with the name change and more strongly with the reason for the name change. Nuclear Medicine is a clinical imaging modality. The non-nuclear imaging techniques should not have a place in “Nuclear Medicine”. It’s time to go back to our roots. The reason we exist is because we use radiopharmaceuticals to diagnose and treat disease. That’s what makes us unique, and that should be our strategy. Molecular imaging techniques, as long as they use radiopharmaceuticals, they are a part of Nuclear Medicine, but that should not mean that we have to change name to claim what belongs to us. I am seeing a serious pattern here: Society of Nuclear Medicine à Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging à Society of Nuclear and Molecular Imaging Research à Society of Molecular Imaging Research. And that’s when we will cease to exist as a clinical modality. It’s time to reclaim the Clinical Imaging aspect of Nuclear Medicine. Clinical imaging brings revenue and revenue leads to research and development. When non-nuclear physicians practice Nuclear Medicine, volumes and revenue go down, and research and development is affected. Some of my friends have quit SNM to become members of EANM which better protects the interests of the specialty. I have personally stopped giving to SNM as I do not want my donations to go towards non-nuclear imaging research. Peeyush Bhargava MD ____________________________________ Dr. Delbeke, I understand the difference between Traditional Nuclear Medicine Imaging and Molecular Imaging(PET/CT). The point I wish to make is that Traditional Nuclear Medicine Imaging is in fact a form of Molecular imaging too. I do not see a need to change the Society's name however, if a name change is deemed necessary, then perhaps it should be to a name like, " The Society of Nuclear Medicine and PET Imaging"(or - and Positron Imaging"). I believe that this name change more accurately describes the differences between the two closely related branches of Nuclear medicine. Sincerely, Steven Messer RT(N) ____________________________________ I like the name change but in essence all of Nuclear Med is based upon Molecular Imaging why not just change the name to "Society of Molecular Imaging"? Kenneth Repking B.S., CNMT Here are my suggested changes: Society of Nuclear Medicine & Molecular Imaging – SNMMI SNMTS - SNMMITS The Journal of Nuclear Medicine – The Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (JNMMI) The Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology – The Journal of Nuclear Medicine & Molecular Imaging Technology (JNMMITS) ____________________________________ Please don’t combine Ms in NM and MI – e.g. SNMI. We will lose the identity and confuse the issue. If you will be redesigning the corporate identity including logo, I would be happy to volunteer my time. In my other life, I have studied graphic design and calligraphy; and I have a graphic design business for more than 25 years. To my knowledge, I am the only nuclear medicine technologist, who is also a professional graphic designer! Dilip Gohil, CNMT Manager of Nuclear Medicine Services ____________________________________ SNMI is fine! Says it all…not too wordy! Good job.

DCAndrews, RT(N), CNMT ____________________________________ I prefer the new name, SNMI, thanks! Zheng Jim Wang, PhD ____________________________________ Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. Go for it. Skip ____________________________________ I am in favor of the name change. I would go so far as to say, I would drop the Nuclear Medicine portion. But, I know that this is a bit of a stretch for everyone. But, in the day and age of situations with Nuclear Power plant mishaps, I think Nuclear Medicine has more of a negative connotation that a positive one. And, I think we in our Society of Nuclear Medicine need to face up to this. I would think we, as a society, would want to do what is best for our organization and profession. And, I think if we lead the field and begin to call ourselves by "what we do" instead of "what we do it with", our field would benefit. Thanks for all your hard work. I truly appreciate it. Aileen Staffaroni, M.S., C.N.M.T. ____________________________________ I think it was Shakespeare who said "a rose by any other name....." it's not what we say we are it's what we actually do that matters. If we called ourselves SNM and plumbing science it would have the meaning. Bob Henkin ____________________________________ I propose keeping SNM. Paul Jensen, CNMT ____________________________________ As a CNMT for 25+ years, I would definately recommend a name change. After needing to defend and explain "Nuclear" pretty much daily throughout my career, I'm ready to take that albatross off my neck. Even provider's who should know better are unreasonably frightened by the radiation implied in the title. With a shining future involving Molecular Imaging, we should pounce on the opportunity to give our field a more positive image. Lose the word nuclear altogether! I favor "Functional Imaging". Then I could be identified as a F.I.S.T. (FUNCTIONAL IMAGING SOCIETY TECH). Dontcha love it? Sharon L Weibler CNMT ____________________________________ Based on the past and current reputation and high esteem of SNM, I feel that it is essential to maintain “Society of Nuclear Medicine” in the name. I understand the desire to expand to other molecular imaging techniques, so I am not opposed to adding “and Molecular Imaging” James A. Ponto, MS, RPh, BCNP ____________________________________ I am against a name change. The SNM is an appropriate name and is well respected in the medical community and with Congress. John J. Kottra, M.D., FACR ____________________________________

lIKE THE NEW NAME. wAYNE jACOBSmd ____________________________________ Isn't that the initials of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, India ? Mitch Stromer ____________________________________ I would be in favor of the proposed change Dr. Paul Schneider ____________________________________ It appears to me that if we change the name of our society to the “Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging”, then the abbreviation should be “SNMMI”. Otherwise the “SNMI” abbreviation could be confused with “Society of Nuclear Medicine Imaging”. James A. Patton, Ph.D. ____________________________________ Name change seems appropriate! Wiley, Albert ____________________________________ I support the change to SMNI. Walker, Ronald ____________________________________ Why not change it to something large and cumbersome, like what you are proposing? We have people who do not do pet in our midst, they are gonna feel left out… Pfrimmer, Louis ____________________________________ I alreasy said that I am totally opposed to it . THE SNM has always been interested to enhance the status of the field in general but never did anything substantial to strenghten the medical specialty . The medical specialty is aleady dying . This name change will precipitate its downfall because it will make it less and less understandable by the general public who is already confused about its contributions and its special role in Imaging Karam, Maroun ____________________________________ I think that the name change will attract more people to join in the meetings and society. Regards, Anna-Liisa Brownell, PhD ____________________________________ I think the entire idea of changing to "molecular imaging" is absurd and utterly unnecessary. That being said, SNMI is as good as anything else. Marcia Cousino ____________________________________ Shouldn't the initials be SNMMI? You have it as SNMI in your mail. Paul Sirotta ____________________________________ Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback! I like the new name quite a bit ... but perhaps not for the reasons SNM leadership identifies. I like the name change because it recognizes the essential molecular imaging nature of (diagnostic) nuclear medicine, NOT because "the society need[s] to expand its vision to look beyond radioactive biomarkers into optical, ultrasonic, and magnetic resonance

strategies that utilize multiple modalities to answer scientific questions as well as to diagnose, treat, and monitor therapy of disease." How can I possibly be opposed to such an expansion? I'm worried about a dilution of focus, and movement into arenas in which stiff competition already exists. We are not, nor will we ever be, the premier supplier of information in optical, ultrasonic, and magnetic resonance strategies. If we attempt to "balance" the Journal or the Annual Meeting by incorporating more-and-more of these strategies, at the expense (space- and time-wise) of nuclear medicine, we will be doing ourselves and the field a significant disservice ... because we ARE the premier supplier of information in nuclear medicine! Best wishes, Jonathan M. Links, PhD ____________________________________ I feel to represent our emerging technologies the name change to SNM and Molecular Imaging is appropriate. Mary Jo Smith RT (R) (N) ____________________________________ I think it is a great idea to change the name to SNMI. HEIDI A AMBROSE ____________________________________ I support the name change. It is relevant and describes the overall mission and resource of the SNM. Sue Buckley Halliday ____________________________________ I fully agree to change the name. Best regards, Mei Tian, MD., PhD. ____________________________________ I vote no. The name change only dilutes the focus of the organization. Non radioactivity based imaging techniques have many other professional avenues and groups to represent them. Mausner, Leonard ____________________________________ I support the modernization of the name and hope that the direction of the Society follows it's name. Being a member of the Molecular Imaging Societies and I attend them more then the SNM I would like to see a further move to merging of the societies. There are not many who can effort the number of Society memberships and the merging of common interests would be welcomed by many. I suspect that the "old Guard" would never allow the mergers to happen. I would be willing to sit on any committees to serve the Society. Kindest regards and Truly concerned about the future of Nuclear Medicine, Jerry W. Froelich, M.D., FACR Keep the name the same Phyllis Tesluk RT (R)(N) CNMT ____________________________________ Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMI) is not the name we would have started with today if we were just beginning. All things considered this far overdue change would be very welcomed. Jay Janusz Kikut, M.D. ____________________________________ I totally agree to change the name of SNM to SNMI Manfred Fischer ____________________________________

Hopefully, will allow us to attract interaction from non-NM MI modalities and boost our ranks. Akash Sharma, M.D. ____________________________________ We would like to keep the name the same: SNM Mike Feldkamp ____________________________________ Agree with name change Jack Seto I think the name change is a good one. I know this has been talked about for some time now and I think the time is certainly appropriate. Kind regards, Glen Witherbee ____________________________________ I think with changing technology so fast and merging modalities, It is great idea for SNM to be keep up with changes along with change of name to include Molecular Imaging (SNMI). Haresh Majmundar ____________________________________ I am not in favor of this name. The use of the word “and” makes it seem that Nuclear Medicine is not a form of molecular imaging when in fact Nuclear Medicine was the first form of molecular imaging. Expanding the Society to include modalities that do not use radioactivity is foolish. If you really think that specialists in MRI, Ultrasound, optical imaging, etc. are going to flock to join SNMI you are fooling yourselves. Other focused societies like the Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine are not considering name changes to include Nuclear Medicine or Molecular Medicine, why is SNM? We do Nuclear Medicine, let’s be proud of that fact and focus on Nuclear Medicine. Raymond R. Raylman, Ph.D. ____________________________________ The name change appears appropriate. The abbreviation, however, is same as that for Society of Nuclear Medicne India, SNMI, in my recollection. The web search may cause confusion. vimal sodhi ____________________________________ Not necessary. At this time when so many are out of work, It seems that it would be hard to justify the expense involved with this jesture. SNM still works for me...Politically correctness may seem important, but not if it results in increased costs to the members Ken Smith ____________________________________ I support the change of the SNM to SNM and MI Best Ted S. Ted Treves, MD ____________________________________ Name is excellent Bart van Berckel ____________________________________ I support the name change, it is fitting. Jonathan Berg ____________________________________

The proposed name change is fine with me. It more accurately reflects the scope of Society activities. Michael C. Roarke, M.D. Mayo Clinic Arizona ____________________________________ I think the name change is appropriate. Robert Flores CNMT, RT(N) ____________________________________ Go for the name change Ouimette ____________________________________ I think it would be appropriate to change the name. The fun and interesting part of Nuclear Medicine as a technology is that it is continually evolving. As such it is only natural that the change of the magazine/organization be "updated" to reflect this change. Sincerely, John S. Roberts BA, CNMT ____________________________________ Dear SNM and SNMT Presidents and Vice-President, I read your article in the latest JNM issue on '' Consideration of the name change for the SNM ''. Thank you for your message. It is appropriate to consider the name change for the SNM as the greatest professional society in nuclear medicine with the development of molecular imaging technologies in clinical setting and research (SPECT/CT, PET/CT, US/CT/MRI, and optical imaging) for '' the visualization, characterization, and measurements of biologic processes ''. Best personal regards, Tarik Belhocine, MD, Ph.D ____________________________________ I like the proposed name change and believe it is a better representation of the transition of our specialty. Douglas Kieper ____________________________________ I agree with the idea that time has come to change the name adopted by a majority of the members. NM practice is changing and reflecting true essence of what we do is essential. New name will enhance our standing in professional community. Harish Vaidya ____________________________________ I think it is a Great idea, we (industry) have come so far with our imaging and research, that I feel the name change is the right thing to do, it encompasses all our modalities within our community. Debbie Hamilton, CNMT ____________________________________ okay to change SNMI i my opinion Jay Layer, MS, CNMT ____________________________________ The new name better describes what is happening with imaging in today's environment. I would be in favor of the change. Stanley D. Wells MD, JD ____________________________________

I support the change of name to SNMI. Soman, Prem ____________________________________ The name change is not without merit. However, those of us who have been around since the dark ages (I have 35 years in this career and counting) will know that Nuclear Medicine has always been a form of molecular imaging. The current explosion in new applications does not really change the heart of the profession. Modern nuclear molecular imaging is an inextricable part of the historic nuclear medicine science and skill set. I can see that a name change could be useful in terms of clarifying and marking our turf - so that those outside our profession see more clearly the new tools we offer. Also, they will be reminded of the scientific discipline from whence modern molecular imaging has originated and where it's trusteeship truly belongs. Yours truly, Brian Barter, MRT(N) ____________________________________ While I understand that change comes with progress, I disagree that there needs to be a name change. SNM has been an integral part of an industry that has seen both technologic as well as resource changes. As a long time nuclear medicine technologist [28 years], I have the honor of being a member of the Society of Nuclear Medicine. The other societies and registries are all a part of a larger body, but my membership in SNM is the only one that is a true representation of my profession. Nurses have their nurses society, pharmacists have their pharmacy society, vetrinarians have their vetrinarian society....Why not Nuclear Medicine Technologists. Are we not worthy of such recognition and uniqueness? Carol Moss ____________________________________ Excellent. Agree with change Jacqueline Brunetti, M.D. ____________________________________ My opinion is NO! DON'T DO IT! Ken Nichols, Ph.D. ____________________________________ No name change needed in my opinion! [email protected] ____________________________________ My feedback on this issue, let the leadership decides. There was a taskforce who have done their job and I concur on their decision. Noly S. Pleyto, CNMT ____________________________________ Dear Dominique, While I wholeheartedly support the name change to include "Molecular Imaging", I feel that the future of our field may be in "therapy", paralleling to what has happened to the field of Radiation Oncology ... The Society should encourage the development and approval of new radio-therapeutics which would require highly trained nuclear medicine specialists to administer the therapy doses, and potentially expand opportunities for employment in every community hospital ... We should follow the lead of our Radiation Oncology colleagues. Best, Vasken ____________________________________

You're asking our feedback, and this task force has pretty much nailed down a new name of thier choosing??? OK, my opinion: [The name] Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging is woeful. Nuclear Medicine is Molecular Imaging...it is Nuclear Cardiology, it is PET Imaging. Nuclear medicine is all of these branches...who are we trying to impress? Why can't we just be Nuclear Imaging, or better yet Nuclear Medicine? Hey, then we could be known as the Society of Nuclear Medicine! Sounds a lots less pompous and self appointed. Dean Peters, ARRT (N)(R) ____________________________________ I actually like the name change, however, would it not be abbreviated SNMMI instead of SNMI? Sincerely, Richard D. Siska MS, BSNM, CNMT, NCT, R.T.(R)(N) (ARRT) ____________________________________ I agree a name change that shows our evolution as a field and embraces the nature of our current practice and where we are going should occur. Currently we have various centers, (e.g., PET Center of Excellence, CMIIT, etc.), that allow for niche conversations. A name change that advertises a united emcompassing front would be well embraced, in my eyes, to the various researchers, physicians, technologists, and scientists, as we look toward a future of collaboration and growth. It is imperative that the society not only serves as a place for groups to grow in their own right, but that it serve as the joining force that increases collaboration. Sincerely, James Jackson,CNMT, BS ____________________________________ Agreed and Supportive of the name change! David Cohen, President ____________________________________ Well, if you're going to do it, the mnemonic needs to be SNMMI. James Bading, PhD ____________________________________ Why change it ? It will just add to confusion. Don't fix it unless its broken and in my opinion its not broken. jeff Phillips ____________________________________ Don't change the name, acronym, regardless of who we (you choose to) include. I can't state this strongly enough and won't bite you with too much pedantic detail oriented argument beyond this: a standard is not a variable. have one or the other, but realize these two things are mutually exclusive. The SNM will cease to exist. Based in that behavior, eventually the SNMI will cease to exist too. In short, this is a slippery slope. Sorry if the only new blood willing to soend time ir energy wants a name change. Don't do it. Marc Milrod ____________________________________ The proposal is rational, instructive, and only slightly tedious, a problem reduced by the fact that it keeps the same first three consonants intact. RN Pierson Jr.

____________________________________ I like the name change. Dru Foster ____________________________________ I agree with the proposed name change vernon croft ____________________________________ I think the present name is fine (SNM Advancing Molecular Imaging and Therapy), but it needs to be used on all correspondence and throughout the internet. The proposed new name is mundane and too close to many already named societies including EANM. The problem is not the name, but the definition of molecular imaging as published by SNM & RSNA and that is what needs to be changed. Basically molecular imaging should concentrate on combining two imaging modalities to take advantage of the strengths of each. Radiopharmaceuticals should be work with radiopharmaceuticals alone. I wrote a detailed proposal to Fred Fahey. Regards William Eckelman PhD ____________________________________ Unnecessary. Spend your time more productively, Please. William A. Ladd, M.D. ____________________________________ Don't you think there are better, more productive ways to spend your time and the member's dues $$ than on a name change?? Seriously, the name Society of Nuclear Medicine more than adequately describes the organization. Most everyone in the imaging field along with the health care field in general, know that the Society of Nuclear Medicine already encompasses the field of Molecular Imaging. Can you imagine the money needed to discuss this, vote on it, change logos/letterhead/etc.....................................This is not the right time and I, for one, think there are better, more productive ways to spend my hard earned money. Cox, Christopher : MP Imaging ____________________________________ I think that this is a long overdue change for the society, to follow the trends of current progress in the field. Arion F. Hadjioannou (Chatziioannou) Ph.D. ____________________________________ I do not like the change of name of the SNM. Italo Zanzi, MD. ____________________________________ Since the name would be Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, shouldn't the name be SNMMI or alternatively SNM"squared"I? DHL ____________________________________ While I am sympathetic to the potential future utility of evolving "molecular" imaging techniques, I still believe that the primary modality that characterizes what we practice is Nuclear Medicine. Therefore, I do not support a name change to include reference to molecular imaging. Also, I believe that description is vague and not very meaningful to most other clinicians. Radiologists use gadolinium and non-ionic contrast solutions to enhance their MRI and CT images -- which have a basis in molecular structure as well. should they be entitled to include those modalities in the specialty of "molecular imaging"...? MRS

looks at the prevalence of various molecular compounds in the brain, based on their characteristic MR signatures -- are those molecular imaging techniques too?? It is the use of radiolabeled tracers that behave as surrogates for biological processes which we identify patterns of distribution by emission imaging that best characterizes the unique imaging that we perform in our specialty. These techniques are all based on the use of short-lived radioactive tracers. We practice Nuclear Medicine, and that should remain the name of our specialty. Thank you, Stephen Gerard, MD, PhD ____________________________________ As you know favor this change, and in fact feel that it does not go far enough. However, it probably goes as far as the current membership can stand! I would be even more enthusiastic for something like Society of Molecular and Nuclear Imaging But of course this really isn't for new suggestion. Dr. Michael D. Devous, Sr. ____________________________________ About time. European association changed their journal name several years ago. Let's keep up. JReynolds ____________________________________ The change in Society name seems unnecessary to me and I am opposed to it. Darrell R. Fisher, Ph.D. ____________________________________ I agree that the name should be changed. The face of Nuclear Medicine has been changing over the past several years and we must all embrace this change as something positive. The proposed name changeis acceptable. Thanks you, Daniel W. Sellers, CNMT, PET ____________________________________ Perfect choice. Fouad-Tarazi, M.D., Fetnat ____________________________________ I am in favor of the updated name for our professional organization. As stated in the cited article, it best represents who we are now, including our roots and our future. Thank you for the opportunity to chime in. Linda Bogner, M.S., CNMT, ARRT (R)(N) ____________________________________ I would agree with name change. Ronan Killeen ____________________________________ I think the name change is appropriate, and reflect an updated mission. The initials do not exactly match the name tho! Ruth Tesar ____________________________________ Greetings: I think the name change is adequate. It reflects the new and future tendencies of our specialty. RENE BAEZ

____________________________________ I think somehow limiting the name to imaging may neglect the therapeutic aspects of our specialty. Barron, Bruce J ____________________________________ This sounds great to me since it is the name I proposed several years back when we were contemplating a name change and when from The Society of Nuclear Medicine to SNM. I like it, but I hope it’s not too late to make a difference. William C. Lavely, MD ____________________________________ Good afternoon, I believe as a supporter of the SNM and a practicing technologist for the last 24 years believe that we as a group need to evolve with the changes that have come and gone or be left behind. I believe our leaders of the SNM do a great job in keeping abreast of changes and letting the members know and have a voice in decisions. I would recommend the change in name which is a more accurate reflection of our profession. I thank you for this opportunity to have a voice be heard. Paul J Spencer, CNMT ____________________________________ A change is always uncomfortable at first, but it is time to update to a name that better represents the Society. [email protected] ____________________________________ "A rose is a rose...................". However, since there's mostly imaging and not much medicine in Nuclear Medicine any more, why not remove the last vestige of health care from it, so that we can revert to nuclear physicists tending reactors (and PET machines and accelerators) that seem to the public to do BAD things. Gerald DeNardo ____________________________________ “Molecular Imaging Department” “Society of Molecular Imaging” Public perception of “Nuclear” is not same as we in the profession view it, especially after recent events in Japan… Let’s move away from what 98% of the world’s population views as a “scary” word and adopt “Molecular” which is both more accurate in many respects and has less of an inherent negative perception. I can’t count the times that I have had a patient (whom I thought was exophthalmic) freaked out by the word “Nuclear” finally relax and return to a normal amount of sclera showing once I explained the safety of nuclear medicine and the low exposures typically involved… My two cents… Michael Sexsmith ____________________________________ That is a appropriate name change. rita melnikoff ____________________________________ Please don’t… Bill ____________________________________


Thumbs up on the name change. David Earl-Graef ____________________________________ Great idea, go for the change! Rhilb ____________________________________ I am in favor of the proposed name change. David Seldin ____________________________________ I would prefer to leave it as it is. James Graves ____________________________________ I prefer Molecular Imaging.....nuclear has bad connotations. Especially now. Bruce Levin ____________________________________ My concern about changing the name to the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging is that this downplays our role in therapy without which we become a sort of radiology lite and dose not fully describe what we are about. Prof John Buscombe, Cambridge UK ____________________________________ Although nice in principle, I think you are just wasting your time & money. Everyone will still call you the SNM, and almost no one will care. Whether it's SNM or SNMI (?SNMMI?), the immediate response will be (as it's always been), "What's that?? " The reply is a full explanation that should mention and elaborate on the concept of molecular imaging. Just my 2 (Canadian) cents. G.P. Sexsmith, MD, FRCPC ____________________________________ Will a name change, if approved, affect the status of those boarded in the SNM? VIRGIL HARDIN ____________________________________ I love the name.........perfect.......very effective...thanks Silvia Anthony ____________________________________ A rose by any other name... [email protected] ____________________________________ Dear sirs: I agree with the change of name to the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMI). Samuel Sostre, M.D., Ph.D., D.Min. ____________________________________ Good Afternoon All: When Coke adds a new soft drink to their line – do they change their name? SNM is a well established name with worldwide recognition, that is it has intrinsic value. To rebuild this would take time and money.


John P. Tyler, Health Systems Specialist ____________________________________ I think we should keep SNM. The one thing that binds us together and makes us different from other imaging fields is that we do nuclear medicine. Yes, we do other things, too, but what makes us unique is nuclear medicine. I vote we stay with SNM, at least until our field changes more dramatically than it has. Our main non-nuclear imaging that we use now is CT, which no matter how hard you try, you CANNOT call “molecular imaging.” Sincerely Ron Fisher, MD, PhD ____________________________________ I personally haven't cared for the term "molecular imaging" in all its facets used in medical societies. It reminds me when radiology changed from "nuclear magnetic resonance" used by physics community to just "magnetic resonance", in avoidance of the term 'nuclear". The term "nuclear" alone covers everything within the specialty, while the term "molecular imaging" really adds nothing to distinguish our specialty from other imaging specialties. Further, the number of letters within the society's acronym becomes awkward and difficult to use and for others to recall. This was problem faced by the Society of Magnetic Resonance Imaging when it felt it had to change its name to its current name, which I can't remember. Mark Davis, MD, PhD ____________________________________ I strongly feel that we should call our field Molecular Imaging. Its short, it's not scary, and we continue to stress our ability to visualize and measure things which are extremely small. George Barry PS: Let's take a lesson from Walmart..keep it short and sweet. Its less ink, its less offensive and people aren't as put off by it. ____________________________________ To whomever it may concern: I agree with the name change. The technology in Nuclear Medicine has changed so much over the years, and more and more our Society is delving into a molecular technology. Way things are going, we will be studying all human diseases at truly molecular level and not at anatomical or cellular level any more. Again, I agree with changing name to The Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. Regards, Sun Yong (Peter) Kim, M.D. ____________________________________ I am fine with name change. Laurie Dodd ____________________________________ I didn’t like the original name change idea because Society of Nuclear Medicine has been (in my opinion) viewed as a longstanding top notch organization worldwide. However the new name change starts with the original adding Molecular Imaging. So you have won me over. Okay with me. Thanks, Bev ____________________________________ As a Certified Nuclear Med Tech for over 25 years, I feel we should keep the name Society of Nuclear Medicine as it is. It will eliminate any confusion with our society. Nuclear Medicine is what it is, and changing it to Molecular Imaging confuses matters. Molecular Imaging is a glorified name for Nuclear Medicine and I feel Nuclear Medicine has established itself for what it is. Sincerely,

Mark Iacobazzi, CNMT ____________________________________ I support changing it. Darlene Fink, MD ____________________________________ I agree with the name change and the name proposed actually suits who we actually are and depicts our involvement not only in the basic nuclear medicine but also molecular imaging. Dr. Vijaya Mummadi ____________________________________ I support the change to SNMMI Dr. Len Luyt ____________________________________ I am for the name change, but why SNMI instead of SNMMI? Henry ____________________________________ Love it ! Arredondo, Stacey ____________________________________ Dear Sir/Ma'am, I support the change of name to Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI). Thank you. Sincerely, Arnel DeGuzman ____________________________________ SNMI is good for me. Mrs Nuclear ____________________________________ I support the name change to reflect the current state of the technology and future direction of the Society. While history is important we need to remain relevant. The organization will only grow if our name, mission and future direction are designed to be inclusive. As one who is retired from the profession I do look back fondly on where we came from. But I do realize that change is part of the process and usually is a positive action for any organization which is trying to represent a specific segment of the market. Rodney Mann CNMT ____________________________________ I am in favor of the name change. I think is demonstrated how much we have grown. Karen Huntley ____________________________________ If we want to take charge of and own Molecular Imaging then the name change is essential. Ken Ashton ____________________________________ It is very clear that just about every gathering of humans has to have a name for its group as well as one week or a month out of the year for public awareness; Hospital week, Nurse’s week, Radiology week, Nuclear Medicine Week, Volunteer week, Food Service week, Colon Cancer, Breast Cancer, etc. It’s like

driving down the road in past decades and every corner had a Starbucks, Blockbuster, Dominoes, and dry cleaner on it. Can you say information overload? Does this really get our attention? And, who celebrates these weeks anyway? Only the people involved, and often, not even they celebrate. Every group grapples for their chance at autonomy. How much does our chance of autonomy actually cost the members in dues payments each year? What is the socioeconomic and environmental impact of a name change just for the sake of making sure someone out there will actually understand what the meaning of a name incorporates? And, really, will this make the public more aware of what we do? Will it make us better physicians, physicists, or technologists because the name changes? Will we, as members, be better informed? Ask anybody that represents the ‘general’ in general public about a radiologic procedure they have had and no matter what it was they answer ‘X-ray’. We ALL know we are way more than just ‘X-ray’. In sixty year’s time the ‘general’ in general public is no more aware of nuclear medicine than it was before the dropping of the A-bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. Thirteen years ago, if I hadn’t worked temporarily in a radiology department, I never would have heard the term ‘nuclear medicine’. The only people that might be the least bit concerned about the name of what they belong to are the people involved. Therefore, save our dues dollars, your time, and trees, ink, and staples and leave the name as it is. We know who we are and what we do. As the field grows to incorporate more discoveries and enhancements, are we going to change the name again and then again? I have always been proud to say I am a member of the Society of Nuclear Medicine. A bright, shiny, longer, more cumbersome name won’t change anything but the length of time it takes to mention us in a statement or sentence. Sixty years from now, if it looks like that changing the name will make an impact on what we do or who we are, let’s address it then. We’ve spent an awful lot of money in these first sixty years of existence just to be called ‘x-ray’. Where’s the autonomy in that? Keep it simple. Mary P.S. After eleven years I still have to say ‘…actually I’m not a nurse I am a nuclear medicine technologist.’ ____________________________________ I vote against the name change. While the field of Nuclear Medicine has changed over the years the focus is still Nuclear. Changing the name will not change this focus and makes it more confusing to public. It just adds technical jargon thats not needed. We all want Nuclear Medicine to be better understood the name change will not accomplish this goal. Thank you for all the hard work it takes to make positive changes to our field. Jim Deitemeyer ____________________________________ I agree with the proposed name change. Andrew Taylor ____________________________________ Leave the name alone!! Dr. Lessig ____________________________________ At this time, I believe that it is very appropriate to revisit the proposal for a name change. I believe the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMI) is the most logical, inclusive and representative name. Sincerely, Neil A. Petry, MS, RPh, BCNP, FAPhA ____________________________________ Agree with name change. Robert Pierce ____________________________________

Dear SNM Representatives, I have been working in Molecular Imaging for most of my career, starting with brain research work, and watching it grow to its present status in the imaging field. I have also been a member of SNM for most of those years as well. With this being said, I am positive that a name change is in order. Here is why:

• Classic Nuclear Medicine has gone through some tremendous changes through the years, but continues to find its niche in the imaging world. I do however believe that more and more of what NM has done in the past is moving towards the molecular arena and the two MUST see each other as one entity.

• Our referral base seems to see more value in molecular imaging due to its higher resolution abilities, as well as multi-modality approach. We need to continue to do whatever it takes to help them see this value by presenting our data on a platform they can relate to.

• Classical NM is moving towards this platform with more and more SPECT/CT units being utilized. It is important for this transition to be coupled with molecular imaging so they are seen as one discipline.

• Classically the Nuclear Medicine world has seen themselves very “separate” from the rest of the imaging world. This is starting to break down…very slowly for some! It needs to continue, and the only way that can happen is through incessant education. As multiple modalities peak their head into the molecular arena, this commonality will hopefully continue to break down some of the longstanding walls that have existed. Having come up through Radiology and possessing (4) different registries as a technologist, I believe this is a great thing and will continue to be an advocate of these educational pursuits among our fields.

• By moving towards this goal, it will be important for our organization to keep its unique identity. Is this really possible? I believe so!

With all of this being said, we need to be very careful in how we approach any change like this so that all the different entities keep all of the value they have in their own hearts and minds. That is my only real input for you; keep all heads as high as possible. Excitement for our future is great, but let us go slow enough to preserver all we have built. Steve Lethlean, B.S., CNMT, PET, ARRT(CT) ____________________________________ I fully support this name change. Thank you. Dr. Mark A. Nathan. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. ____________________________________ May I propose a new name: Society of Molecular Imaging and Therapy (SMIT) to replace SNM Sing-yung Wu, M.D., Ph.D ____________________________________ I like the fact that you are still retaining the "Society of Nuclear Medicine" in the new name. So you have my approval to change the name to "Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular and Molecular Imaging". Thanks for letting me put in my 2 cents worth. Annette Mittermeier ____________________________________ The proposed name sounds fine to me. Wouldn't the acronym be SNMMI? Regards, David Djang ____________________________________ I am happy to know that SNM Leaders and other affiliated organization leaders are thinking about changing our Society’s name. This is wonderful news. May I suggest that the new name be; “MOLECULAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING” or preferably, just “MOLECULAR MEDICINE”.

We should take a lesson from Radiologists. When magnetic resonance got started, it used to be called “Nuclear Magnetic Resonance” since that was the correct physics name. However, Radiologists were afraid of the word “Nuclear” and they successfully changed it to “Magnetic Resonance”. What we do is not Nuclear Medicine, instead, Molecular Medicine. We labels molecules with a radioactive isotope and determine what it is doing physiologically and biochemically. What we do is Medicine –not anatomy as Radiologists do. In the future, we may use fluorescent or other optical labeling techniques (non-radioactive), etc to study molecular behavior in the human body. Calling us Nuclear Medicine Physicians makes no sense, to emphasize, what we do is Molecular Medicine. The images that we look at are just a representation of physiology and biochemistry. In the future, when we develop reliable quantitation techniques, we may not look at images. An example of this will be in cardiology when we can reliably measure coronary flow reserve (CFR)---we will not need images and cardiologists to a large extent will be making decisions based on CFR as to how to care for their patients. In summary, if I have a choice, I strongly suggest we name our field as “MOLECULAR MEDICINE”. This will allow us to include future developments in molecular medicine. The future of Medicine is learning about molecular behavior and that is what will lead us to better understanding of diseases and development of better therapies for diseases. I believe, we can play a major role in this endeavor. Joseph C Mantil M.D. Ph.D. ____________________________________ I approve. Edwin G. Goldstein, MD ____________________________________ Until we actually do incorporate non-nuclear imaging into our curricula, and provide sufficient clinical courses for our currently certified members, we should not change our name. On the plus side, I wouldn't get a lot of wry looks when I tell people I'm going to a national or regional SNM meeting. JCaplan ____________________________________ I prefer Molecular Imaging.....nuclear has bad connotations. Especially now. bruce ____________________________________ I like it the way it is. Seems like a lot of trouble to add an "I" Anita Fabregas ____________________________________ disagree Kahtani, Abdulkareem A ____________________________________ Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging: Good name change, accurately reflecting and embracing current circumstances Sincerely, Eugene J. Fine, MD, MS ____________________________________ I’m happy with the name of our society as it stand but do understand that our profession has changed over the years. I think maybe adding the tag line after our SNM is adequate. Thanks! Debbie ____________________________________ do not change the name [email protected]


____________________________________ The name change to SNMI is better, but it still leaves out the therapeutic component of our work. Thomas D. Bresley MD ____________________________________ Additionally, the name SNM is embarrassing due to obvious reasons. Try doing a google on it - my biller did, and looked at me strangeley. I support the change of name from SNM to SNM&MI - or shorter I agree with your proposal and support the name-change. Thank you for your advocacy of nuclear medicine specialists. Colin Clarke, M.D. ____________________________________ My personal opinion is that there is more to this field than just imaging. We are just trying to bring in MRI and some of the new optical modalities in our group instead of ceding them to Radiology. That is fine, but why not just change it to the Society of Molecular Medicine and encompass imaging and therapy also. Imaging is just too limiting Miguel de la Guardia RT(N) ____________________________________ To whom it may concern, I am personally not a member of the SNM but have been a member of the EANM for a number of years. Moreover as a Maltese radiographer specialised in NM with 13 years of experience, I think this title change is a must due to the current developments in technology. I have read about it on the AuntMinnie website and I find it a very good idea. I hope the EANM will also follow the example and take on the new challenges of this era. Regards, Mrs Karen Borg Grima (B.Sc (Hons) Rad, M.Sc Nuc.Med) ____________________________________ To whom it may concern; I see no compelling reason to invest time, money and energy in something as pointless as a name change to a venerable organization that faces many challenges of real importance. It is pointed out that the area of molecular imaging is already ecompassed by the purview of the Society. Why not spend the time energy and money in trying to overcome isotope shortages, investing new cheaper technology, to increase shrinking reimbursement, attack the dwindling patient load we all face due to reimbursemnet issues and illogical progroms by the insurance industry. These and many other issues are a real threat to those of us in the industry, and the folks in the office want to change the name? It is a sad comentary, but I am sure that the desk jockeys will win, the name will be changed, and the real issues put aside while the stationary gets changed. BTW, I am against the name change. Gary Comingore, CNMT, NCT ____________________________________ It seems that a better name would be "Society of Nuclear and Molecular Imaging". Then, the acronym of SNMI would make more sense and more aptly reflect the words of the society's new name. Sincerely, Angela Callahan ___________________________________ Thanks for asking I would stick with Society of Nuclear Medicine as that's what are referring clinicians are used and our departments are called. Otherwise we are moving out of spectrum of interest and clinical practice.

Although the EANM journal is the EJNMMI the society is still clearly has nuclear medicine in its name, currently the BNMS has no intent to change its name ( I speak as a trustee and council member of the later). Jim Birchall ___________________________________ All that my profession involves in Nuclear Medicine, therefore if SNM decides to change their name because they are headed towards Molecular Imaging and away from nuclear imaging, I will no longer stay a member of this society. Thank you, Laura Staab ___________________________________ SNMI (society of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging) is a very suitable name :) cheers. subha raman ___________________________________ The name change is appropriate since SNM meetings and journals do include research work/articles from non nuclear imaging technologies. I support this name change. Thanks. Bala Krishnan ___________________________________ OK for the SNMI Didier François ___________________________________ I am in total Agreement, the name should be changed to "Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging" (SNMI). Ashwin Patel ___________________________________ I agree that a name change should take place and it should be " Society of Nuclear and Molecular Medicine " Haim Golan MD MSc ___________________________________ I think the name change is a great idea. Thanks Aubrey Baker ___________________________________ I like the new name proposal... Janet Bittner CNMT ___________________________________ Sure! Go for the name change. T Cavanaugh ___________________________________ I started in nuclear medicine Jan 1 1977. We have nothing to do with optical imaging. It should remain the SNM. JA Bianco, MD ___________________________________

I so believe - being over 10 Years in the Field of Imaging Sciences that SNM should definitively rename there Society and should include the word molecular (!!!!!). Kind regards - Frederik Giesel, MD, PhD ___________________________________

I agree with the name change to SNMI Visweswara Rao Tatini, MD ___________________________________

If u donot change name. Mi is going to split like mr. Whitney, Rob ___________________________________

I am oppsed to any name change. There is nothing in the name nuclear that implies it has to be radioactivity. Moreover magnetic resonance imaging is more properly called nuclear magnetic resonance. To incude the words molecular imaging makes the name too long. There is nothing in the name that specifically excludes any modality and it is obvious to everyone that nuclear medicine deals with imaging. Anonymous ___________________________________

I am not in favor of the proposed name change. Leslie Whynot ___________________________________

It concerns me that resources are being used to initiate an unnecessary name change. A more worthwhile direction would be towards improvement in education, working conditions and job opportunities. [email protected] ___________________________________

The new name change proposal does not take into account the therapeutic aspect of our specialty. If we do wish to give more focus to molecular imaging we should find a way to continue to recognize the therapeutic aspect of our specialty within the name. If this cannot be done then I would suggest we remain with the same name: SNM advancing molecular imaging and therapeutics. Thank you Christopher O'Brien MDCM; FRCPC ___________________________________

The name change is welcomed. Respectfully, Jay Simon ___________________________________

HAPY WITH NAME CHANGE Dr. Conor D. Collins FRCPI FRCR ___________________________________

I am currently a NMTCB certified technologist working in Nuclear Medicine and PET/CT. I joined the society to be a member of an organization that was available to advocate for me as a nuclear medicine technologist. I joined the Society of Nuclear Medicine for that reason. I am a nuclear medicine technologist and have not been happy for some time as I feel the society is trying to go farther and farther from the group that they were in fact formed for just to run up members. I sorry but I do not feel that the name should be change and we need to remember what field this society is actually for. Thank you for your time.


Sincerely Robert Recktenwald CNMT ___________________________________ I am okay with the name change as I feel it emphasizes the importance the field of Nuclear Medicine needs to put on Molecular Imaging as a whole. This seems to be the hallmark direction of our field going forward. Norman E. Bolus, MPH, CNMT ___________________________________ How about: SRMI Society of Radioisotope and Molecular Imaging Steve Senger RTNM ___________________________________ I am fine with the name change. Ellen Bahtiarian, MD ___________________________________ I agree with the Society's position that a name change is now appropriate. A change from SNM to The Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMI) retains our identity yet captures our evolving practices, technologies, and advancements. Thank you, Craig Dyke, PET,CNMT,RT(R), RT(CT), CRLS ___________________________________ I like the name as is short and concise. Debra Provus ___________________________________ I agree with this new name Dr Françoise Bonichon ___________________________________ In my opinion a change of name is not necessary. Nuclear Medicine has always been functional imaging, molecular imaging and radiotracer therapy. It was nmaed nuclear medicine as the detection outside boy or therapy targetted on an organ utilize nuclear radiation process. The current advances had not changed tha fact. I consider current name very appropriate. Dr Ghulam Mustafa Shah Syed ___________________________________ I see the name Society of Nuclear Medicine as all encompassing. Should we change name of our departments to Medical and Molecular Imaging? Many are still considering changing from Radiology to Diagnostic Imaging. For the time being I propose we leave it alone. Michael Saker, CNMT ___________________________________ I support the new name change. Thank you for allowing us to voice our opinions, James Holden CNMT, CPhT, RT(N) ___________________________________ When a non-nuclear molecular imaging technique gets close to clinical practice or even shows potential

for clinical practice, then I will support a name change. Right now it is just a waste of energy and creates a cumbersome name. Regards Christopher Rowe MD ___________________________________ good idea; change the name DAVID SMITH ___________________________________ Personally, I do not like the name change but do appreciate your reasoning. I would rather keep the name as it is and immediately expand the definition as has already been done. Thanks, Grady Hobbs ___________________________________ This is a good change. Dave Mankoff ___________________________________ SOCIETY OF MOLECULAR IMAGING ( SMI) SOCIETY OF RADIONUCLEAR IMAGING (SRI) JOHN L (jules) ___________________________________ How about Molecular Imaging and Therapy? Sincerely, Sub Duggal ___________________________________ no need to change the name, this is still nuclear med, not molecular med [email protected] ___________________________________ I think the new name is a little long, but just fine. June M Publicover ___________________________________ Short, sweet, and to the point. I approve :) Jacqueline Luger ___________________________________ Shouldn’t it be SNMMI? DALE BAILEY PhD ___________________________________ Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) I think the above name and abbreviation is good. J.P. ___________________________________ I do not support the name change. SUE-ELLEN RODRIGUEZ ___________________________________


A timely and important initiative. Prof Rodney Hicks ___________________________________ I feel the name change is appropriate, but is the SNM willing to embrace Molecular Imaging based in MR, CT and US as well? Much of Molecular Imaging is Nucs, but not all of it is related to Nucs, which includes other future fields which could be embraced by Nucs (eg. Optical Imaging, etc.). Also, what about Targeted Therapy, a small but important aspect developing in Nucs? Shouldn't we instead be the Society of Nuclear Targeted Molecular Imaging and Therapeutics (SNTMIT), SNMIT, or something along those lines? Perhaps that allows us to fairly claim the current Nuclear based modalities and other future ones, and give due credit to others not in our domain, while also acknowledging the therapeuctics section which other societies cannot claim to have. Sincerely, -Arif Sheikh ___________________________________ This is the perfect name choice as well as a perfect time to change the name. Lisa J. States, MD ___________________________________ I think the proposed name change makes sense and is consistent with the reality of the field of medicine today. J. Kenneth Poggenburg ___________________________________ Hello, My feelings toward the name change are that the Society of Nuclear Medicine should retain their current name as SNM. Thank you, Lamees Wahab ___________________________________ Dear Friends and Associates, It is about time for the change. We are no longer just scanners and shadow merchants any longer. When I started working in this community I was called a Radioisotope Technician and I carried a slide rule to work each day. Times change and work assignments evolve. Our community and what we are doing has constantly changed and developed. There is room in the Nuclear medicine community for Molecular Imaging - it is already engulfing us. We are still evolving (and that is a good thing) to better meet the needs of our profession and patients. This change will send a strong and powerful message that as a professional community we are ready for and accepting of the changes in the medical imaging arena. It will only make us a stronger community. Respectfully, Eric H. "Chief" Whittemore, MA, MS, RT(N), CNMT. God Bless, and Thanks. Chief Whittemore. [email protected]. ___________________________________ Don't care. Arvil Harkins ___________________________________ I feel the name change is acceptable and appropriate. Katherine Thiebout, BS, CNMT ___________________________________ The name of the society is not more important than the creating opprtunities for NM physician to get a job. Sincerely, Dr Naddaf


___________________________________ I do not feel it is necessary to change the name from Society of Nuclear Medicine to Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. The word Nuclear refers to both “nuclear isotopes” and “nucleus of the cell,” much the way Nuclear Magnetic Resonance did for that modality many years ago. The “SNM” has become the recognized society reference for our field and I do not feel it needs to change. It is the umbrella for all other molecular societies to be under. I vote not to change the name, James Traylor, CNMT ___________________________________ I personally would like to keep the name of Society as it is. This is not just nostalgia or lazy conservatism; I suppose adding Molecular Imaging blurs the main purpose of our organization. There are other academic societies which specialize in other imaging modalities such as fluorescence and magnetic resonance. Why dilute our core value? Takashi Misaki, M.D., Director ___________________________________ I do not like the name change. Molecular imaging has always been a part of nuclear medicine, in my opinion. However, in the last few years, they felt a need to break apart and have their own name and organization. Now I feel that they are trying to "break" back into the society. It was bad enough that the Society of Nuclear Medicine changed to just SNM, why do we need to do it again. Into today's economy, now is not the time to change the name. Name changing cost money. All letter head, logos, and advertisements just to name a few have to be changed. Why go to all this expense in today's money woes? If the society has this much money, than why don't they lower the price to attend the national meeting? Or pay a small percentage of each attendees hotel bill since the society only picks the most expensive places to stay. I am moving into retirement soon. If the society changes the name and does not reduce my cost somewhere for meetings or hotel selections, I may choose not to renew my membership. Now is NOT the time to change names. Myra Nelson ___________________________________ Dear colleagues, To integrate Molcular Imaging in the society name is important and I strongly agree. We did the same in the Austrian Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging two years ago. Best regards A. Becherer, President of the Austrian Soc. of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (www.ogn.at) Prim. Univ.-Doz. Dr. Alexander Becherer ___________________________________ There are some good arguments for a name change best regards R. Lengauer ___________________________________ Dear Dr. Delbeke, dear members of the task force, I strongly support a change of the name by incorporation of the term molecular imaging in the name of our society. However, I would suggest to change SNM's name to Society of Nuclear Medicine, Molecular Imaging and Therapy (SNMMIT), since it is important to incorporate molecular imaging but also the

http://www.ogn.at/�

molecular aspect of our therapies. Regarding therapy, we are dealing with molecules und its substructures for many years already and I think it is therefore important to point that out too, as the Swiss Society of Nuclear Medicine did that one year ago. In Switzerland the name was changed to Swiss Society of Nuclear Medicine, Molecular Imaging and Therapy. Sincerely yours Egbert U. Nitzsche, M.D. ___________________________________ OK I agree. Giorgio Fagioli, MD ___________________________________ Good morning, I feel this is a good idea. We have grown and now it is time to incorporate the changes into our title. Thank you, Tina M. Grab, CNMT, ARRT ___________________________________ I would suggest keeping the same name and having the logo include as it is now: Advancing Molecular Imaging and Therapy. Branding is important and there will be less confusion if you do not change it. Is there not another society with Molecular Imaging. We had problems in Canada having two similar names : Canadian Society of Nuclear Medicine(umbrella organization) and Canadian Association of Nuclear Medicine (physicians groups) and the physicians have forced the dissolution of the umbrella organization CSNM. The new title does not include therapy. Pamela Zabel, MScPhm ___________________________________ The name change as proposed appears appropriate, I would be in favor. To propel this further into the clinical arena, the training programs of our Residents would help to propel this with greater impact. John Vento, ___________________________________ Dear Drs. Delbeke and Anderson - I seem to recall that after Three-Mile Island, the word “nuclear” got a lot of bad press, and there was some consideration given to changing the SNM’s name to something that omitted the “Nuclear” part. There was resistance among the membership against reacting to public hysteria, and the name stayed the same. The proposed change to the “Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging” is at least being made for the right reason, and reflects the direction the Society and the Journal are taking. I would support this change. Regards, Robert E. Reiman, MSPH, MD ___________________________________

If you must change... I'm for SMI - Society of Molecular Imaging. I think SNMI too long and cumbersome. I am, however, sorry I'll no longer be able to tell Canadian customs agents that I'm arriving for the SNM convention. They always thought I said S&M. Hmmmm. ___________________________________ Sounds like a good idea! Deborah Garman CNMT ___________________________________ I support the name change. Thank you. Linda Ramirez ___________________________________ I agree with changing the name. Sandra L.McGuigan, M.D ___________________________________ I am in favor of the name change. The profession is expanding , and this chapter should stay ahead as necessary. Dionne Scott ___________________________________ I am SO happy to see a name change. Although SNMI indicates our roots and our future, it is also a bit redundant. Therefore, I would be okay with SMI (Society for Molecular Imaging). In the end, either is okay, just get rid of SNM which has some nasty overtones to those overhearing it and thinking we mean S and M (Sadism and Masochism). I have seen a number of eyebrows raised from this and it is Very embarrassing! Mark Levin CNMT ___________________________________ I think this is a great idea and probably overdue. I hope it is made official at the conference in June!! Frank Heinz ___________________________________ Vote Yes for the name change. Debbie Cheatwood ___________________________________ I applaud the SNM for all they have been doing for many years. I would continue to do so under which ever name we are under, however, I believe the nuclear medicine world has always been Molecular Imaging. Why not just be who we really are........The Society of Molecular Imaging ? Jim Wells, CNMT, RT(CT)(ARRT) ___________________________________ Name should be changed to better reflect what the Society represents and where their expertise lies. Helene Pavlov, MD, FACR ___________________________________

I totally agree with the new name title. S. A. Khonsary, M.D. ___________________________________ Dear Task Force Members: The Task Force is recommending the following name change: Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMI) I am strongly supportive of this change. Mark F. Smith, Ph.D. ___________________________________ I am not opposed to a name change. Darla Rathman Treacy, CNMT ___________________________________ With regard to changing the Society of Nuclear Medicine's name, I am opposed to the name change. I understand the desire to reflect the whole scope of what is now under the 'nuclear medicine' umbrella. However, I don't believe changing our (very recognized and respected) name is necessary. For years, RIA (radioimmunoassay) was a significant part of the nuclear medicine community, it was not specifically noted in our name. Anne Torvinen (member SNM) ___________________________________ I am an advocate of name change because I think it effectively communicates that we are the organization people have always known and trusted while it further states that Nuclear Medicine is expanding or venturing into new arenas. Greg West ___________________________________ SNMI is good. I would like to keep Nuclear Medicine in the name. We are Nuclear Medicine Technologists and unless they rename our profession as Molecular Technologists I do not want to remove Nuclear Medicine from our Society. Thank you. [email protected] ___________________________________ Yes, I agree. Dr. José Ribamar Silva Villela ___________________________________ Sounds good. Jay Harolds ___________________________________ I like the proposed name. It is inclusive of new technologies and shows future-thinking by the organization. I support the name change. Jan Winn, MEd, RT(N), CNMT ___________________________________ I strongly support the name change from SNM to Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMI). Steve Cho ___________________________________ I support the name change. It is less embarrassing and covers the future of the specialty more fully. Janis P. O'Malley, M.D.


___________________________________ As an old-timer in the field of NUCLEAR MEDICINE, I'll always call it Nuclear Medicine, I might be persuaded to add Molecular Imaging to the NM, but then I still perfer Curies to Becquerels. So here's to NMMI!! Melissa Bridges ___________________________________ Abandoning the term "Nuclear Medicine" is an attempt at obfuscation. We are shying away from what it is we use (Radoactive Materials) and what we do (scan patients who are radioactive) by using euphemisms. This is counter-productive. Patients need to understand that the products we use come from that big facility owned by Mr Burns, where Homer works. If we would like to continue to be employed in this field, then we shouldn't abandon i.e. disassociate ourselves from the guys who make our isotopes. Thomas Miko (Mi'ko' Tama's) ___________________________________ I have to question the name change. It is true that all nuclear medicine imaging is based on the interaction of molecules. Our tracers are indeed molecules containing, often, both inert and radioactive atoms. Sometimes atoms of an element alone are used as an imaging agent, i.e. radioiodine. The tracers interact with molecules in the body and are concentrated to varying degrees by tissues permitting their visualization. I suspect that the term molecular medicine or molecular imaging is proposed to redefine the specialty although little of what is done is more molecular today than it was when I took the first examination in 1972 to become a Board Certified nuclear medicine physician. NMR imaging gave way to MRI for no other reason than to stake a claim by radiology for a medical imaging technitque that did not involve radiation. Sort if like changing the name of gravity because it sounds so sad. The word "nuclear" was taken out and radiology (which has not changed its name) acquired the specialty along with ultrasound, another non-radiation imaging tool. A Google search will demonstrate that courses in molecular medicine are springing up in association with chemistry and, the Feinstein Insrirure now pubishes a journal called Molecular Medicine, it is not an imaging journal. Changing the name of the specialty will not change the reality of the dire situation in which we find ourselves. Our best discoveries have been co-opted by other specialties. I think of the years I spent working on Thallium imaging of the heart, and then Sestamibi. One day I found that all cardiac imaging had been shifted to Cardiology. In 1987 I opened a PET/Cyclotron center. Now, as a nuclear medicine physician I cannot legally interpret PET/ CT. My residents were not welcomed into the CT suite to gain the necessary experience to qualify to do studies done after a few months of part time training by radiology residents. Does anyone really believe that changing the name of the specialty will change anything? Will it create more jobs for nuclear medicine trained physicians? Has anyone seen a job add for a "Molecular Imaging Specialist"? A radiology resident asked me a few years back "what is molecular imaging?" What is the ready answer to that question? Donald Margouleff, M.D. F.A.C.P. ___________________________________

A agree to the proposed name change Surendra dave ___________________________________ I am in favour of the name change and I like the proposed one chosen. #240684 Valerie Matthews MRTN ___________________________________ Proposed name is a better discription of what we actually are... times they are a changin' Margie Zinn, BS,CNMT ___________________________________ I think this is a bad idea. There is already a Society of Molecular Imaging. And there is an Academy of Molecular Imaging. For SNM to take on such a similar name invites confusion. It also conveys a sense of desperation on the part of SNM that it is an outdated organization that is trying to play catch-up. SMI and AMI recognize that they should not try to be completely independent organizations. They already have a joint meeting and continue to explore more integration. For SNM to try to jump into the same space as a competing, independent organization is silly. Academicians have less and less time to devote to volunteer efforts in professional organizations, and finances both in the commercial sector and medical centers are tighter. To stretch those increasingly scarce resources across multiple, overlapping organizations is not in the best interest of the imaging field. The SNM Board should go back into a retreat and carefully define what unique role, if any, it can serve as a professional organization. (What’s wrong with being the Society of Nuclear Medicine? What other organization focuses on that? Although nuclear medicine training programs will have to change, and the nuc med Boards are in trouble, the field of nuclear medicine is not going to go away.) If there is no unique role that is sustainable for the organization, then SNM should join forces with one or more other organizations rather than fragment and dissipate scarce time and money. Daniel C. Sullivan, M.D. ___________________________________ Here is my feedback, please pass it along, I get nowhere by clicking the "feedback" link below. I propose the following points: 1. Unless the fact that nuclear medicine constitutes ONLY ONE modality of molecular imaging has changed, the proposed new title is nonsensical. More accurate options would be "Society of Nuclear Medicine as Applied to Molecular Imaging " or "Society of Nuclear Medicine as a Branch of Molecular Imaging" or perhaps "Society of Nuclear Medicine Including but not Necessarily Limited to Molecular Imaging." You see where this leads us, to a Monty Python-esque sketch. 2. "Society of Nuclear Medicine" already encompasses all facets of nuc med, from radiologic and imaging science to technology to informatics to radiopharmacy to patient care to clinical imaging to radionuclide therapy and, yes, to molecular imaging, without having to add any qualifiers. Why change it if it already provides the collegial umbrella we are so proud of? 3. Moreover, it is not prudent to try to steal the thunder of other, non-nuclear-based, molecular imagers if we value them as academic colleagues. Were I one of them I would be offended, and I would not feel warm and fuzzy about the SNM trying to lay claim to yet more intellectual turf. Is the hidden message that

we're trying to lure away current members of Society of Molecular Imaging, which I believe appeals to a much different mix of practitioners than SNM? Or is this an echo of some inferiority complex, trying to cash in on the trendiness of "molecular" imaging, and make up for the opportunity we lost years ago with "nuclear magnetic resonance"? Just food for thought. Rick Hay, PhD, MD, FAHA ___________________________________ Dear President Delbeke and Dr. Anderson, As a SNM member more than 20 years, I personally agree to change the name of SNM to Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI). Many basic concept, technique, and knowledge of the moculear imaging are derived from tracer technology developed by the pioneers of nuclear meidicine field. Include non-radioactive molecular imaging into this filed can also avoid the fear of radioactive material hampering the development of this research field, especial after recent event of nuclear power plant accident in Japan. The Society of Nuclea Medicine, R.O.C. in Taiwan had changed the title of the official journal to "Annals of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (ANMMI)" since Jan. 2011. Since there is another "Taiwanese Society for Molecular Imaging", therefore we will not change the name of the society in recent year. Sincerely, Pan-Fu Kao, MD., ScM. ___________________________________ Dear Dr. Delbeke, I would favour not changing the name of the society. It has been a name that has been associated with a lot of good and great things achieved in the past and will have the implication of excellence in all future endeavours. A lot of molecular imaging is done with PET which most people consider as part of Nuclear Medicine anyways. The current format with molecular imaging as a sub-section of the SNM, I feel, is more appropriate. Best Regards, Kathy Yip ___________________________________ I am in full support of the name change as it more fully represents the future of the professional groups who are traditionally members of our organization. David C. Barnes, MD, FRCPC ___________________________________ I agree with the name change. It represents who we are. Glenn Allen ___________________________________ Dear Taskforce Team, I fully agree with the proposed name change. Regards Alex Fuchs ___________________________________ I agree that we must change our name. LYNDA RIVERA-SCHATZ ___________________________________ Shorter and simpler is better. Lawrence Soderstrom

___________________________________ I do not believe we need a name change. Although the hybridization o Denise L. White, BS,CNMT ___________________________________ The new name suggestion is succinct. I find it a good option. lisa C. Fantinato ___________________________________ I agree with the name SNMI. Gona, Jayakumari M ___________________________________ I agree the name change,SNMI. Cheng G. Zhang(130315). ___________________________________ Please change society's name to new rendition. Margaret E. McCarthy, Ph.D. ___________________________________ I am a big proponent for the name change. I feel the new non-nuclear molecular technologies may also need nuclear molecular radiopharmaceuticals and imaging protocols to validate their success with treating cardiac and cancer patients. Therefore, for us in Nuclear Medicine to not loose what we already have and do, plus be a part of what truly is the future, the proposed name (below) fits perfectly and positions us correctly. " Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMI)" Let me know what happens, Dave Urani ___________________________________ I agree I believe it is time to embrace the changes in our field by associating the Molecular Imaging label to our organizations. I also believe that to go ahead and lose the Nuclear label would help to overcome some negative connotations that are currently associated with the label. Karen Bush ___________________________________ Keep SNM as is; a rose by any other name ... Martin L. Nusynowitz,MD ___________________________________ Yes change the name. The abbreviation sounds awful. V Owen ___________________________________ I support [email protected] ___________________________________ I never liked the “Molecular Imaging” idea as a name. I don’t really understand what meaning this might convey. Are we in the business of imaging molecules? Imaging using molecules? Imaging life processes at the molecular level? What does this mean, really? What sets our imaging field apart from all others, except perhaps some arcane aspects of MR, is that we image physiologic processes. We have always maintained that this key function is what distinguishes our

field from so-called anatomic imaging modalities, and so excuses us from being too concerned with anatomic resolution issues; our “fuzzy pictures” tell all! I always thought that we should be simply the “Society of Physiologic Imaging”. That pretty much covers everything we do, don’t you think? And keeps our initials down to 3 letters. Paul Sirotta, MD ___________________________________ With respect to the name change, I would prefer to leave the name unchanged. Dr. Joseph Feldschuh ___________________________________ Hi, Thanks for eliciting our input. I am happy with our current society name but understand the need for change. Therefore, I have no objection to the proposed name change. -Marguerite Parisi ___________________________________ OK Marvin w. Kronenberg, M.D. ___________________________________ What is the deal with this? Are you trying to change this because of the stigma of "nuclear"? If so, then go right to Society of Molecular Imaging (SMI). SNMI doesn't make any sense. I personally like SNM. S. Brown ___________________________________ Proposed change is fine with me Karen E. Linder ___________________________________ I support the name change. It seems only logical, does not detract from our identity. It and clarifies and adds dimension and depth to the technology utilized in a wide range of applications. Thanks for listening and considering this. Eileen Catino, CNMT ___________________________________ I believe SNM is a very good name in itself. SNM has been very popular and making SNMI may not sounds odd. Furthermore, the most important poing is how the organization is working and not the name of the organization. I would not put much time and empahsis in changing name, but rather would work to make it a better organization and also to make NUCLEAR MEDICINE a strong specialty. Shree ___________________________________ The proposed name is a mouthful and repetitive. Nuclear medicine is molecular imaging and treatment. joseph castronuovo ___________________________________ think a name change is a good thing. However the proposed name is too long. Can we shorten it to Society of Molecular Imaging. Brian Gunning ___________________________________ sounds good to me

d. davidson ___________________________________ Dear SNM president; My name is Sombut Boonyaprapa, MD. one of the SNM members from Chiang Mai, Thailnd. Certainly, I agree to change name of SNM to SNMI. Infact, Nuclear Medicine is molecular image from the begining of SNM. I used to talk with our medical students and residents in Radiology that all In-vivo and In-vitro NM studies are originated from the molecules of isotopes, which we have used for all nuclear medicine images, including graphic and numeric datas of nuclear medicine studies. With my sincerely regards, S. Boonyaprapa, MD. ___________________________________ I am 100% in favor of the new name change and will back the society in all aspects. Brian Huskey, BHS, CNMT, ARRT, RT(N), RSO

SNM Proposed Name Change Feedback LinkedIn Discussion (as of 5-18-2011)

Carl Wesolowski • Sanitary engineer for garbage collector, sanitary napkin for menstrual pad, etc. Political correctness is a tool of authoritarianism used to extend authority beyond the confines of opinion by redefining terms. Its products can be counterproductive, even harmful. For example, "Least Significant Change", used in densitometry (only) is a self-contradictory, semantic null-set, authoritarian neologism. It is harmful to patients. Verbose name change? Go back to the drawing board, offer better opinions.

Chuck Keogh MSB, BSRT(R), CNMT • I would vote against a name change. I'm agreeing with Carl 100%. Can you imagine changing the name to The Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging? Everyone would start referring to it as SNM "squared"? I would hope that somebody had done a cost analysis.... there is an expense associated with a name change.

Renee Moadel MD • Agree with verbosity. Either keep SNM or change to Society of Molecular Imaging (SMI). Is more inclusive and simpler.

Robert Henkin • I voted against such changes I was on the Board years ago. We have a good name recognition as it is and I would hate to dilute it. However, the proposed change does retain the SNM portion of the name which is worth a lot, so I am less opposed than I used ti be, I would rather see us fix our budget first..

Cristian Constantinescu • Carl, you said it. I am glad that at least this is not a proposal to drop the "scary" word "nuclear" (e.g. from "Nuclear" Magnetic Resonance).

Miguel de la Guardia • My personal opinion is that there is more to this field than just imaging. We are just trying to bring in MRI and some of the new optical modalities in our group instead of ceding them to Radiology. That is fine, but if the name has to be changed,why not just change it to the Society of Molecular Medicine it's simple and encompass imaging and therapy also. Imaging is just too limiting.

Robert Atcher • Miguel raises a suggestion that was made some time ago. I liked it but there were arguments against it, primarily since we are an imaging society by and large. And there was concern that AMA might not be happy with us. On a related note, realize that for the time being, we will always have nuclear medicine technologists, so we need to maintain recognition of the discipline within the name. Similarly, we will still get board certification from the Amer. Board of Nuc Med. Since there already is a Society of Molecular Imaging (about 1/20th the size of SNM), that suggestion won't work. I did entertain the idea of dropping nuclear altogether and focusing on our patients and clinical

http://www.linkedin.com/groups?viewMemberFeed=&gid=2547755&memberID=34426748�







work. The Society for Human Imaging and Therapy worked for me, but others were concerned acronymically.

Chuck Keogh MSB, BSRT(R), CNMT • Miguel, you said "imaging is just too limiting". After working in Nuclear Medicine for over 30 years, to me, it's almost all 100% imaging. Even thyroid therapy includes total body imaging for mets.... RIA is all but gone; adding PET, MRI and CT further solidifies the concept of an imaging modality. I have yet to read anything in any article that justifies a name change for the modality. As I mentioned above.... there is a cost to changing the name, also. With the current state of affairs, spending money without a return is fiscally irresponsible.

Trevor Fitzjohn • Forgive me as a radiologist (who also performs Nuclear Medicine) in New Zealand making a comment here but a name change really? why? Names oddly do not have to reflect current reality. Take Radiology, MRI and ultrasound are hardly represented in that name ( or the older term "X-Ray" department which it often is stiill called but people still relate to that). In NZ as in many countries the internationally recognised road sign for a train crossing is a diagram of a steam train. How many current motorists have seen a real steam train. Not many but all recognise the sign. New Zealand is a mangled name from Dutch and English. should we change it? - it has been discussed esp with increasing recognition of first nation citizens . Much more important to me is what we do and how patients relate to that. If a name change is sought then prehaps one that reflects the merging of disciplines PET/CT is causing and PET/MRI will cause. The barriers are only historic and artificial. The reality is we all (mainly at present) image either functionally or anatomically disease. I would be very careful with name changing in case it weakens public recognition of the discipline.

Rosanna Morales • I am also a radiologist and Nuclear Medicine physician, I work in Peru. Changing the name will be a good possibility for including more areas, but there will be a cost. What really counts is what we do, imaging or therapy or both, it will be a great moment to continue each personal professional development to continue giving what our patients need, with high quality standards and professionalism.

Dr. Rashid Ghani. • How does this sound Society of Nuclear & Molecular Medicine (SNMM)

Miguel de la Guardia • Nothing I’ve read so far lead me to an alternate name to Society of Molecular Medicine As I stated earlier, it's simple and encompass imaging and therapy. I’ve also been in the field 30+ years and find that imaging is what we mostly due. That does not mean we should give up on therapy or cede that to RadOncs. One of the reason therapy is not widely used in the field is our own fault. I’ve worked many years with various companies trying to get radiopharmaceutical therapy introduced and much of the resistance comes from the techs and physicians in the field, so the therapy procedures are not as widely available as they should. But this is another story. For now, if we are going to change the name, keep it simple as in my mind, SNM2 doesn’t work very well.

Chuck Keogh MSB, BSRT(R), CNMT • Miguel.... Up until about 5 years ago, we bought a little over 10 Curies of 131-Iodine for thyroid ablations each year. When the NRC made changes that







allowed patients to not have to be admitted (insurance lobbying result?), the business in our area went to an endocrinology office and was removed from the hospital. Dealing with three months of rotating, decayed 131-Iodine waste was 'no picnic". It was down right nasty in the summer months as our storage facility was on the roof of the hospital where there was almost no access except by me or Plant/Engineering. I was glad to see that go. Other therapy procedures were tried, but with very little radiologist interest (actually, they had none.) The techs were never against the procedures because the "bean counters" were always looking at productivity. I'm not sure where therapy stands in our field anymore. I don't hear much talk about it. I just remembered another stumbling block for therapy procedures; reimbursements were "terrible". To me, no matter what imaging equipment is added to the modality... it's still all imaging. While CT and MRI are starting to be added to our testing with the newer machines, it's still imaging. When you add bananas to the apples in the fruit bowl, it's still a bowl of fruit. I don't understand why anyone wants a name change. Like I already mentioned above... the cost involved in changing a name is not inexpensive. Does the society have that cash to spend on a name? It should be spent on something with a return on investment. I realize that there are many opinions on this and "we" will never have 100% agreement on the issue. If somebody has the name changed, it really doesn't affect me or what any of us do. The patients are already somewhat confused as to what it all is anyway. Everyday I tell patients it is not an X-ray, nor is it a CT that they are having. When we tell them about a gamma camera and how it all works, they just look at you. If somebody can come up with a name that can clarify what we do tot he patient, then so be it. Until then, it's all confusing semantics to a patient.

Gary Comingore • Our field currently faces very real problems requiring serious solutions, I am appalled that there are those who think the correct and immediate course of action is to change the stationery. I would much rather see our SNM representatives concentrating on finding solutions to the various crises involving dwindling reimbursements, few career opportunities and the still unsolved mystery of the fragile supply of Tc99m. It is disheartening to think that paying our dues for so many years has resulted in a core group of people who apparently feel that a name change is a reasonable and proper course of action in response to the current situation.

Paul J Crowe • Your all right by saying the name is only part of the issues that need solutions - You have to educate the public about this sector - almost no one knows about nuclear or molecular imaging and about new potential companion or paired therapies... The pubic is the marketplace to touch - to educate the support groups looking for new ways to diagnose or treat chronic disorders - not the professionals in this organization, who already are knowledgeable or other special professional interest groups who promote competitive modalities and steal paitents..... The public knows all to well about MRI, CT and ultrasound because those sectors have marketed to the public, but after more than two decades hardly anyone knows except thso ewho have a procedure about this sector or the professionals in it.



The future of medicine - is all about the real benefits that molecular imaging and paired molecular therapies offer above everything else...and we have to educate that to the lay public for 2 years and after that life will change..... I know because when I introduced bi-stable ultra-songraphy / diagonstic ultrasound in the 70's and NMR / MRI in the 80's no one knew about those technologies either and there was push back ... until we implemented lots of public education and commercial exposure to get patients to ASK for the procedure from the primary / referring physician. Nothing really changes about introducing or building demand for products or medical services in this industry ....all industries go through growing pains - and were all expereing one right now.

Chuck Keogh MSB, BSRT(R), CNMT • Maybe instead of spending money changing a name.... the SNM should make TV commercials pushing the name we already have. I can only imagine what a national TV commercial costs. SNM could team up with Siemens, GE, Philips and maybe others to show what the machines look like and what we do with them. That's what they've done with CT and MRI. Now, it's "our" turn. I'm going to contact the SNM..... (I just sent April Mann an e-mail. She knows everyone and everyone in the SNM knows her. Maybe she has some ideas or can find somebody to get the ball rolling..)


Feedback Received from SNM HOD E-mail as of 5-24-2011

Total Responses: 4 Yes: 1 No: 3 ____________________________________________________________________________________ I support the proposed name change. Osman, Medhat __________________________________ I am opposed to such a change. Society of Nuclear Medicine clearly distinguishes us from all other modalities of "molecular imaging." We should not obfuscate the matter. Rick Hay __________________________________ I oppose it . Karam, Maroun __________________________________ I oppose the name change. Sincerely, Paul J. Reaume B.S. ARRT (R,N) CNMT, NCT

__________________________________

I agree that the name should not be changed. Richard Kalla __________________________________

All, I have been watching the comments on various sites about the impending name change for the society. Since I have been involved in this activity for the last five years, allow me to make some observations on the process and where this fits into the larger scheme of things. For those who like to read the last page of the book in order to justify the effort of reading the book, I am opposed to the name change. In fact, I propose we return to the Society of Nuclear Medicine as the name of our organization and abandon the use of meaningless letters to identify our organization. When I got elected to the leadership of the Society, I used to joke that I ran for president of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, but got elected to the presidency of the SNM. And, subsequently was pulled into a fundraising campaign for molecular imaging with a goal of $5 million. The society had never undergone a name change in 50 years, nor a fundraising campaign of that magnitude. What I learned as I got farther into the task and the whole issue of molecular imaging was that this process was being driven by industry. They were frustrated by having too many organizations that were in need of support from the stakeholder companies and they wanted to consolidate their efforts. OF course, they had the option to tell one of those organizations that they would no longer support them, but being spineless, they decided to use SNM as the stalking horse. An effort was made to try to merge with the Academy of Molecular Imaging and/or the Society of Molecular Imaging. Obviously, the leadership of those organizations didn't want to go out of business and so we ended up with a

stalemate. There was a commitment to "work together" on topics of mutual interest and benefit, but turf battles were inevitable. AMI and SMI had their industry supporters and the society had its own. Fast forward five years and there is an effort to merge SMI and AMI (a more logical merger) and AMI is a healthy organization with a very successful international meeting. Bottom line is that the society is NOT going to take over that space in molecular imaging and at this stage, we look (and act) like a Johnny-come-lately. AMI is going to be a player in this space - in fact, the latest Coverage with Evidence Development for NaF-18 for bone imaging is being managed by the AMI principals even though the society initiated the discussions with CMS over coverage for NaF-18 for bone scans. Furthermore, the MI campaign is now ended and there is no second act for that effort. One other development of note regarding the issues around the name change. Over the last few years, RSNA has moved into areas that the Society initiated with respect to education of the benefits of molecular imaging. While we provided symposia at the ASTRO meeting for several years, we dropped the ball on that front and RSNA is now providing the content for ASTRO annual meeting and their focused symposia. And they are not stopping with ASTRO but are being very aggressive about their outreach activities. Ironically, they seem to be able to do this without changing the name of the organization. In addition, as we have now moved into two new areas of effort, the Clinical Trials Network and the focus on Comparative Effectiveness Research, we have moved farther and farther away from the core mission of the society which is to serve our members. CTN operated at a loss for years and has not matured into the activity that I envisioned when we started that effort during my presidency. The members of industry who have mature efforts at using imaging for drug development have not signed on to the network and it has become more of a numbers game and less of a concentrated effort with tangible results. In the case of CER, this is a problem for the entire field of imaging, not just nuclear medicine or molecular imaging. And until industry gets on board and provides some substantial funding to support efforts by the imaging community to demonstrate the benefit to the patient in terms of outcome, and to the field of medicine in economic benefit, we will never get the support from Federal sources to accomplish what needs to be done in literally reinventing clinical imaging research. And that task is not an effort that a small society like ours can accomplish alone. And we need to conduct this effort for all of imaging, not just nuclear medicine or molecular imaging. My observation regarding these developments is to diagnose the society as suffering from attention deficit disorder. We move from Molecular Imaging to Clinical Trials to Effectiveness Research without ever generating a critical mass or self sustaining effort in any of them. And, coincidentally, we keep moving away from the discipline that got many of us to join this society in the first place with no tangible benefit to the vast majority of our members from any of these distractions. Over the past few years, we have faced some daunting problems associated with the supply of medical isotopes for the conduct of nuclear medicine. In some ways, it has been a tribute to the members of our profession how well they have responded to the shortages and maintained the ability to image the patients who require our technology and treat those patients who reqiure radioisotope therapy. The problems have revolved around nuclear reactors that are acting their age -

they are at the end of their useful lifespan and will be decommissioned shortly. These shortages have had a serious impact on the future employment of many in our profession from all the disciplines. When I meet with goverment officials to discuss this issue, I always talk about the problems associated with nuclear medicine technologists and nuclear medicine physicans who are losing their jobs and residents who can't find jobs, in part due to the uncertainty over the availability of the radiopharmaceuticals needed to image our patients. One of the organizations that is critical to helping end the supply problems is the National Nuclear Security Administration. They are administering grants to four companies who are developing novel approaches to the production of Mo-99. Finally let's consider the task challenges that face our membership. The majority of our members are nuclear medicine technologists. They certify as NMT's and are identified as such professionally. The physicians who are board certified in nuclear medicine are done so by the American Board of Nuclear Medicine. They work in either the nuclear medicine dept. or the nuclear medicine division of the radiology department. The pharmacists who compound the radiopharmaceuticals we use are certified in nuclear pharmacy. The researchers who develop the new imaging compounds for use in nuclear medicine are practicing radiopharmaceutical chemistry. That is what the members of our society do and it is how they are identified, certified and employed. We publish our papers in the Journal of Nuclear Medicine, with the highest impact factor of all journals in imaging, and in the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology. The common theme through this description of our profession, the stakeholders and those who regulate us is that the term nuclear appears consistently. We spent 50 years educating the public about nuclear medicine, its benefits, and its potential. Ironically, with some of the current PET radiopharmaceuticals in development, we are able to lead the revolution in personalized medicine by using imaging agents that actually give us information about the function of the body, not just a map of its components. We can stage and prognose with imaging. We can potentially make assessments of the patient's biomarkers and genetic makeup using the right imaging agent. And the best way to maximize the target to non-target ratio with a minimum of the agent used in those imaging studies is to use radioactive isotopes attached to targeting molecules. Rather than moving away from our historic roots, we should embrace and build on the messaging that we have done over the past fifty years on the benefits of nuclear medicine for imaging and therapy. Referring to ourselves as SNM was an indication of our lack of resonance and resolve with the molecular imaging title. We can argue semantics, connotation and denotation ad nauseum. Nuclear medicine was the first discipline to do molecular imaging. We will continue to do molecular imaging and transition it to biologic imaging in order to interrogate the status of the patient and the illness that brings them to us. Molecular imaging as a field is now focused more on political gamesmanship than it is on developing and moving the field forward. Let's recognize that fact and refocus our efforts on the significant problems that face the discipline of nuclear medicine. The tenuous status of our supply of medical isotopes, the significant hurdles for us to get new radiopharmaceuticals approved, the relative merit of nuclear medicine over other radiation based imaging modalities, and the challenges of getting adequate reimbursement for radiopharmaceuticals and the imaging procedures utilizing the state of the art equipment that is coming into our field. And, of course, the fact that our members are losing their jobs or can't find one because there has not been a strong effort to defend and promote nuclear medicine. I handed my business card to a colleague in the field of oncology and had to explain for a minute what SNM meant. It was not the first time this happened, but I was reminded of the poor judgment that we showed when we moved to an acronym as the identifier of our society. We were not a dominant force like International Business Machines, General Electric, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing or Hewlett Packard who decided to use their initials to identify themselves. And, unlike industry, we should have backed that decision with a major advertising campaign that reinforces that decision every day. All of us who represented the society over the past five years have had to suffer

the snickers of those who mis-hear SNM as S&M and ask where our leather outfits and "toys" are. And adding more letters to an acronym isn't going to make our task any easier. By identifying our society as the leader of the field of nuclear medicine and demonstrating the powerful tools that it provides for diagnosing and treating the patients who are referred to us, we can do the best possible job of representing and promoting the members of our profession and this society. And the most important issue to me is to identify that our field is practicing MEDICINE and keeping that identifier as the key word in the title of the society. Let's not try to operate beyond the limits of a small medical society by engaging in turf battles over who is the lead society in molecular imaging. Frankly, we lost that battle for a variety of reasons I outlined above. People will associate with organizations that lead, not ones that spend their efforts on proclaiming that they are the leaders when the evidence refutes that proclamation. Our members are practitioners of nuclear medicine. Let's return to identifying the society to which they belong as representing the field and forget about trying to operate at a level beyond the capabilities of this organization based on its membership size, resources, and budget

Bob Atcher

2020 Task Force

1

NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING 2020 TASK FORCE Introduction Nuclear Medicine as a medical specialty faces significant challenges due to the intersection with Radiology, which has accelerated since the introduction of hybrid imaging and the evolution of Molecular Imaging. Professional Radiology organizations, such as the American Board of Radiology (ABR), American College of Radiology (ACR), and the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), are playing an increasing role in setting professional standards and providing education for Nuclear Medicine professionals. At the same time, economic pressures are decreasing revenues for all professional medical organizations, requiring re-examination of priorities to balance expenses with revenue. Health Care Reform in the United States is putting pressure on professional organizations to provide evidence that patient outcomes are improved by diagnostic tests and therapies. Health care professionals have less time and financial resources to support and participate in the activities of professional organizations. These pressures have caused increased competition among professional organizations. Radiology organizations enjoy a significant advantage over Nuclear Medicine organizations because of their large size, which provides them with more funds, more people, and more infrastructure. Radiologists also significantly outnumber Nuclear Medicine physicians, and control practice microeconomics that have resulted in fewer job opportunities for Nuclear Medicine physicians, causing an imbalance between supply and demand. These pressures are being felt after decades of strong growth for Nuclear Medicine, particularly in Nuclear Cardiology and PET/CT. The emergence of Molecular Imaging with new radiopharmaceuticals and new technologies is likely to result in continued growth in the coming decades. Although the future looks good for the specialty of Nuclear Medicine, many health care professionals worry about the future of Nuclear Medicine physicians and SNM. For this reason, SNM has formed a Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2020 Task Force to bring together a broad cross section of health care professionals to discuss the future of our profession and our Society, and make recommendations that will serve as guiding principles to meet the challenges that lie ahead. Objectives

1. Create a Task Force representing a broad cross section of Nuclear Medicine professionals, including physicians, scientists, pharmacists, and technologists from academic institutions and private practice as well as industry. Professionals will include present and past leaders, rank and file membership, as well as young professionals. Nuclear Medicine physicians and technologists with and without certification in Radiology will be included. Administrators, health care policy experts, and representatives of patient advocacy groups will also be represented.

2. Analyze the challenges and opportunities for the specialty of Nuclear Medicine 3. Analyze the strengths and weakness of SNM as the professional leader for Nuclear

Medicine and Molecular Imaging

2

4. Develop scenarios for 2020, for example: Nuclear Medicine remains a distinct specialty from Radiology represented by a strong SNM; Nuclear Medicine becomes a subspecialty of Radiology with a smaller SNM resembling a subspecialty organization

5. Define the actions as well as identify the uncontrollable external events that might result

in each scenario.

6. Develop a plan for SNM to maximize the likelihood for the best scenario.

7. Work collaboratively as a group to help achieve the goals and objectives Organizational Structure The Task Force will be composed of 22 individuals, including the Chair and three members at large appointed by the Chair, plus two Co-Chairs from each working group representing specific demographics:

1. Past and present Nuclear Medicine leadership (SNM, ABNM, ACNM) 2. Members of the SNM House of Delegates 3. Physicians from academic institutions 4. Physicians from private practice 5. Scientists, pharmacists 6. Technologists 7. Young professionals 8. Industry 9. Administrators, health care policy experts, public representatives

Each working group will be composed of 5-10 members, who will be responsible for seeking ideas and comments from the broader community regarding Objectives 2-3, synthesizing these ideas, and communicating what is learned to the Task Force. The Task Force will be responsible for explaining the charge to the working groups, and will use the information collected from the working groups to accomplish Objectives 4-6. The Task Force will report to the SNM BOD, who will review the plan developed as Objective 6. It is anticipated that some elements of this plan will be incorporated into the SNM strategic plan, and that the entire plan will serve as a guiding document for the society.

Threats for Nuclear Medicine Technologists

• Adjunctive Medication Production Challenges o Most technologists are paid hourly and when there is little supply of Technetium, they are not

working o Increase in radiation exposure to patients by using alternate isotopes (Thallium) o Not only lack of Tc-99m, but inconsistent product availability by suppliers. Such as kinevac

in the past, heparin, I-123. o Rising costs of radiopharmaceuticals. o If future supply of general NM radiopharmaceuticals is PET/CT fluorine based for cardiac

imaging - NM pharmacies indicate cardiac agents are much of their profit.

• Radiation Safety/Protection

• Student Education o Lack of a clear path to become credentialed as an NMT (different pathways) resulting in lack

or curriculum standardization (inconsistencies of knowledge base needed to practice). o Current educators are not necessarily educated in hybrid imaging, but they must teach it to

their students as part of entry level. o Entry Level curriculum is packed - education for students in four years with CT and MR is

challenging. o Certification boards moving to seven-year certification and technologists must re-certify,

technologist who entered the field may need additional training and education prior to re-certification.

o Students need to become proficient in CT – some clinical sites do not allow NMT students to participate in CT procedures

o Entry Level Education Online Model: internet based with ad hoc clinical sites (there is no control over preceptor/clinical experience quality that students are receiving. Need to establish standards.)

o Transition to bacaulaurette degree – could decrease diversity of students (those coming from vocational school rather than undergraduate program).

• Technologist Education o Technologists need to become proficient in CT – some clinical sites do not allow NMTs to

participate in CT procedures o Entry level education increasing, but not diversifying into a broader scope, which would lead

to new employment opportunities o Advanced Practice—unknown outcome including regulatory barriers to hurdle o Advanced Education model: internet based with ad hoc clinical sites (there is no control over

preceptor/clinical experience quality that students are receiving. Need to establish standards.) o May need to make MR an advanced level certificate. o Specialty exams – will they still be around in 2020? And what will they mean? Will entry

level include enough education that specialty exams aren’t need? Or will specialty exams be created for PET, MR, etc.?

• Fewer employment opportunities

o For the past few years, the number of new technologists entering the field has grown. While at the same time, fewer than normal are retiring. This is leading to a great difficulty in technologists finding positions

o Due to decreased reimbursement and the lack of Tc-99m, the number of nuclear medicine procedures has declined

o Fewer Nuclear Medicine physicians who serve as champions within the Nuclear Medicine field.

o Cardiology outpatient facilities are either closing or being brought back under the hospital. o Technologists are being asked to do other responsibilities to keep their job. o Hospitals are requiring business degrees to serve as hospital managers.

• Increasing # of School Closings

o Due to the job shortage, economic issues (within the schools – small programs are first to go), schools are reassessing the number of students they take in and in some cases, are even closing or not taking students for several years.

o Some schools continue to enroll and graduate the same number of students even with decreased job opportunities

o Quality of applicants are lower o Online based education with ad hoc clinical sites-how affective is this tool in preparing the

future of nuclear medicine o Loss of NM physician in clinical environment. Who will be the NM clinical champion? How

will this continue to affect quality??

• Regulatory Barriers o CT: many states still will not allow NMT’s to do CT, which is part of all PET (and some

SPECT) cameras today o CARE Bill—doesn’t cover facilities covered by MIPPA (outpatient facilities—see below) o MIPPA—facilities accredited by The Joint Commission do not require education and

certification of Nuclear Techs o Reimbursement cuts—technologists are losing their jobs due to physician offices

discontinuing MPI services o State regulatory agencies are not aware of the education and training of NMTS and only

recognize RTs o Rogue groups such as USP having legislation enacted like USP797 without full consideration

as to the effects on the practice of nuclear medicine. o Self-referral: physician offices installing NM cameras to perform cardiac nuclear medicine

without clinical training in the field to capture revenue. Such as internist, family practice, cardiology, and endocrinology physicians. Is quality imaging being performed in these offices? Are the physician authorized users putting the best practice of NM over revenue/relationships? Are NM techs being put in vulnerable positions being asked to work outside their scope to "help" these offices function day to day?

• Physician/Technologist Interaction

o With the advent of digital imaging and PACS, interactions between interpreting physicians and t echnologists, and be tween i nterpreting phy sicians and p atients ha s be come more difficult and l ess common. This places a l arge burden of responsibility on technologists to gather sufficient information from patients, make procedural decisions when the supervising physician is not immediately available, and communicate this information to the interpreting physicians to a llow for qua lity pe rformance a nd i nterpretation o f nuclear m edicine procedures.

o A s trong pr ofessional r elationship b etween technologists and physicians i s necessary t o ensure qua lity in nuc lear medicine. Communucation be tween technologists and supervising physicians is critical and necessary for the good practice of NM. Digital imaging and PACS has decreased co mmunications between t hese t wo groups of p rofessionals, leading to procedural variations and poor quality studies.

• State Licensure

o The regualations are based on history and not with what is currently happening – regulations based on the RT certified by ARRT to operate equipment producing radiation.

o Credentialing of NMAAs

• Scope of Practice o The scope of practice for the nuclear medicine technologists does not include what some

technologists are being asked to do in their job. o The scope is interpreted differently by different groups.

• Joint Commission Accreditation Standards

o MIPPA language

• Other o Small specialty – lack of voice in the radiology community – only 6% of radiology

procedures are nuclear medicine o Lack of guidelines for standardization of protocols resulting in poor quality exams performed o Lack of research supporting standardized protocols

Threat to SNMTS:

• Attendance at meetings o Technologists aren’t travelling. They are staying closer to home for their continuing

education and networking needs. This is an opportunity for chapters and local groups. o Techologists have become apathetic and discouraged due to the lack of job opportunities, and

regulatory issues o Grassroot groups with vendor support are coordinating local lectures at a nominal fee.

• Membership o The SNMTS membership saw an all time high in 2008. o In 2009 and again this year, 2010, many members are dropping their membership because

they can’t afford to stay members if they are not working. In addition, many institutions have cut membership dues from their budgets and technologists are forced to pay for these expenses themselves.

o We have 25,000 technologists in the US and less than 40% are members. o SNM model: National with regional chapters. Competition between national and regional

chapters. o SNM diversification: the pursuit of newer membership and changing roles through evolving

mission. Who is my nuclear medicine advocate????????? Who is the SNM trying to bring in as members?

o Is SNM driven by members or staff? o Has SNM corporate become too large causing membership costs to be out of reach of

technologists?

• Conflict of Interest o CMSS guidelines for conflict of interest will not allow individuals, currently employed by

industry, to serve as the leadership of the SNMTS. o With the declining job market, many technologists are turning to industry groups for

employment.

Opportunities for Nuclear Medicine Technologists:

• Advanced Practice o It is anticipated that NMAAs will be required to demonstrate a high level of autonomy,

technical sophistication, advanced clinical knowledge, and strong critical thinking and decision-making skills

o NMAAs are projected to work in general nuclear medicine settings as well as in specialty settings such as oncology and cardiology.

o NMAA could become a valuable resource during helath care reform with a declining number of nuclear medicine physicians and declining physician support in the clinic.

o The scope of practice for the NMAA subsumes many of the patient care and managerial functions currently provided by a wide array of ancillary personnel and will also include advanced knowledge and skills of the practicing Nuclear Medicine Technologist.

o Nuclear trained individuals are the experts in radiation. The NMAA has close ties to other physicians and can become a source for training other general physicians’ about what is available from nuclear.

• Clinical Trials Network

o The Network is designed to facilitate the integration of imaging biomarkers into therapeutic clinical trials. The Network will provide a tool-- multi-center investigational new drug (IND) applications—to ease the regulatory burdens associated with using investigational imaging agents in therapeutic trials. The Network will also facilitate improved standardization and harmonization of imaging data.

o It is essential that the SNMTS be intimately involved in this program as the technologists are on the “front-line” when it comes to conducting clinical trials. Technologists are critical to

the success of clinical trials as they are often expected to file the reports, maintain the records and work with the patients who have consented to participate.

o According to a report in the U.K.’s Royal Society, The U.S is in danger of losing its completive advantage in research. There has been a dramatic drop in both the number of internationally recognized papers produced in countries around the world as well as the number of times these works are cited by peers. The report found a dramatic leap in Chinese Science, fueled by years of concerted state funding. Has the society a way of requesting funds from state governments to support research?

o Physicians in the US have less time to spend in research. Economic productivity is more important than academic productivity.

o Technologists that are involved with research in academic hospitals and are involved in the clinical trials network continue speaking at local chapter meetings. These technologists may also be involved in other areas and could offer multiple lectures at these meetings which could include a member from TAG to speak on advocacy, etc...

o Can the society team with a sponsor to produce a national educational televison or radio commercial about the role of nuclear medicine in research as a way to broaden the publics’ awareness. For example have Michal J. Fox’s foundation speak about DAT scans ability to help detect Parkinson’s disease or simply an educational commercial that gives the public the reasons nuclear medicine may help diagnose or follow a disease process. Members of the community that are better informed about their own options may ask their physician about including nuclear and molecular imaging as a part of their care

o Find a way to educate the public about cancer therapies. For example how many Sr89 therapies are performed a year? Many patients are never given this because the physician may not be familiar with this as an option for palliative care.

• CARE Bill o The CARE bill would set certification standards in the Medicare program for any personnel

providing, planning and delivering all medical imaging examinations and radiation therapy. o Ensuring that nuclear medicine technologists performing scans are certified by their states

will increase the safety and accuracy of medical examinations and radiation therapy procedures and, in turn, the quality and value of care for patients.

o The passage of this bill would open the door for state licensure and more formal regulations from the Joint Commission regarding accreditation standards.

o Work with the states that have advisory boards, ie:RTAAB is the radiologic technologist advisory board in Illinois. Our nuclear medicine technologist that sits on that committee is pushing hard for Illinois to allow nuclear medicine technologist with the right training to be allowed to do CT for example.

Opportunities for SNMTS:

• Grassroots Involvement o Need to be more grassroots—technologists seem to be identifying more with their local

groups and chapters than the SNMTS. o State TAG teams – educate CRCPD and state regulatory agencies about the education and

training NMTs receive in performing CT. Also State TAG representative have the

mechanism to inform SNMTS of issues so they can be addressed before they become a big practice issue for technologists

o Members may be more willing to join at the chapter level. When speakers from national go to meetings there should be a table for quick recruitment efforts available and manned. The central chapter can usually get a few members to join at each meeting by offering a raffle for everyone that joins and give away a gift certificate or I pod.

o Hospitals should be encouraged to negotiate with their central pharmacy to take 1 percent of the annual money made and put it into an educational fund to pay society membership or to send one technologist to the national or local meetings. The central pharmacy would then show that they are giving back to the people that are paying their bills. For example: If the hospital spent 500,000 a year at pharmacy A, one percent would by 5,000. This would help increase membership and educate the working technologist.

o There are over 5,000 hospitals in the US practicing nuclear medicine and should be encouraged with a letter possibly to begin educational funding based on employee review. Some funding could possibly come as part of research grants.

o Send representative from national to speak to students in nuclear medicine programs. Tell them about their free membership and benefits of remaining members upon graduation.

o Encourage program directors to use the SNM for buying their educational books and use the website for research and educational projects

• New Membership Category o Additional Scientific Laboratory Professional Category was approved which will open the

door for additional recruitment opportunities. o NMAA membership category

• Technology Advances

o Educational needs have increased (CT, alternate isotopes)—could be reaching technologists via technology (webinars, etc).

o Technologist Road shows developed to reach a broader range of grassroots technologists o Brochures or a type of pocket guide created by the society explaining what studies to order

for the general practitioners that may not be familiar with nuclear scan available. These could be sent to residency programs or mailed to family medicine clinics.

o Create an education program offered by some branch of the society to educate the Cardiologist that require 40 hours of didactic education in nuclear medicine to become users and hold a radioactive license.

o The future could be medicine by body system with each specialty reading their own part. o Hospitals are being redesigned to run by service lines, imaging may all become one area with

each specialty ran by multiple modality technologist. Invite the national tech sections leaders, program directors and licensure agencies to participate in discussion about a new educational format that would provide training and continued education requirement for these new breed of technologist.

o Approach wealthy business owners that are interested in the sciences to donate to educational grants that will provide money for students or residents to continue their education and pursue research.

o We are the radiation experts. Is there opportunities for the Society to be an educational tool for educating airlines, railroads, etc…about the way to handle radiation accidents or threats.

o The nursing community needs continuing education. As a staff technologist, we see the need for training nurses on how to handle patients that are receiving high dose therapies, etc.

o The nurses in cardiology clinics may also benefit from courses on how to contain potential spills, and handle themselves around radioactive materials. The SNM can offer lectures for CE’s through the Illinois state board of nursing for example.

• Entry Level o Transitioning schools from associate degree to bacaluarette degree for entry level. The

SNMTS is developing a clear path and templates for ensuring the process is successful. o Enrich the outreach program to encompass high school information that can go to guidance

offices. The central chapter has a speaker list of volunteers from each state that go to career days or Advanced science classes at the high schools to introduce them to the allied health fields, specifically nuclear medicine.

o Offer chapters a power point that can run in between speakers that describes the same information that an invited speaker could give on the benefits and offering the society has.

o Transition to bacaulaurette degree – could decrease diversity of students (those coming from vocational school rather than undergraduate program).

o Other Educatino for technologist in firled who must recertify

Research Committee

NMT Task Analysis Survey - Chance to Win $200 AMEX Gift Card

file:///R|/...20NMT%20Task%20Analysis%20Survey%20-%20Chance%20to%20Win%20$200%20AMEX%20Gift%20Card.htm[5/26/2011 3:59:19 PM]

From: Wenzel NikkiSent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 1:53 PMTo: Wenzel NikkiSubject: FW: NMT Task Analysis Survey - Chance to Win $200 AMEX Gift Card

Dear Colleague,

The SNMTS would like to gather some important information regarding the current tasks ofNuclear Medicine Technologists. The SNMTS Research Committee has created a task analysissurvey to gather data regarding employment, instrumentation and general questions specific tonuclear medicine technologist job duties.

We are asking that all practicing nuclear medicine technologists participate in this short survey. Allindividuals who complete the survey will be entered into a drawing for a $200 American Expressgift card. (Please provide your email address at the end of the survey to be entered to win.)

Take the survey now!

The survey will close on June 1 at midnight (ET). Survey results will be compiled and a finalreport will be available on the SNM website mid-July.

Thank you for participating in this survey, your input is very important to the SNMTS!

Sincerely,

SNMTS Research Committee

1850 Samuel Morse Drive | Reston, Virginia 20190 | 703.708.9000

http://amit.informz.net/z/cjUucD9taT0xMTYxOTEwJnA9MSZ1PTc2NzU4NTYyMyZsaT01MDI5NzY4/index.html



CMSS Code of Interactions with Companies

CODE FOR INTERACTIONS WITH COMPANIES

March 2011

Table of Contents I. Preamble ...................................................................................................................................... 1

II. About the Code ........................................................................................................................... 3

III. Definitions .................................................................................................................................. 5

IV. Principles for Interaction ........................................................................................................... 9

1. Independence ...................................................................................................................... 9

2. Transparency ...................................................................................................................... 11

3. Accepting Charitable Contributions ................................................................................... 12

4. Accepting Corporate Sponsorships .................................................................................... 13

5. Society Meetings ................................................................................................................ 14

5.1. Educational Grants and Society CME ......................................................................... 14

5.2. CME‐Accredited Satellite Symposia ........................................................................... 16

5.3. Non‐CME Informational/Educational Programs ........................................................ 17

5.4. Exhibits ........................................................................................................................ 17

6. Awarding of Research Grants ............................................................................................ 19

7. Clinical Practice Guidelines ................................................................................................ 19

8. Society Journals .................................................................................................................. 23

9. Standards for Advertising .................................................................................................. 24

10. Standards for Licensing ..................................................................................................... 25

V. Adherence to the Code ............................................................................................................. 26

CMSS Code for Interactions with Companies

I. Preamble Medical Specialty Societies play an important role in reaching out to health professionals,

patients, and other groups. Our members guide biomedical research, discover new therapies,

and engage in high quality medical practice. Societies offer educational opportunities that help

translate scientific and medical progress into the efficient delivery of effective medical care.

Societies develop resources that guide our members in advancing medical care. Societies

provide a forum for presenting new skills and scientific developments.

For‐profit entities that develop, produce, market or distribute drugs, devices, services or

therapies used to diagnose, treat, monitor, manage, and alleviate health conditions,1 referred

to in this Code as “Companies,” also strive to help patients live longer and healthier lives.

Companies invest resources to bring new drugs, devices and therapies out of the laboratory and

to the patient while maximizing value for shareholders.

Members and patients count on Societies to be authoritative, independent voices in the world

of science and medicine. Public confidence in our objectivity is critical to carrying out our

mission. We know the public relies on us to minimize actual and perceived conflicts of interest.

The Council of Medical Specialty Societies (CMSS) believes every Society must be sure its

interactions with Companies meet high ethical standards.2

Societies’ interactions with Companies may include receiving charitable contributions, applying

for grants in support of programmatic activities, and conducting a range of business

1 See Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed): Code of ethics on interactions with health care

professionals. http://www.advamed.org/MemberPortal/About/code/. Accessed May 4, 2009; Accreditation

Council for Continuing Medical Education. Definition of commercial interest.

http://www.accme.org/index.cfm/fa/Policy.policy/Policy_id/9456ae6f‐61b5‐4e80‐a330‐7d85d5e68421.cfm.

Accessed December 17, 2009.

2 Lo B. Field MJ (eds): Conflict of interest in medical research, education and practice. Washington, DC, National

Academies Press, 2009.

transactions.3 In all of these interactions, Societies are committed to acting with integrity and

transparency.

We adopt this Code to reinforce the core principles that help us maintain actual and perceived

independence. Adopting this Code helps to ensure that a Society’s interactions with Companies

will be for the benefit of patients and members and for the improvement of care in our

respective specialty fields.

3 This Code does not address a Society’s interactions with non‐profit entities or entities outside of the healthcare

sector.

II. About the Code

The Council of Medical Specialty Societies is a 501(c)(3) non‐profit organization committed to

education, professionalism and quality of care.4 In Spring 2009, at the request of the CEOs of

the CMSS member organizations, the CMSS Board of Directors charged the CMSS Task Force on

Professionalism and Conflicts of Interest (“Task Force”) with developing and recommending a

voluntary “code of conduct” for Medical Specialty Societies to “enhance professionalism and to

disclose, manage, and resolve relationships with industry.” For nearly one year, Task Force

representatives from more than 30 Member Organizations worked collaboratively to draft a

document in response to this charge. In the Spring of 2010, the Task Force recommended the

CMSS Code for Interactions with Companies to the CMSS Council for adoption. The Code was

officially adopted by CMSS on April 17, 2010. Modest revisions to the Code were adopted by

CMSS on March 19, 2011.

The purpose of the Code is to guide Societies in the development of policies and procedures

that safeguard the independence of their programs, policies, and advocacy positions. Because

Societies can vary in their activities and corporate structures, these policies and procedures

4 The following organizations are CMSS Member Societies: American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology

(AAAAI); American Academy of Dermatology (AAD); American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP); American

Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM); American Academy of Neurology (AAN); American Academy

of Ophthalmology (AAO); American Academy of Otolaryngology‐Head and Neck Surgery (AAOHNS); American

Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Academy of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (AAPMR); American College

of Cardiology (ACC); American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP); American College of Emergency Physicians

(ACEP); American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG); American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG);

American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM); American College of Physicians (ACP);

American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM); American College of Radiology (ACR); American College of

Rheumatology (ACR); American College of Surgeons (ACS); American Geriatrics Society (AGS); American Medical

Informatics Association (AMIA); American Psychiatric Association (APA); American Society for Clinical Pathology

(ASCP); American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM); American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO);

American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO); American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS); American

Society of Hematology (ASH); American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS); American Urological Association (AUA);

North American Spine Society (NASS); Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM); Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM)

Society of Neurological Surgeons (SNS); Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM); Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS).

need not be uniform. Each Society that chooses to sign on to the Code is encouraged to adopt

policies and procedures that are tailored to meet its individual organizational needs. Societies

may choose to adopt policies that are more rigorous than the Code.

The Code is divided into Principles and Annotations. The Principles state what is expected of

Societies that sign on to the Code. The Principles are expected to remain relatively constant,

and may be changed only by the CMSS Board of Directors. The Annotations, on the other hand,

reflect CMSS’ current interpretation of a given Principle. An Annotation may explain the

purpose of a Principle, or give examples of Society policies and safeguards that are consistent

with the Code. Annotations may be clarified periodically by CMSS in response to questions or

to changes in the landscape of Society‐Company interactions.

III. Definitions The following terms are defined for purposes of this Code. CMSS recognizes that some of these

terms may be used or defined differently by individual Societies or outside groups. Some of

these terms refer to types of interactions in which Societies may engage with non‐profit

organizations and individuals as well as with Companies. They are defined here in terms of for‐

profit Companies in order to create a common vocabulary for the Principles under this Code.

Advertising: Advertising is a Business Transaction in which a Company pays a fee to a Society in

exchange for the Society’s publication of a promotional announcement that highlights the

Company or the Company’s products or services. For purposes of this Code, Advertiser refers

to a Company that purchases Advertising.

Business Transaction: A Business Transaction is an interaction between a Society and a

Company in which a Company pays a fee to the Society in exchange for the Society’s item,

service, or product. Examples of Business Transactions include Company payment of fees

associated with subscriptions to Society publications, Advertising in Society publications,

registrations for Society meetings, and exhibit space rental.

Charitable Contribution: A Charitable Contribution is a gift, including an in‐kind gift, given by a

Company to a qualified tax‐exempt organization (e.g., a Society or its affiliated Foundation) for

use in furthering the organization’s charitable purposes and in accordance with applicable tax

rules and legal standards.

Clinical Practice Guideline: A Clinical Practice Guideline (or Guideline) is a systematically

developed statement to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate healthcare

for specific clinical circumstances.5 As used in this Code, the term Clinical Practice Guideline

also refers to medical technology assessments, clinical opinions, and other evidence‐based

clinical practice tools, as well as updates to existing Clinical Practice Guidelines (“Guideline

5 Lohr KN, Field MJ: A provisional instrument for assessing clinical practice guidelines, in Field MJ, Lohr KN (eds): Guidelines for clinical practice: From development to use. Washington, D.C., National Academy

Press, 1992, p 346.

Updates”). Societies will determine whether the term Clinical Practice Guidelines applies to

clinical performance measures and safety standards developed by the Society.

Company: A Company is a for‐profit entity that develops, produces, markets, or distributes

drugs, devices, services or therapies used to diagnose, treat, monitor, manage, and alleviate

health conditions.6 This definition is not intended to include non‐profit entities, entities outside

of the healthcare sector, or entities through which physicians provide clinical services directly

to patients. However, a Society may choose to adopt a broader definition of “Company” if

doing so would better address the Society’s interactions.

Continuing Medical Education (CME): CME consists of educational activities for which the

learner may receive CME credit (e.g. American Medical Association (AMA) Physician’s

Recognition Award Credit, American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) Prescribed or

Elective Credit, American Osteopathic Association (AOA) Credit – various categories) based on

accreditation awarded to the continuing education provider by a recognized accrediting body

(e.g., Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), AOA, AAFP). CME

activities “serve to maintain, develop, or increase the knowledge, skills, and professional

performance and relationships that a physician uses to provide services for patients, the public,

or the profession.”7 For purposes of this Code, educational activities for physicians and other

health care providers that are not CME‐accredited are considered Non‐CME

Educational/Informational Programs.

Corporate Sponsorship: A Corporate Sponsorship is an arrangement in which a Company,

typically through its marketing department, provides monetary or in‐kind support for a

particular Society product, service, or event, and is then acknowledged in connection with the

6 See Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed): Code of ethics on interactions with health care

professionals. http://www.advamed.org/MemberPortal/About/code/. Accessed May 4, 2009; Accreditation

Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME): Definition of commercial interest.

http://www.accme.org/index.cfm/fa/Policy.policy/Policy_id/9456ae6f‐61b5‐4e80‐a330‐7d85d5e68421.cfm.


7 Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME): CME content.

http://www.accme.org/index.cfm/fa/Policy.policy/Policy_id/16f1c694‐d03b‐4241‐bd1a‐44b2d072dc5e.cfm.

Accessed October 25, 2009; American Medical Association (AMA): The Physician Recognition Award and credit

system. http://www.ama‐assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/455/pra2006.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2009.

product, service or event. Corporate Sponsorships are distinct from Educational Grants, and do

not constitute Commercial Support of CME. For purposes of this Code, Corporate Sponsor

refers to a Company that provides a Corporate Sponsorship.

Direct Financial Relationship: A Direct Financial Relationship is a relationship held by an

individual that results in wages, consulting fees, honoraria, or other compensation (in cash, in

stock or stock options, or in kind), whether paid to the individual or to another entity at the

direction of the individual, for the individual’s services or expertise. As used in this Code, the

term Direct Financial Relationship does not mean stock ownership or intellectual property

licensing arrangements. See Principle 1.4 for additional clarification of the meaning of Direct

Financial Relationship.

Educational Grant: An Educational Grant is a sum awarded by a Company, typically through its

grants office, for the specific purpose of supporting an educational or scientific activity offered

by the Society. Educational Grants awarded by a Company to support a CME activity are

referred to in the ACCME Standards for Commercial Support as “Commercial Support” of CME.8

An Educational Grant may also be “in‐kind.”

Key Society Leaders: At a minimum, and for purposes of this Code, the Key Society Leaders are

officers at the Presidential level (e.g., the President‐Elect, the President, and the Immediate

Past President as applicable) of a Society’s membership organization, the chief executive officer

of a Society’s membership organization, and the Editor(s)‐in‐Chief of Society Journal(s).9

Medical Specialty Society: A Medical Specialty Society (or Society) is a non‐profit organization

whose membership includes predominantly physicians who practice in a specific medical

specialty or sub‐specialty that seeks to further the medical specialty, to advance the interests

and education of individuals engaged in the specialty, to improve patient care, and to provide

information for patients and the general public. Societies may have different corporate

structures and encompass several affiliated legal entities. If a function described in the Code is

8 Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME): Standards for commercial support.

http://www.accme.org/dir_docs/doc_upload/68b2902a‐fb73‐44d1‐8725‐80a1504e520c_uploaddocument.pdf.


9 See definition of Society Journal.

carried out by an entity other than a Society’s membership organization (e.g., by an affiliated

Foundation), Code provisions dealing with that function apply to the other entity to the extent

the membership organization controls that entity. Each Society should decide independently

how best to comply with the Code in light of its corporate structure.

Non‐CME Informational/Educational Program: A Non‐CME Informational/Educational Program

is a program offered by a Society, Company or other third party that provides educational or

promotional information and does not offer CME credit.

Research Grant: A Research Grant is an award that is given by a Society to an individual,

institution, or practice to fund the conduct of scientific research. Companies may provide

Societies with programmatic support (e.g., an Educational Grant or Charitable Contribution)

designated for the specific purpose of funding Research Grants.

Satellite CME Symposium: A Satellite CME Symposium is a Company‐supported CME program

held as an adjunct to a Society meeting where CME credit for the Symposium is provided by a

third party CME provider, and for which the Society receives a fee.

Society CME: Society CME refers to CME programs that are planned by a Society and for which

the Society, as an accredited CME provider, provides CME credit.

Society Journal: A Society Journal is a peer‐reviewed scientific journal published by a Society or

by a publisher on a Society’s behalf.

IV. Principles for Interaction

1. Independence 1.1. Societies will commit that their educational activities, scientific programs, products,

services and advocacy positions are independent of Company influence, and will

develop and adopt policies and procedures that foster independence.

Annotation: These policies need not be uniform; rather, each Society’s policies can be

tailored to fit its individual organizational needs. Societies should make these policies

available to the public (See Principle 2.1).

1.2. If a Society collaborates with a Company on a project or utilizes a Company’s product or

service, there will be an arms‐length business relationship between the Society and the

Company. The Society will apply its independent judgment to the arrangement and will

not allow the Company to control content or project decisions.Societies will separate

their efforts to seek Educational Grants, Corporate Sponsorships, Charitable

Contributions, and support for Research Grants from their programmatic decisions.

Annotation: The initial step in program development is the independent assessment by

a Society that a program is needed (e.g., to address gaps in care or knowledge). Once a

Society determines that a program is needed, it is permissible to assess the availability

of funds.

1.3. Societies will identify the high‐level group responsible for guiding Society interactions with Companies.

Annotation: A Society may assign the responsibility of monitoring and guiding Society‐

level interactions with companies to an existing group, such as its Board of Directors (or

a subcommittee of the Board), Ethics Committee, or Conflict of Interest Committee, or

to a new group created for this purpose.

1.4. No Key Society Leader, defined for purposes of this Code as the Presidential‐level

officers of a Society’s membership organization (e.g., the President, President‐Elect,

and Immediate Past President as applicable), the chief executive officer of a Society’s

membership organization, and the Editor(s)‐in‐Chief of Society Journal(s), may have

Direct Financial Relationships with Companies during his or her term of service.

Annotation: Each Society may set a reasonable period after election or appointment for

Key Society Leaders to terminate any Direct Financial Relationships. A Society may

permit Key Society Leaders who are elected or appointed prior to the time the Society

signs on to the Code to maintain existing Direct Financial Relationships with Companies

for the duration of their terms. These relationships should be disclosed and managed in

accordance with Principles 2.3 and 2.4.

Under Principle 1.4, a Key Society Leader may provide uncompensated service to

Companies and accept reasonable travel reimbursement in connection with those

services. A Key Society Leader may accept research support as long as grant money is

paid to the institution (e.g., academic medical center) or practice where the research is

conducted, not to the individual. A Key Society Leader may receive wages or other

compensation from a Company in exchange for providing or overseeing the provision of

health services to Company personnel. A Key Society Leader may accept reasonable

compensation for serving on an independent data safety monitoring board in a

Company study. A Key Society Leader may own stock or stock options in a Company. A

Key Society Leader may receive royalties or similar fees relating to patents or other

intellectual property. While permitted under Principle 1.4, all such relationships should

nevertheless be disclosed and managed in accordance with Principles 2.3 and 2.4.

If a Key Society Leader receives stock or stock options from a Company as wages,

consulting fees, honoraria, or other compensation (other than permitted payments as

described in the prior paragraph), this is considered a Direct Financial Relationship. If a

Key Society Leader directs a Company honorarium or other fee to the Society, a charity,

or another entity, this is considered a Direct Financial Relationship.

See the definition of “Direct Financial Relationship” for additional information relating

to Principle 1.4. See Principles 5.2.5 and 5.4.4 for additional limitations on the

relationships of Key Society Leaders.

1.5. Societies will use written agreements with Companies for Educational Grants,

Corporate Sponsorships, Charitable Contributions, Business Transactions, and support

of Research Grants.

Annotation: Good business practices require that funds accepted from Companies be

associated with written agreements that specify what the funds are for, the amount

given, and the separate roles of the Company and the Society. Such agreements show

that a transaction is “arms length,” establish clear parameters for the use of funds, and

affirm the independence of the Society.

To help Societies comply with this Principle, CMSS will develop customizable agreement

templates or standard clauses to serve as a model for Societies’ written agreements.

Societies may choose to use these templates or create their own agreements

independently.

2. Transparency 2.1. Societies will make their conflict of interest policies and/or forms available to their

members and the public.

Annotation: Transparency is a key element in fostering confidence in Societies’

independence. Societies should make disclosure forms and policies adopted under

Principle 1.1 of this Code available to the public. Societies may choose to make internal

conflict of interest management procedures publicly available as well.

2.2. Societies will disclose Company support (at a minimum Educational Grants, Corporate

Sponsorships, Charitable Contributions, and support of Research Grants), making this

information available to their members and the public.

Annotation: With the support of CMSS, Societies will work together, along with other

appropriate stakeholders, to develop a consistent template for disclosure of Company

support received by a Society. Generally, disclosure fields should include the name of

the Company, the category of support (e.g., Educational Grant, Corporate Sponsorship,

Charitable Contribution), the time period of the support, and the dollar amount or

range. Some Societies may also decide to disclose information related to Business

Transactions, support from donors outside of the for‐profit healthcare sector, support

from non‐profit organizations, and support from individual donors.

2.3. Societies will adopt written disclosure policies for Key Society Leaders, Board members,

committee members and others who serve on behalf of the Society, and will use the

disclosed information to manage conflicts of interest in decision‐making. Societies will

require volunteers to update disclosure information at least annually and when

material changes occur.

Annotation: CMSS will support and participate in efforts to arrive at a consistent scope

and format for individual disclosure across multiple organizations and activities.

Societies can manage conflicts of interest in a variety of ways. In some cases, disclosure

is sufficient. Additional conflict of interest management mechanisms such as recusal,

peer review, and CME session audits may be appropriate. Societies should select conflict

of interest management mechanisms that are appropriate for the activity and type of

relationship under consideration. Societies will disclose all financial and

uncompensated relationships that Key Society Leaders and members of the Board of

Directors of the Society’s membership organization have with Companies, making this

information available to their members and the public.

With the support of CMSS, Societies will work together, along with other appropriate

stakeholders, to develop a consistent template for disclosure of these relationships.

Generally, disclosure fields should include employment, consulting or advisory

arrangements, stock ownership, honoraria, research funding paid to an individual’s

institution or practice, expert testimony, and gifts.

A Society is not required to disclose the relationships of Board members elected prior to

the time the Society signs on to the Code.

3. Accepting Charitable Contributions 3.1. Societies will control the use of Charitable Contributions in a manner that is aligned

with the Society’s strategic plan and mission.10

10 See Definition of Society for discussion of the role of affiliated foundations.

3.2. Societies will decline Charitable Contributions where the Company expects to influence

Society programs or advocacy positions, or where Company restrictions would

influence Society programs or advocacy positions in a manner that is not aligned with

the Society’s mission.

3.3. Societies will adhere to applicable tax rules and legal standards for acceptance of Charitable Contributions and management of institutional funds.

3.4. Reasonable restrictions on the purposes for which Charitable Contributions will be used are acceptable, as are reasonable requirements for reporting on the uses of the

donated funds.

Annotation: For example, it is appropriate for Charitable Contributions to be designated

to support a broad section of a Society’s mission (e.g., general research, research in a

particular disease area, or patient information). It is also appropriate for Charitable

Contributions to be designated to support a specific Society program (e.g., a research

award or fellowship), as long as the donor is not permitted to influence or control the

program (e.g., selecting award recipients or determining research topics).

3.5. Societies will adopt policies for consistent and appropriate recognition of donors.

Annotation: Donor recognition is a universal part of fundraising and should be

conducted with appropriate limitations. For example, donors can be recognized in print

materials, in private or public ceremonies, and with banners or other visible displays.

Recognition should not be provided in a manner that implies donor influence over

Society programs or advocacy positions (See Principle 1.1).

4. Accepting Corporate Sponsorships 4.1. Societies will only accept Corporate Sponsorship of an item or program if the item or

program is aligned with the Society’s strategic plan and mission.

4.2. Societies will make reasonable efforts to seek multiple Corporate Sponsors for

sponsored items or programs.

Annotation: In addition to or instead of seeking multiple Corporate Sponsors for

sponsored items or products, Societies may seek support from sources outside of the

for‐profit healthcare sector.

4.3. Societies will not place the names or logos of Companies or products on Society‐

distributed, non‐educational “reminder” items (e.g., tote bags, lanyards, highlighters,

notebooks, and luggage tags) that Companies are not permitted to give directly to

healthcare professionals under generally accepted standards for ethical interactions

(i.e., PhRMA Code, AdvaMed Code).

Annotation: The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)

Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals and the Advanced Medical

Technology Association (AdvaMed) Code of Ethics on Interactions with Health Care

Professionals do not permit Companies to give promotional, non‐educational

“reminder” items directly to healthcare professionals.11 In support of these standards,

Societies should not permit the placement of Company names or logos on Society‐

distributed reminder items.

4.4. If accepting Corporate Sponsorship of data registries, Societies will prohibit Corporate Sponsors from participating in the direct management of the registry.

Annotation: Corporate Supporters should not be involved in decisions to sell or

otherwise disclose or publish registry data. Representatives of Corporate Supporters

should not be permitted to serve on registry steering groups. Corporate Supporters

should not receive special access to registry data.

5. Society Meetings

5.1. Society Educational and Informational Programs

11 See Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA): Code on interactions with healthcare professionals. http://www.phrma.org/files/attachments/PhRMA%20Marketing%20Code%202008.pdf. Accessed March 9, 2010; Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed): Code of ethics on interactions with health care professionals. http://www.advamed.org/MemberPortal/About/code/. Accessed May 4, 2009.

5.1.1. When providing Society CME, Societies will comply with ACCME Standards for

Commercial Support, including by adopting policies and procedures designed to

identify and manage conflicts of interest in Company‐supported Society CME

programs.

Annotation: Societies should adopt policies and procedures for managing the

relationships of individuals who plan, carry out, or contribute to the content of

Society CME activities. Adopting and rigorously enforcing these policies precludes

Company influence over Society CME content.

5.1.2. In providing Society CME, Societies will not seek support for product‐specific

topics.

Annotation: Where the purpose of a Society CME session is to demonstrate or

train attendees in the safe and effective use of a particular drug, device, service

or therapy, Societies may accept in‐kind support from Companies that develop,

produce, market, or distribute that drug, device, service or therapy. In

accordance with ACCME Standards, a Society may accept in‐kind support from a

single Company when other equal but competing products or services are not

available for inclusion.

5.1.3. Societies will make reasonable efforts to achieve a balanced portfolio of support

for each Society CME program.

Annotation: Societies will make reasonable efforts to seek multiple sources of

support for Society CME programs, including support from Companies, support

from organizations outside the for‐profit healthcare sector, and tuition from

attendees.

5.1.4. Societies will retain control over the use of Educational Grants and implement

safeguards designed to ensure that educational programs are non‐promotional

and free from commercial influence and bias.

5.1.5. Societies will appoint their own planning committees to select the objectives,

content, faculty, and format of educational activities in a manner that is

consistent with their organizational missions.

5.1.6. Societies will not solicit Companies’ suggestions about program topics, speakers,

or content.

Annotation: This restriction would not prevent Societies from assessing the

availability of funds for a program in accordance with Principle 1.2.

5.1.7. Societies will prohibit presenters from using Company‐controlled presentation

materials, and from using slides with Company logos.

5.1.8. Societies will require presenters to give a balanced view of therapeutic options, and will encourage presenters to use generic names in place of product trade

names.

5.1.9. Societies will clearly distinguish their Non‐CME Informational/Educational

Programs from Society CME.

5.2. CMEAccredited Satellite Symposia 5.2.1. Societies will require Satellite CME Symposia12 to undergo an application and

selection process.

5.2.2. Societies will require Satellite CME Symposia to comply with ACCME Standards.

Annotation: Societies can best implement Principle 5.2.2. by requiring written

agreements with third party CME providers. Written agreements should also

include consequences for non‐compliance.

To minimize the potential for bias in Satellite CME Symposia, Societies may also

consider the following best practices:

1. Requiring presentations to be evidence‐based;

2. Requiring peer review of slide presentations in advance;

12 See Definition of Satellite CME Symposium. Based on the definition of Satellite CME Symposium, Section 5.2 of the Code does not apply to programs that are held adjunct to Society meetings but (1) are not Company‐supported; (2) are not CME accredited; or (3) for which Societies do not receive a fee.

3. Prohibiting presenters who disclose unmanageable conflicts from making

practice recommendations. These presenters may present on general

topics only (e.g., pathophysiology, research data). An additional speaker

without unmanageable conflicts may be added to the program to make

practice recommendations instead.

4. Requiring presentations to be monitored by reviewers trained to

recognize bias.

5.2.3. Societies will ensure that Satellite CME Symposia are clearly distinguished from

Society CME in Society meeting programs and promotional materials.

5.2.4. Societies will require third party organizers of Satellite CME Symposia to use

appropriate disclaimers to distinguish the Symposia from Society CME programs

in Symposia advertising and program materials.

5.2.5. Societies will not permit Key Society Leaders to participate in Satellite CME

Symposia as faculty members, presenters, chairs, consultants, or in any other

role besides that of an attendee who receives no honoraria or reimbursement.

Annotation: See Principle 1.4 for additional limitations on the relationships of Key

Society Leaders.

5.3. Company Informational/Educational Programs 5.3.1. Societies will require Company Informational/Educational Programs to be clearly

distinguished from CME.

Annotation: Through the Company’s use of appropriate disclaimers in advertising

and informational materials, attendees of Non‐CME Informational/Educational

Programs should be able to easily ascertain that the Programs are not CME

accredited.

5.4. Exhibits 5.4.1. Societies will adopt written policies that govern the nature of exhibits and the

conduct of exhibitors, including by requiring exhibitors to comply with applicable

laws, regulations, and guidance.

Annotation: Society policies can place limits on exhibits and exhibitor conduct

(e.g., booth décor, size, and activities) to ensure that the tone of the exhibit hall is

professional in nature. Policies should be provided to exhibitors and made

available to others upon request.

5.4.2. Societies will only permit exhibitor giveaways that are educational and modest in

value.

Annotation: The requirement that Company giveaways be educational (for

physicians or patients) and modest in value originates in the standards for ethical

interactions set out by AMA, PhRMA, and AdvaMed. The educational giveaway

requirement stated in Principle 5.4.2 applies equally to Companies that have

signed on to the PhRMA or AdvaMed Codes and those that have not. This

approach allows Societies to place all Company exhibitors on an even playing

field.

Principle 5.4.2 does not apply to non‐profit exhibitors or to exhibitors outside of

the healthcare sector. However, Societies may apply these requirements more

broadly at their individual discretion.

5.4.3. Societies will make reasonable efforts to place exhibit booths out of attendees’

obligate path to Society CME sessions.

5.4.4. Key Society Leaders may not participate as leaders or presenters in Company

promotional/marketing events held in exhibit space.

Annotation: Participation of Key Society Leaders in Company promotional or

marketing events has the potential to create the perception that the Society

endorses a particular Company or product. In order to avoid this perception,

Societies should prohibit Key Society Leaders from participating as leaders or

presenters, and may consider extending this restriction to the entire Board of

Directors.

See Principle 1.4 for additional limitations on the relationships of Key Society

Leaders.

6. Awarding of Research Grants 6.1. Societies will not permit Companies to select (or influence the selection of) recipients

of Research Grants.

6.2. Societies will appoint independent committees to select recipients of Research Grants

based on peer review of grant applications.

6.3. Societies will not require recipients of Research Grants to meet with Company

supporters.

Annotation: An individual, institution or practice that receives a Research Grant may

publicly acknowledge the Company that supported his or her Research Grant, if known.

Research Grant recipients may be required to disclose known Company support in

connection with the presentation or publication of grant‐funded research.

6.4. Societies will not permit Companies that support Research Grants to receive

intellectual property rights or royalties arising out of the grant‐funded research.

6.5. Societies will not permit Companies that support Research Grants to control or

influence manuscripts that arise from the grant‐funded research.

6.6. If a Society receives programmatic support (e.g., an Educational Grant or Charitable

Contribution) from a Company to support the Society’s own research, the Society will

disclose the Company support. The Society will act independently in the selection of

research topics and the conduct of the research itself.

7. Clinical Practice Guidelines 7.1. Societies will base Clinical Practice Guidelines on scientific evidence.

Annotation: Many Societies develop and publish Clinical Practice Guidelines, medical

technology assessments, and other clinical practice opinions in order to meet their

members’ needs for tools that help improve the quality and effectiveness of patient

care. The credibility and authority of Society Guidelines depends on a common

understanding that Guidelines are developed through a rigorous independent process,

based on the best available scientific evidence. Societies may refer to published criteria

for rating studies and other evidence, or may use another recognized means of

characterizing the strength of medical evidence.

The definition of Clinical Practice Guidelines in this Code includes “other clinical practice

tools.” Some Societies develop and publish measures or standards for quality, safety, or

other types of performance. Performance measures may apply to clinical care, research

or other professional activities. To underscore the credibility of its performance

measures, a Society may choose to treat them as Clinical Practice Guidelines for

purposes of this Code, applying the standards for independence and transparency set

out in this Principle 7.

7.2. Societies will follow a transparent Guideline development process that is not subject to

Company influence. For Guidelines and Guideline Updates published after adoption of

the Code, Societies will publish a description of their Guideline development process,

including their process for identifying and managing conflicts of interest, in Society

Journals or on Society websites.

Annotation: Healthcare providers, payors, and patients regard Society Clinical Practice

Guidelines as an important source of information from experts in the field. Societies

must therefore take steps to ensure that Guidelines are free from commercial bias and

Company influence.

7.3. Societies will not permit direct Company support of the development of Clinical

Practice Guidelines or Guideline Updates.

Annotation: Societies will not accept Corporate Sponsorship, Educational Grants,

Charitable Contributions, support of Research Grants, or any other direct Company

support of Guideline development activities. Company support of the overall mission‐

based activities of a Society is not considered direct support of Guideline development.

7.4. Societies will not permit direct Company support for the initial printing, publication,

and distribution of Clinical Practice Guidelines or Guideline Updates. After initial

development, printing, publication and distribution is complete, it is permissible for

Societies to accept Company support for the Society’s further distribution of the

Guideline or Guideline Update, translation of the Guideline or Guideline Update, or

repurposing of the Guideline content.

Annotation: After initial development, printing, publication, and distribution of a

Guideline or Guideline Update is complete, it is permissible for a Society to engage in

Business Transactions where Companies purchase Guideline reprints or license

Guideline content for translation or repurposing. A Society may choose to require a

written statement with the purchased or licensed material, acknowledging the

Company’s role and describing the independent nature of the Society’s Guideline

development process.

7.5. Societies will require all Guideline development panel members to disclose relevant

relationships prior to panel deliberations, and to update their disclosure throughout

the Guideline development process.

7.6. Societies will develop procedures for determining whether financial or other

relationships between Guideline development panel members and Companies

constitute conflicts of interest relevant to the subject matter of the guideline, as well as

management strategies that minimize the risk of actual and perceived bias if panel

members do have conflicts.

Annotation: For example, Societies may decide not to permit panel members with

conflicts of interest to draft text or vote on panel recommendations.

7.7. Societies will require that a majority of Guideline development panel members are free

of conflicts of interest relevant to the subject matter of the Guideline.

Annotation: If Guideline development panel members and chairs (see Principle 7.8) have

conflicts of interest at the time of adoption of the Code, a Society may permit these

individuals to remain actively involved in drafting the Guideline. However, each panel

for which this exception is made must meet the requirements of Principle 7.7 by the

time of the next Guideline Update. For the minority of panel members who are not free

of conflicts, Societies will apply procedures for disclosure and conflict of interest

management developed in accordance with Principles 7.5 and 7.6.

7.8. Societies will require the panel chair (or at least one chair if there are co‐chairs) to be free of conflicts of interest relevant to the subject matter of the Guideline, and to

remain free of such conflicts of interest for at least one year after Guideline publication.

Annotation: In addition to minimizing potential conflicts, remaining free of conflicts of

interest helps to ensure that a panel chair remains eligible to participate in subsequent

Guideline Updates.

7.9. Societies will require that Guideline recommendations be subject to multiple levels of

review, including rigorous peer‐review by a range of experts. Societies will not select as

reviewers individuals employed by or engaged to represent a Company.

Annotation: As part of their published Guideline development processes, Societies will

seek critical feedback on draft Guidelines from independent reviewers. These may

include subject matter experts, healthcare practitioners, biostatisticians, and patient

representatives, among others.13

7.10. Societies’ Guideline recommendations will be reviewed and approved before

submission for publication by at least one Society body beyond the Guideline

development panel, such as a committee or the Board of Directors.

7.11. Guideline manuscripts will be subject to independent editorial review by a journal or

other publication where they are first published.

Annotation: Editorial review provides an additional safeguard independent of a

Society’s Guideline development and approval process.

7.12. Societies will publish Guideline development panel members’ disclosure information

in connection with each Guideline and may choose to identify abstentions from

voting.

7.13. Societies will require all Guideline contributors, including expert advisors or reviewers who are not officially part of a Guideline development panel, to disclose financial or

other substantive relationships that may constitute conflicts of interest.

Annotation: To identify and manage conflicts of interest among contributors, advisors,

and reviewers, Societies should follow similar procedures as those applied to the

Guideline development panel. Societies collaborating with or seeking input from

13 The AGREE Collaboration: Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Quality and Safety in Health Care 2003; 12(1): 18‐23.

outside organizations on guideline development should investigate the conflict of

interest standards of those organizations.

7.14. Societies will recommend that Guideline development panel members decline offers

from affected Companies to speak about the Guideline on behalf of the Company for a

reasonable period after publication.

Annotation: A period of at least one year is recommended. An affected company is

one that is reasonably likely to be positively or negatively affected by care delivered in

accordance with the Guideline.

7.15. Societies will not permit Guideline development panel members or staff to discuss a

Guideline’s development with Company employees or representatives, will not accept

unpublished data from Companies, and will not permit Companies to review

Guidelines in draft form.

8. Society Journals 8.1. A Society Journal will maintain editorial independence from the Society and from

Advertisers.

Annotation: In general, a firewall separates the editorial decisions of a Society Journal

from Society governance and operations. Editorial independence should be consistent

with accepted standards for medical publishing, such as those established by the

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the World Association

of Medical Editors (WAME).14

8.2. Society Journals will require all authors to disclose financial and other relationships with Companies.

Annotation: Authors’ disclosure information will be considered by Society Journal

editors in evaluating an article for publication. If the article is published, Society

14 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Ethical considerations in the conduct and reporting of research: Editorship. http://www.icmje.org/ethical_2editor.html. Accessed October 20, 2009; World Association of Medical Editors: The responsibilities of medical editors. http://www.wame.org/resources/policies#responsibilities. Accessed October 20, 2009.

Journals will publish the authors’ disclosure information with the article or issue. The

“look‐back” period for disclosure should be at least one year. Society Journals will

adopt policies governing the scope and format of disclosure, including consistent

disclosure categories.

8.3. Society Journals will require editors and reviewers to disclose financial and other relationships with Companies.

Annotation: Each Society Journal will publish its editors’ disclosure information on its

website.

8.4. The Editor‐in‐Chief of each Society Journal will have the ultimate responsibility for

determining when a conflict of interest should disqualify an editor or reviewer from

reviewing a manuscript, according to established policies.

Annotation: When establishing these policies, Society Journals may find it helpful to

consult accepted standards for medical publishing, such as those established by ICMJE

and WAME.15

8.5. Society Journals will adopt policies prohibiting the submission of “ghost‐written”

manuscripts prepared by or on behalf of Companies.

9. Standards for Advertising 9.1. Societies will adopt written policies that set standards for Advertising.

Annotation: Advertising in all Society publications should be easily distinguishable from

editorial content (e.g., through labels and color‐coding). Advertising should not be

designed to look like scientific articles. In Society Journals, the placement of Advertising

adjacent to articles or editorial content discussing the Company or product that is the

subject of the ad should be prohibited. Advertising in Society Journals should subject to

review by the Editor‐in‐Chief and overseen by the Society. Society Journals and other

15 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Ethical considerations in the conduct and reporting of research: Conflict of interest. http://www.icmje.org/ethical_4conflicts.html. Accessed March 8, 2010; World Association of Medical Editors: Conflict of interest in peer‐reviewed medical journals. http://www.wame.org/conflict‐of‐interest‐in‐peer‐reviewed‐medical‐journals. Accessed March 9, 2010.

Society publications that publish Advertising for CME activities or provide activities

through which readers can earn CME credits should also comply with ACCME

requirements for Advertising set out in the Standards for Commercial Support.

10. Standards for Licensing 10.1. Societies will adopt written standards for licensing that are intended to prevent

misuse, unintended use, and modification of licensed materials, prohibit modification

of licensed materials in a way that would change their meaning, and prohibit use of

Society trademarks to imply Society endorsement of Company products or services.

V. Adherence to the Code

Signing on to this Code is voluntary and is not a condition of continued membership in CMSS.

Societies that sign on to the Code will be identified on the CMSS website. Societies that are not

members of CMSS may also sign on to the Code, and will be listed on the CMSS website as well.

Societies that sign on to the Code should adopt policies and procedures to guide Society‐

Company interactions in accordance with the Code. Societies will interpret and implement the

Code in the context of their organizational structure and their policies and procedures.

Societies that sign on to the Code are encouraged to comply with as many Principles as possible

at the time they sign on, and should set a reasonable timeframe for adopting the policies and

procedures required to comply with any remaining Principles. At their individual discretion,

Societies may choose to adopt policies that are more rigorous than the Code.

Societies should regularly evaluate their success in adhering to the Code. Societies will be

encouraged to affirm annually to CMSS that they continue to adhere to the Code. Societies

that affirm that they adhere to the Code will continue to be identified on the CMSS website.

Any comments received by CMSS relating to a Society’s adherence to the Code will be referred

to the Society.

Questions about the Code may be addressed to CMSS. CMSS will not interpret the Code on an

individual basis. However, CMSS may periodically gather its members’ views and update the

Annotations, or publish answers to “frequently asked questions.”

CODE FOR INTERACTIONS WITH COMPANIES

Council of Medical Specialty Societies

230 E Ohio St. Suite 400 | Chicago, IL 60611

P 312.224.2582 F 312.644.8557 E [email protected]

Advanced Associate Council

NMAA: A Pathway to Advancement William Hubble MA, CNMT, FSNMTS, RT(R)(N)(CT) – President of the Advanced Associate Council

Are you a technologist that would like to expand your scope of practice to include responsibilities and duties that were once reserved for nurse practitioners and physician assistants? Does the idea of working in collaboration with physicians to increase your knowledge of medicine appeal to you? Are you the type of individual that would like to become actively involved in more decision-making in the nuclear medicine department? Are you already performing duties beyond the scope of practice of a nuclear medicine technologist without any official recognition? If you answered yes to any of these questions, then perhaps you should investigate the possibility of furthering your education in a Nuclear Medicine Advanced Associate (NMAA) program.

The first NMAA program was developed in 2009 as three universities, the University of Arkansas, the University of Missouri and Saint Louis University, formed a consortium to provide a Master of Science degree. Last year, the Medical College of Georgia joined the consortium as an additional member.

This pathway for technologists establishes legitimacy for performing many tasks that exceed the current NMT scope of practice. Participants in the program will gain valuable experience and education while working closely with physician preceptors within their clinical sites. Many of the NMAA students are working in hospitals or clinics that appreciate the assets of having a physician extender in their clinics. The four second-year NMAA students have provided presentations at regional and national conferences this past year and are expected to graduate in May 2011. In June 2011, the graduates will take an examination offered by the NMTCB to become the first certified NMAA professionals in history! The second year of the NMAA program is now underway with 10 students enrolled. More information on the NMAA program can be found at http://www.uams.edu/chrp/nuclearadvanced/default.asp.

To ensure the development and advancement of the NMAA profession, the first SNMTS technologist council in SNM history, the Advanced Associate Council, was created in October 2010. The council is currently in transition from a committee that has existed for well over 10 years.

The mission of the NMAA Council is as follows:

• Aid those who are interested in developing a NMAA program at their facility. • Support the practice and policy needs of the NMAA and other areas of technologist

advanced practice. • Aid with activities associated with nurturing and growing the NMAA profession, including

affecting the necessary culture change to allow this designation to function properly.

Members of the NMAA Council will actively engage in the development of this exciting pathway for nuclear medicine technologists. Every member will have the opportunity to run for elected positions that comprise the administration of the council. Our first elections will take place in 2011 for officers and board members.

The council will work with the SNM/SNMTS Scientific Program Committee to ensure CE activities are available at the SNM Annual Meeting and other SNM sanctioned events. In addition, the council will be a source of information about the status of the NMAA profession and will pursue legislation for practicing NMAAs. To communicate with members about the activities and advancement of this new profession, a newsletter will be sent to twice a year and a Web site will be maintained under the auspices of SNM.

The ultimate success of this new pathway for technologists will depend on the support we receive from the SNM membership. All SNM members have the opportunity to join the council for a $10 fee when renewing their dues. I strongly encourage technologists and physicians to become members. If you are just interested in staying informed or want to become actively engaged, we can use your support, expertise and knowledge!

For more information on how to join, please contact us at [email protected].

Advanced Associate Council Membership Report

May 18, 2011

Member Type

2010

2011

Comp.

(5/13/2010)

Physicians/Scientists

3

6

3

Technologists

23

33

24

TOTAL

26

39

27 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...

Nuclear Medicine Advanced Associate (NMAA) 1

Roles and Responsibilities 2

3

A Nuclear Medicine Advanced Associate (NMAA) is an advanced-level nuclear medicine technologist 4

working under the supervision of a licensed physician, who is also an authorized user of radioactive 5

materials, to enhance patient care in the diagnostic imaging and radiotherapy environments. 6

7

The Nuclear Medicine Advanced Associate is an NMTCB- or ARRT-certified nuclear medicine 8

technologist who has successfully completed an advanced academic program encompassing a 9

nationally recognized NMAA curriculum and a nuclear medicine physician-, nuclear cardiologist-, or 10

radiologist-directed clinical preceptorship. 11

12

Under physician supervision, the NMAA performs patient assessment, patient management and 13

selected nuclear medicine procedures as summarized below. 14

15

Perform and document a review of clinical information, such as pertinent lab work, including blood, urine 16

and other tissue samples and pathology studies, as well as correlative imaging studies to facilitate 17

optimal performance and interpretation of the nuclear medicine procedure by the supervising physician. 18

19

Perform, update, and document a ‘history and physical’ in the medical record, obtaining a relevant 20

clinical history from the patient or medical record and a targeted physical exam to optimize the clinical 21

value of the requested nuclear medicine procedure. 22

23

Assist the supervising physician in obtaining informed consent for invasive and/or therapeutic 24

procedures, as well as procedures involving more than minimal risk, as defined by state law and 25

institutional policy. 26

27

Administer medications that enhance diagnostic imaging and therapeutic procedures, as defined by 28

state regulations and institutional policy. 29

30

31

Educate the patient undergoing invasive procedures, therapeutic procedures, and procedures involving 32

more than minimal risk regarding pre-procedural preparation and post- procedural care, as defined by 33

state law and institutional policy and documenting appropriately in the patient’s medical record. 34

35

Perform pre- and post-procedure assessment and monitoring in patients undergoing invasive and 36

therapeutic procedures, as well as procedures involving more than minimal risk, as defined by state law 37

and institutional policy. 38

39

40

Monitor cardiac exercise or pharmacologic stress testing in association with diagnostic nuclear medicine 41

imaging procedures as recognized through institutional policy and defined by state and federal law. 42

43

Assess imaging studies for appropriateness and quality, acquire additional views as necessary, and 44

suggest additional diagnostic procedures to the supervising physician as necessary to provide additional 45

information to optimize the nuclear medicine imaging studies. 46

47

Analyze the imaging, correlative and laboratory data provided and prepare a preliminary description of 48

findings for use by the supervising physician when he/she interprets the results and formulates the written 49

report. 50

51

Communicate report findings in the physician’s finalized and authenticated reports to the referring 52

physician and provide necessary documentation. 53

54

The NMAA will not perform interpretations (preliminary, final or otherwise) of any nuclear medicine 55

procedure nor will he or she transmit observations other than to the supervising nuclear medicine 56

physician or radiologist. 57

58

The NMAA should actively participate in practice-based improvement activities as well as facility quality 59

assurance programs. They should be competent in overseeing compliance with all local, state, regional, 60

and federal requirements for laboratory operations and accreditation, and provide education for 61

technologists, students, and staff. They will be expected to participate in maintenance of certification 62

(MOC) activities and be credentialed by the institution in which they practice. 63

64

The education of the nuclear medicine advanced associate is granted through nationally accredited 65

academic programs offered at the master’s degree level and that lead to certification through the 66

ARRT/NMTCB. Advisory committees to such programs should include representation from the nuclear 67

medicine medical community. 68

69

The nuclear medicine medical community should be represented in any formal national or state 70

certification or licensure process and be actively involved in facility NMAA credentialing. In addition, 71

with the practice of medicine rapidly changing, the SNMTS leadership will work with the SNM 72

Leadership, the ACR and other appropriate stakeholders to assess new procedures that the NMAA may 73

perform. 74

Break-out Groups

Break for Lunch (11:30am – Noon)

Break-out Reports

Liaison Organization Reports

The American Registry of Radiologic Technologists®

Education + Ethics + Examination = The ARRT Equation for Excellence

ARRT REPORT TO SNMTSNATIONAL COUNCIL OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 2011

NMT EXAMINEES


CT EXAMINEES


CT REGISTERED


• 45,195 Total

• 1158 CT & NMT (w/o RAD)

– 279 CNMT

– 879 R.T.(N)

Note: As of December 31, 2010

CT REQUIREMENTS


• Clinical Experience July 1, 2011 More Choice Deletes, Adds to Procedures

• Exam Content Specs July 1, 2011 More Radiation Safety Deletes, Adds to Procedures

PROPOSED POLICY REVISIONS


• 5-Year Post Graduation

Proposed to Become 3 Years

• 3x + 1x Exam Attempts

Proposed to Become 3x

• Retired Status

R.T.(Retired) Retired(ARRT)

NEW POLICIES IMPLEMENTED

• Reinstatement after 5 Years

No Longer Re-Grad + Re-Exam

Now, Re-Exam Only


NEW POLICIES ON HORIZON

2015 Associate Degree RAD, NMT, THR

2016 Structured Education Post-Primaries

2020 End of First CQR Cycle



CQR

• 2011 Certifications Time-Limited

10 Years

• CQ/2011 → CQR

• All Newly Awarded Certifications

• Self Assessment + Targeted CE


ETHICS REQUIREMENTS

• 2776 Cases Investigated in 2010

• 107 Investigations Led to Sanctions

73 = revocations

21 = reprimands

3 = suspensions

3 = settlement agreements


ETHICS FOR AUDITS

• Clinical Experience Requirements

• Audit a Sample of Candidates

• Consequences of Falsification


ANNUAL REPORT

• Proposed Policy Revisions

• Policy Revision Implementations

• ODIA Wind Down

• CARE, Image Gently, U.S.R.T.

• Website Redesign

ERF Dashboard

April 29, 2011

Fundraising Progress: Budget Update Unaudited as of January 16, 2011: Budget Actual YTD Variance$350,000 in Unrestricted Gifts Fundraising Costs $45,500 30,747$ (14,753)$ $150,000 in Endowed Scholarship requests Grant and Award Costs $410,638 $10,098 ($400,540)$200,000 Chehabi Prospects Operating Costs 314,901$ $94,870 ($220,031)

$210,000 Planned Gift Total Expenses $771,039 135,715$ ($635,324)$70,000 in Named Scholarship Awards Investment Revenue $410,638 $743,258 $332,620$980,000 Total Potential Gifts Fundraising Revenue* 360,401$ $296,503 ($63,898)

Total Revenue $771,039 $1,039,761 $268,722*Reflects pending document pledges of $105,000

18 Month Investment Performance Summary

18 Month Investment Performance Report:

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

8000000

9000000

All Funds

Capital Fund

Permanently Restricted

Unrestricted

Last updated: 4/292011

SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS AND REPRESENTATIVES ACADEMY OF MOLECULAR IMAGING Robert J. Gropler, MD President Steven Wozniak, BS, CNMT, RT(N), PET AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY Benjamin McCallister, Jr., MD President-Elect Prem Soman, MD, PhD, FRCP (UK), FACC, FASNC AMERICAN COLLEGE OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE Sue Abreu, MD, FACNM Immediate Past-President Lorraine M. Fig MD, ChB, MPH Secretary AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY Kanny S. Grewal, MD, FACC, FASE, FASNC Scott D. Jerome, DO, FACC, FASNC AMERICAN SOCIETY OF RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGISTS Cathy Tarcson, BS, RT(N) SOCIETY OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE S. James Cullom, PhD Vice President Raghuveer K. Halkar, MD SOCIETY OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGIST SECTION Mary M. Dalipaj, PhD, CNMT, MRT(N), NCT Michael Kroeger, BHS, CNMT, PET, NCT, RT(N) MEMBER AT LARGE Diwakar Jain, MD, FRCP, FACC, FASNC EX OFFICIO MEMBER Kevin G. Kett, MD CONSULTANT PHYSICISTS Edward P. Ficaro, PhD George Zubal, PhD CEO Sandra L. Katanick, CAE DIRECTOR OF ACCREDITATION - NUCLEAR/PET Mary Beth Farrell, MS, CNMT, NCT, FSNMTS

ICANL Report to the NCOR SNM/IAC Joint Webinar

With the January 1, 2012 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) accreditation mandate quickly approaching, the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) and SNM co-sponsored a webinar in mid May to address a multitude of questions related to the upcoming deadline.

The complimentary webinar entitled, "IAC and SNM Accreditation Webinar: What Practices Need to Know to Comply with CMS Rules" was presented by IAC representatives, Sandra L. Katanick, CEO and Mary Beth Farrell. The one-hour webinar discussed the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA) and the accreditation process.

Over 350 people registered following an email marketing campaign conducted by both the SNM and the IAC. One VOICE credit was available to attendees upon completion of a post-test hosted by the SNM.

MIPPA Update

At this time, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA) requirements only apply to freestanding imaging centers. All nonhospital suppliers of the technical component of advanced diagnostic imaging services, inclusive of Nuclear Medicine, MR, CT and PET, must obtain accreditation by January 1, 2012 as a condition for reimbursement.

The three designated accreditation organizations - IAC, American College of Radiology and the Joint Commission – have been meeting monthly with representatives of CMS to finalize the logistics for data transfer regarding facility accreditation status. Biweekly data transfers are planned.

Earlier this spring, CMS released a transmittal stating that facilities performing advanced diagnostic imaging would be required to complete an additional enrollment application for a new specialty code (-95) in order to bill for those studies. CMS also discussed the requirement during an Open Door Forum webinar in March. After feedback from the accreditation organizations and several professional societies arguing that the additional enrollment requirements would be burdensome to facilities, CMS is considering changing the new specialty code requirement. We will provide updates as information becomes available.

An additional concern of the accreditation organizations is that there is no provision in MIPPA for new facilities. After January 1, 2012, facilities that are not fully accredited at the time of service will not be eligible for reimbursement by CMS. In view of the fact that facilities must be in operation in order to submit an application for accreditation and that the process generally takes several months following submission of the application, new facilities would face an undue hardship. CMS has

referred the matter to their general counsel for consideration. We will provide updates as information becomes available.

Changes to Mobile Site Accreditation

In an effort to strengthen its accreditation process and provide a more equitable assessment of laboratories, the IAC revised its mobile lab policy and application requirements. Effective March 28, 2011, the policy previously defined as Mobile Services has been eliminated and the Multiple Site policy is now defined as Multiple Sites (Fixed and/or Mobile).

Under the revised policy, each site where a mobile service provides imaging must meet all multiple site criteria to be accredited. Previously, these sites would have met accreditation so long as the mobile lab vendor listed them on its accreditation application. Further, all staff performing testing and/or interpreting examinations at these sites must meet the training and experience guidelines outlined under the revised policy and must be included in the application. The new policy is published as part of the IAC Accreditation Program Policies and Procedures, within Section 3: Application Requirements, and can be referenced on page 6. More information is available on IAC’s website, as well as in the April edition of IAC Newsletter.

Facilities with a mobile component currently accredited with an IAC division who are affected by the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA) are required to submit the Multiple Site (Fixed and/or Mobile) Supplemental Application and additional fees for each site of service in order for those sites to be accredited by the IAC. Failure to accredit sites that bill the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for the technical component of the advanced diagnostic imaging services prior to January 1, 2012 will result in non-payment to those sites. Multi-modality Discount

The IAC offers a $250 multi-modality discount to facilities or laboratories accredited by one or more IAC division (ICAVL, ICAEL, ICANL, ICAMRL, ICACTL and/or ICACSF), who apply for accreditation in additional modalities. Facilities are not required to submit applications for all modalities at the same time. The discount will be applied to all additional modality application submissions provided one modality has a current accreditation.

New Aetna Payment Policy

Beginning January 1, 2012, Aetna will have new radiology accreditation requirements for its commercial business that will impact CT, MR, Nuclear Medicine (PET and SPECT) and echocardiography. To be eligible for reimbursement of these advanced diagnostic imaging procedures’ technical component, independent diagnostic testing facilities, freestanding imaging centers, office-based imaging facilities, physicians, non-physician practitioners and suppliers of advanced diagnostic imaging procedures must be accredited by the American College of Radiology and/or the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission. Ultrasound, fluoroscopy, mammography and x-ray imaging services are excluded from the requirements.

Respectfully submitted by Mary Beth Farrell, MS, CNMT, NCT, FSNMTS Director of Accreditation – Nuclear/PET

http://www.intersocietal.org/iac/forms/IAC%20Operations%20P&P_2011.pdf�

http://www.intersocietal.org/iac/forms/IAC%20Operations%20P&P_2011.pdf�

http://www.intersocietal.org/intersocietal.htm�

http://www.intersocietal.org/iac/news/2011/vol4i2/2011_vol4issue2.htm�

Provided to the SNMTS National Council of Representatives June 3, 2011

General News New accreditation standards were effective January 2011

Major update of JRCNMT Policy and Procedure Manual completed

Revision to Standards (May 2011): program publication of outcomes

Twenty‐one program visits scheduled for initial or continued accreditation in 2011

Steadily increasing pool of site evaluators – need is for clinical technologists

Current JRCNMT board members nominated by SNMTS

o Frances Keech, MPH, RT(N), FSNMTS o Mary Anne Owen, MHE, RT(N), FSNMTS o Leesa Ross, MA, RT(N)(CT), CNMT, PET

Current JRCNMT board members nominated by SNM o Hung Dam, MD o Christine Dickinson, MD o Hadyn Williams, MD, FACNM, FACR

Accredited Programs by Academic Level

Accreditation Trends Fall 2010 to present

Report from the JRCNMT

NMTCB Report to the SNMTS NCOR David Perry, CNMT, PET, FSNMTS The NMTCB is excited to announce that we have contracted with a new testing company to administer the entry-level examination, as well as the NCT and PET specialty exams. Beginning February 1, 2011, our examinations are being administered by Iso-Quality Testing, Inc. (IQT), which is based in Dunedin, Florida. Working with IQT offers many advantages to the NMTCB, including many new services and very good cost containment. There are also advantages to be gained by our candidates and certificants as IQT maintains nearly twice as many testing centers in the United States than our previous testing company, including centers in Europe, Asia and Australia, a service not previously available. The NMTCB examination is divided into four subgroups; radiation safety, instrumentation, clinical procedures and radiopharmacy. Another exciting opportunity offered by our new testing company is the ability to report scaled scores for each of the examination subgroups, in addition to a scaled score for the full examination. The scaled score is not the percentage of correct items but is representative of how well a candidate performed in each subgroup, or for the entire exam. Calculating scaled scores involves a statistical process that adjusts for variations in the difficulty of different forms of the examination so that any particular scaled score will represent the same level of knowledge from exam to exam. In the past, the NMTCB has reported the relative ranking for each subgroup, describing in which subgroup the candidate did the best, the second best, etc. While this report described to the unsuccessful candidate in which subgroup he or she performed most poorly, it did little to guide that candidate if performance was poor in more than one subgroup. Further, these relative rankings permitted little constructive feedback to Programs Directors seeking to evaluate the overall success of their curriculum. By providing scaled scores for each of the subgroups, the NMTCB hopes to provide more constructive feedback both to candidates and to their Program Directors. It is expected that this new reporting process will be in place by the time you read this report. The NMTCB has completed its work on the NMAA certification examination. The first administration of the exam will be on Saturday, June 4, 2011. The exam will consist of 200 items in a four-option multiple choice format and examinees will have four hours to complete the exam. NMAA candidates who graduated in May are eligible to sit for the exam and all four have registered. We are pleased to have fulfilled our commitment to the nuclear medicine community through the successful delivery of this exam. During the last calendar year, 1,298 candidates sat for the NMTCB Exam. Of those, 88.2% passed, which is on par with previous years. As jobs become more difficult to find and educational programs adjust, the volume of program graduate candidates continues to decline. Meanwhile, the number of NCT candidates has nearly doubled in the past two years while the number of PET candidates remains fairly steady. The pass rate for the PET Exam continues to hover around 65% while nearly 85% of candidates passed the NCT Exam in 2010.

The NMTCB has also revised the experience requirement for eligibility to sit for the NCT Exam. Previously, a candidate was required to have at least 4,000 hours of clinical nuclear medicine experience. This amounts to roughly two years of full-time experience in any aspect of clinical nuclear medicine. The Board recognizes that those who work in a dedicated nuclear cardiology environment will have gained the experience requisite to demonstrating their nuclear cardiology expertise much more quickly than a candidate who works in a more general nuclear medicine environment with less exposure to nuclear cardiology. With that distinction in mind, the NMTCB has revised the eligibility requirement to become eligible to sit for the NCT exam to require:

1. Active NMTCB, ARRT(N), or CAMRT nuclear medicine certification; AND 2. A minimum of two years full-time (4,000 hours) clinical experience as a

certified/registered nuclear medicine technologist; OR a minimum 700 hours of documented clinical experience performing all aspects of nuclear cardiology imaging including radiopharmaceutical handling, injection if permitted by state and/or institutional regulations) and imaging. Supervision must be performed by a nuclear cardiologist, nuclear medicine physician or radiologist board certified in imaging AND direct supervision must be performed by a certified NMTCB, ARRT(N) or CAMRT nuclear medicine technologist respectively.

3. The NMTCB Board of Directors also announce that the minimum 4,000 hours of clinical experience option will be removed on March 15, 2013, at which time all candidates will be required to have a minimum of 700 hours of documented clinical experience in nuclear cardiology. Lastly, the NMTCB is seeking candidates for nomination to the Board of Directors. In order to qualify for nomination, a candidate must be certified by the NMTCB and a member of the SNMTS. The next election is for the term beginning January 1, 2012 and ending December 31, 2016. Directors are eligible to run for a second term upon completion of the first. The application deadline is August 15, 2011 and interested certificants are encouraged to see our website at http://www.nmtcb.org/resources/directorApp.php for more information.

http://www.nmtcb.org/resources/directorApp.php�

Society of Diagnostic Medical Sonography

Activities Report to: Society of Nuclear Medicine

National Council of Representatives

By: Donald F. Haydon, CAE Chief Executive Officer

Thursday, June 2, 2011 8:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.

Grand Hyatt Hotel – Lonestar AB San Antonio, Texas

• The SDMS will co-host a webinar with the AIUM on the topic of ultrasound bio-effects

and ALARA in June. SDMS provides monthly live webinars to its membership that carry CME credit. Webinars are archived and made available to the membership who were not able to participate in the live webinar. Currently, there are 36 archived webinars available to SDMS members covering all sonography specialty areas.

• The SDMS has joined the JRC-CVT as a sponsoring organization. Jeff Hill, a nationally recognized cardiac sonographer, will be representing the association on the Joint Review Committee on Cardiovascular Technology (JRC-CVT) governing board.

• The SDMS has joined Cardiovascular Credentialing International (CCI) as a sponsoring organization. David Adams is serving as the Society representative to the CCI.

• The SDMS continues its support of the CARE bill (Consistency, Accuracy, Responsibility & Excellence in medical imaging and radiation therapy) and will be working with the Alliance for Quality Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (Alliance) for passage of the CARE bill in the 112th congressional session. The CARE bill establishes national certification and education standards for non-physician providers of medical imaging services. The Alliance is a 22-member coalition of medical imaging organizations that support CARE bill lobbying efforts. Recent media focus on patient safety issues and medical imaging has created a receptive environment for CARE bill consideration.

• The SDMS continues its active involvement in the Sonography Licensure Coalition (SLC), a six-member coalition of ultrasound-related organizations addressing the issue of state-based licensure and regulatory activities. Most recently, the SLC was engaged in oppositional efforts directed at a proposed licensure bill for medical imaging in West Virginia that resulted in the bill stalling within committee. Additionally, the SLC was actively involved in a bill supported by various nursing specialty organizations (advance practice, anesthetists, and mid-wives) to amend the recently passed New Mexico licensure law for medical imaging. A negotiated compromise bill providing “Point-of-Care” utilization of ultrasound technology was eventually rejected by members of the New Mexico House of Representatives. We anticipate that subsequent efforts to amend

the New Mexico medical imaging licensure are likely in the future. Other states involved in legislative and/or regulatory activity affecting ultrasound include Oregon, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and North Carolina.

• SDMS has responded to CAAHEP, the accrediting body for sonography education programs, and recommended that the organization adopt an Associate of Science (AS) degree as the minimum standard for entry to clinic practice in sonography.

• The SDMS Practice Management Committee is preparing draft language for a proposed position statement on the issue of Point-of-Care utilization of ultrasound technology. Anticipated criteria include that the providers of Point-of-Care service should be licensed health care providers, acting within their scope of practice, who have received appropriate training and education in the use of ultrasound.

• The SDMS Annual Conference in 2011 will be held in Atlanta, Georgia September 22-25 at the Hyatt Regency Hotel (Peachtree). The SDMS Board Liaison meeting for members of the professional community will be held on Wednesday, September 21 from 12:00 noon – 5:00 p.m. SNMT will be included on the invitation list of organizations invited to participate in the Board Liaison meeting.

Written Informational Reports

Welcome to the Annual June 2011-National Council of Representatives meeting.

This session marks the last meeting that I will serve as Speaker for the National Council of Representatives. The gavel will past from my hand to the new Speaker. The SNMTS By-Laws provide a very orderly manner for this transition. During the Mid-Winter Meeting 2011, held in Palm Springs, the National Council Representatives were charged to select the new speaker from their ranks. Mr. Michael Kroeger was successful in the selection process. Congratulations, Michael!

As incoming Speaker, Mr. Kroeger will inherit some unfinished projects that time and resources did not allow us to complete; the CARE Bill, the Advanced Associate Council and Clinical Trials Network. He may continue to face the challenges of less than 100% NCOR participation with timely written reports for MWM and the Annual meeting. Notwithstanding these matters, Michael is assuming this role at a very exciting time in our history!

Like most “type A” personalities, I do not always read the instructions before tackling a new task, whether that is assembling a technical toy or making a new food dish. I “know” how to do it, so why read the manual, right? Well, technical manuals, Policy and Procedure manuals or Standard Operation procedures manuals are written with a purpose in mind. If one follows the step by step directions laid out before you, mistakes can be prevented! You do not have to reinvent the wheel. I urge all newly elected SNMTS members, NCOR members and Delegates to “read the manual”. All you need to know can be found on these pages to prepare you for an exciting and rewarding term of office. Where do you find it? Long on to: www.snm.org, under “About SNM: Technologist: Governance Documents”. This page holds a wealth of information and answers to your question.

Whether you are a member at large of the SNMTS or have been elected to serve on the NCOR, we are all responsible for our organization’s success. The SNM and the SNMTS are on the edge of a new frontier. Our landscape continues to change. We are not bound by being “just” nuclear medicine technologists. We have morphed into the “hybrid” Imaging Technologist. Many of us have become: PET and CT specialists, some may even have added MRI and RDMS to the list of initials after their names. As we have changed in order to survive, our professional society must change also.

We must embrace scientific professionals in the related modalities. We can no longer afford to be the closely held professional society of our past speaking, only to those whose lineage is purely nuclear medicine. The SNM and SNMTS’ new identity must be welcoming to the molecular imaging professional. We must assure these professionals that they have a home and a voice with us.

The SNMTS strategic plan has many projects requiring the NCOR involvement and accountability to the Executive Board of the SNM. Several of these offer excellent opportunities to bridge the gap between the SNMTS and related modalities. The SNM and SNMTS have already reached “across the aisle” to some with the ‘Bench to Bedside’ initiative. We are now primed for the next step in our evolution!

My two years as your Speaker were a time of continued growth and learning. I have been humbled by the recognition that even after over 35 years in the nuclear medicine/molecular

http://www.snm.org/�

industry, there is still room to learn more. I have deepen a few friendships and created a few new ones. For this I am truly grateful. Thank you for this opportunity to serve you.

SNMTS Leadership Report

President/Leadership ReportJune 2010-June 2011Dominique Delbeke, MD, PhD

SNM President

SNM’s History

• Founded in 1954

• The largest international scientific organization dedicated to molecular imaging and therapy

• A multi-disciplinary organization– over 16,000 physicians, scientists, pharmacists, and technologists

– industry and other partners interested in the diagnostic, therapeutic, and investigational uses of molecular imaging and therapy agents, instrumentation and techniques

councilschapters centers of excellence

Clinical Trials

Organization Structure

House of Delegates

Leadership

• Dominique Delbeke, President

• George Segall, President-Elect

• Frederic Fahey, Vice President-Elect

• Kathy Hunt, SNMTS President

• Ann Marie Alessi, SNMTS President-Elect

Strategic Goals: June 2010Goal 1 – Advocacy: SNM will act as the advocate at the Federal level.

Goal 2 – Radiopharmaceuticals/Clinical Trials: SNM is the resource for all radiopharmaceutical issues including: Production, Quality, Development (Phase I, II, III), Approval (NDA), Compliance, Clinical Trials and Dosimetry.

Goal 3 – Guidelines/Comparative Effectiveness Research: SNM will be the resource for nuclear medicine practice guidelines in order to emphasize individualized patient care (adult and pediatric).

Goal 4 – Education: SNM will be the primary resource for nuclear medicine and molecular imaging education.

Goal 5 – Outreach: SNM will be the leader in educating and promoting collaboration with referring physician and patient groups.

Goal 6 – Governance: By maintaining a sound governance structure and ensuring a fiscally sustainable future SNM will improve the perceived value of membership.

5

June 2010-June 2011: Concerns• Global economy and Healthcare Reform• Declining reimbursement• Mo-99 shortage • New regulations for manufacturing PET

radiopharmaceuticals• Growing public concern about radiation exposure• Future of Radiology/Nuclear Medicine residency

training/education

• Healthcare Reform– Incentive payment based on Appropriateness Use Criteria– ABMS MOC® recognized by Congress for physician

participation in the CMS Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI)

– Establishment of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs)• Guideline Development• Coding and Reimbursement• Comparative Effectiveness Research

– SNM Research Working Group was created– CER workshop July 2010, Bethesda (Funded by AHRQ)– Development of strategic plan– CER Discussion in Steamboat Springs, CO– CER Discussion at Annual Meeting, San Antonio

Economic Challenges

• Short-term approaches:– Diversify world supply chain

• Long-term initiatives: – Domestic Supply: American Medical Isotopes

Production Act of 2011: Senate Bill 99 (Jan 25, 2011) introduced by Bingaman (D-NM) and Murkowski (R-AK): Use of LEU rather than HEU

– Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR)– Netherlands Pallas reactor– GE-Hitachi project– Babcock-Wilcox & Covidien reactor– Other projects (accelerator-based methods)

Regulatory: 99Mo Shortage

• Partnership with FDA:– Have annual meetings with top officials– Invite FDA to hold CE sessions at SNM Annual Meetings– Input on approval process for new agents– Partnering with FDA on imaging biomarkers and manufacturing

guidelines. Spring 2010 workshop is one example of partnership.– SNM has formed a coalition to negotiate with the FDA an easier

process for new drugs and devices applications

• NRC:– Maintain staff to staff communications – Possible reduction of occupational limits– 131I therapy patient release criteria

Regulatory

•Facilitating use of molecular imaging agents in clinical trials including the use of agents without parentage, e.g. FLT, FMISO, FDOPA.•Imaging Site Registry

– Over 200 molecular imaging sites from around the world have registered.

– Scanner validation with phantoms: oncology (compared to ACRIN and EANM and found of equivalent quality), heart (VA program), brain

– 63 scanners validated at 45 sites across the US, UK, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Korea

– 8 fully qualified sites; 16 in final review•Standardized Imaging Protocols •Manufacturer’s Registry•Central INDs: e.g., FLT •Site orientation and Education (curriculum)

–Technologist Educators Committee

Clinical Trials Network

Concern for Radiation

• Reports in media

• Congress, NRC and FDA hearings

• Patients questions

• Japanese tragedy and 131I

• Education• Consider benefit as well as risk• Appropriateness criteria and guidelines• Importance of studies showing efficacy

– SNM/ASNC task force to validate low-dose vs shorter acquisition time

– White paper on radiation dose from Cardiovascular Council

• Image Gently– North American Consensus for Administered

Radiopharmaceutical Activities in Children and Adolescents

• Image Wisely

Concern for Radiation

• Meetings– Annual Meeting, June 4–6, 2011 San Antonio, TX

• 25-30% international attendee• MI integrated in all disease-based tracks

– Mid-Winter Meetings, Jan 26-29, 2012, Orlando, FL– MI workshops:

• E.g. Breast Imaging: State-of-the-Art 2011, April 21–22: Bethesda, MD

– Joint sessions at RSNA, ASTRO, ASCO

• Journals– Journal of Nuclear Medicine (> 50% international submissions)– Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology– Molecular Imaging

Education: Meetings and Journals

• European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)– EANM-SNM Joint Symposium on PET in Prostate Cancer

– SNM Session on Hpyoxia (at EANM Annual Meeting) and

– EANM Session on DOTATOC – Diagnostics, Dosimetry, Therapy (at SNM Annual Meeting)

• Australian and New Zealand Society of Nuclear Medicine (ANZSNM)– 39th Annual Scientific Meeting

• Chinese Society of Nuclear Medicine (CSNM) – Sino American Conference, February 24-27, 2011

• International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)– IAEA Technical Meeting on "Future Trends in Nuclear Medicine“

– Steering Committee 2nd International Conference on Clinical PET and Molecular NM (IPET-II)• World Federation of Nuclear Medicine and Biology (WFNMB)

– Updates in PET/CT and SPECT/CT in Oncologic Imaging– New Horizons for Molecular Imaging and Potential Clinical Applications– New Developments in Monitoring Response to Therapy with FDG PET/CT– PET/CT in Head and Neck and GI Malignancies (Interactive session)

Education: International

• Lifelong Learning and Self-Assessment Program • now offers 33 modules.

• Practice Performance Assessment Program• soon will offer 2 projects.

• Lectures: now include over 50 topics.• Interactive Cases

• PET/CT and diagnostic CT cases: now 250 cases• Cardiac PET and Cardiac SPECT: soon 50 cases

• CT Case Review Workshops: 300 cases• Webinar Series: Monthly started January 2010

Education: Web-based

• PET Center of Excellence– The PET Utilization Task Force was created by to

educate physicians about the clinical utilization of PET/CT.

– Launched PET PROS – Professional Resources and Outreach Source in June 2009 to ensure easy accessibility of information related to PET/CT.

• Center for Molecular Imaging Innovation and Translation (CMIIT)– Formerly Molecular Imaging Center of Excellence– Scientific and educational programs developed in the

context of translational research– Education regarding emerging molecular imaging

technologies

Education: Centers

• Chairs: Henry Van Brocklin and Eric Rohren • Groups:

– Referring Physicians– Patients: Patient Advocacy Advisory Board– Administrators and payers

• Topics:– Oncology– Cardiology– Neurology

Outreach

• Quality training programs– More radiology components– Combined Radiology-Nuc Med training– More molecular imaging?

• Improvement of quality of patient care:– Definition of qualification of personnel in guidelines– Requirements for Maintenance of Certification or equivalent– Credentialing statements

• Collaboration with ABNM (and ABR), ACNM, ACR, RRC and PDA

Education: Quality Training in NM

• ACR/SNM Joint Training Task Force I:– Looking at training options for nuclear medicine

and radiology residency programs– The report of the task force was published in the

June issue of both the JNM and JACR.• ACR/SNM Joint Training Task Force II:

– Develop practical recommendations for Combined Radiology/Nuclear Medicine residency training programs leading to dual certifications

Education: Quality Training in NM

Future of Nuclear Medicine

• Nuclear Medicine/Molecular Imaging 2020– Where nuclear medicine/molecular imaging might be in 10

years (2020)?– Challenges: Hybrid imaging, non nuclear MI, healthcare

reform, economy– Task group of 20 will host 10 working groups of various

stakeholders (physicians, scientists, technologists, industry…)

– Determine likely scenarios for where NM/MI will be in 2020– How should SNM prepare to be most effective given these

scenarios

• SNM budget:– Budgeted income: more conservative assumptions– Budgeted expenses: significant cuts – Surplus of 3% implemented– SNM is on track to meet its FY 2011 budgeted surplus.

• Communication with constituency:– Quarterly calls: HOD, Past presidents– Monthly calls: BOD– Biweekly calls: executive committee– Weekly calls: Leadership

Governance

June 2010-June 2011: Summary of Concerns Addressed

• Global economy and Healthcare Reform• Declining reimbursement• Mo-99 shortage • New regulations for manufacturing PET

radiopharmaceuticals• Growing public concern about radiation exposure• Future of Radiology/Nuclear Medicine residency

training/education

Name Change under Consideration

The Society of Nuclear Medicine

The Society of Nuclear Medicineand Molecular Imaging

2011 SNM Annual Meeting

Virginia Pappas, CAE SNM Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Report

Updated – May 24, 2011 With the first year of the new strategic plan almost completed, the SNM Board of Directors along with Senior Management, are focusing on ensuring the society, and our members, are prepared for what the future of the field may hold. The SNM has initiated three strategic groups over the past year; (1) Name Change Task Force, (2) 2020 Task Force and, most recently, (3) ACR/SNM Nuclear Medicine Training Task Force. While these groups will focus on the future of the profession, we have had much to celebrate this past year. The past two years have ushered in significant changes and the Board and Senior Management have dedicated themselves to ensuring that budget numbers are met, and the financial strength of the organizations is restored. As you know, this past budget cycle was difficult, but necessary. Many changes were made, revenue streams decreased and expenses cut dramatically. However, as we begin to look at the FY2011 projections, SNM is doing very well and I am happy to report we are still tracking ahead (or at budget) in many key areas, including membership, meetings, journals and education. SNM membership numbers have exceeded the budget projections as of May 18, 2011. The full member retention rate is at 90%, slightly higher than the budget projected retention rate of 88%, totaling 3,724 actual retained members vs. 3,512 projected retained members in 2011 budget. The budgeted target for full members for FY2011 is 3,711 members; and we are currently at 3,948, which includes new members. Our new full member goal for 2011 was 199 new members; we are currently at 224 new members. To help support retention efforts, SNM once again contracted with Inalink, a member relations specialty company to reach out to full members. A copy of their full report is attached. For several years now, the SNM has been discussing the possibility of allowing members to “opt-out” of receiving the hard copy of the JNM. SNM began offering technologist members an “opt-out” for JNM this year. We have over 1,774 technologist members opting out of receiving the hard copy of the journal. JNM subscriptions have exceeded last year’s totals in both numbers and revenue, with steadily increasing numbers of subscribers taking advantage of online-only subscriptions. JNMT subscriptions are just short of last year’s totals. JNM and JNMT multisite licenses—which have increased by at least 40% each year since initial offering—also have exceeded last year’s totals in both numbers and revenue. JNM advertising for FY2011 met its annual budget goal in January and has since exceeded it by $40,000, with more commitments in the making. Advertising for JNMT,

Uptake, and the SNM websites have exceeded annual goals; advertising for the program and abstract books is at 99% of budget. Although SNM books are below target on both sales and revenue, SNMTS has released three updated publications which are selling more than 10% ahead of last year in numbers. SNM continues its relationship with the Decker Molecular Imaging journal, with 471 SNM members and 313 SNMTS members taking advantage of the discounted subscription thus far this year. Of those, 384 members took advantage of the discounted rate(s) offered by joining the CMIIT. SNM received Accreditation with Commendation for a full six (6) year period. This is the highest accreditation level that can be awarded to any accredited provider. The ACCME re-accreditation interview took place on December 3. Arnold Strashun, MD, Chair of the Continuing Education Committee, attended the meeting in the Reston office and we were notified on March 16, 2011 of ACCME’s final decision on SNM’s re-accreditation. The Breast Cancer Imaging: State of the Art 2011, was held April 21-22, at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD. The two-day symposium brought together individuals from multiple clinical and scientific disciplines associated with the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of patients with breast cancer. The meeting addressed the need for synergism between diagnostic radiology, nuclear medicine, and the new molecular imaging modalities as they are applied to the care of breast cancer patients. The speaker roster included expert diagnostic radiologists, nuclear medicine physicians, and scientists, medical oncologists, surgeons, economists, and radiation oncologists. Registration for the Breast Cancer Imaging Symposium closed with 160 registrants; 32 federal, 37 SNM members, 34 non-members, 4 in-training members and 2 in-training non-members. There were 109 paid registrants totaling $34,450. In addition, there were 51 complimentary registrants (20 speakers, 16 abstract presenters, 10 guests and 5 staff). Pre-registration for the SNM Annual Meeting in San Antonio closed on April 15. For the first time in several years, we exceeded our pre-registration budget (1,538 full paid pre-registrants) by 227 registrants for a total of 1,765 full pre-registrants, or $88,439 in additional revenue. As of May 24, 2011, SNM had exceeded their budgeted revenue for on-site registrations by $10,821, or 505 on-site registrants compared to a budget of 483 full paid on-site registrants. As you may remember, during the FY2011 budget process, all sponsorship revenue and expense was removed from the budget. However, staff continued to solicit exhibitors for sponsorship revenue. As of May 24th, a total of $187,000 has been received in sponsorship support, including sponsorship for the registration bags. The total profit after expenses is currently $87,700 (this is unbudgeted revenue). New this year, the SNM will also be debuting a new “online” registration bag. Over the years, the materials included in the registration bags have grown tremendously. So much so, that many attendees just

throw out the material immediately. In an effort to go-green and alleviate some of the paper that our attendees receive, the online registration bag will be available on the SNM Annual Meeting website. All flyers and materials that do not include sponsorship logos will be included in the online bag only. Attendees can view the registration bag anytime, before and during the meeting. We are hopeful that this will ensure only sponsorship materials or materials relevant to the educational portion of the meeting will be included in the registration bags that are distributed on-site. Exhibit sales are currently at $1,548,925 representing 479 booths (10’ x 10’) with a budget of 493 booths or $1,602,550. This represents a current shortfall of $53,625. As mentioned during the Mid-Winter meeting, SNM will be debuting “The SNM Virtual Meeting.” This virtual meeting will allow attendees and non-attendees to gain access to full-motion video capture of 70 of the most popular sessions from the SNM 2011 Annual Meeting—online and on DVD-ROM. The SNM Virtual Meeting will include: 70 of the most popular sessions from this year's annual meeting, featuring over 100 hours of content, access to sessions online - within 24 hours after the live sessions conclude, state-of-the-art media player allowing for slide thumbnail navigation including any presented video, animation, and presenter cursor movements, highly attended sessions, including the Opening Plenary, Anger Lecture Plenary, and Annual Meeting Highlights, as well as the Molecular Imaging, Radiopharmaceutical, and Data & Instrumentation Basic Science Summary sessions, downloadable audio mp3s for listening on-the-go, CME, ACPE and VOICE credits available for sessions you did not attend at the meeting, and companion DVD-ROM (if selected). Currently, the SNM Virtual Meeting is available for sale to individuals who have registered for the SNM meeting. As of May 24 there were 74 physicians and 22 technologists who purchased the virtual meeting (online only) and 187 physicians and 20 technologists who purchased the DVD and Virtual Meeting (online and DVD access). Following the start of the Annual Meeting, the Virtual Meeting will be available for sale to anyone (attendees and non-attendees). We delay the sale and marketing of this new product to non-registrants to ensure that we are not pulling potential revenue from registrations. One of the most exciting accomplishments this year has been the launch of the new SNM Career Center. Our employers will now have the choice of posting to the SNM Career Center only or posting to the National Healthcare Career Network (NHCN) – while our job seekers will now have access to many more jobs. The National Healthcare Career Network (NHCN) is a network of over 245 top healthcare associations and professional organizations. SNM’s alliance with the NHCN increases employers and job seekers reach to a larger database of industry-specific resumes and jobs. The new career center launched on May 24, 2011 – with over 399 job postings for nuclear medicine physicians, scientists and technologists!!!! New features for job seekers:

• State of the art job search functionality allows job seekers to search Invasive Cardiology postings by job title, location, keyword or company/employer name

• Ability to upload an existing resume in PDF or MS Word format with existing format maintained

• Ability to “flag” profile or resume to indicate attendance at SNM and other healthcare events

• Ability to identify employers attending SNM and other healthcare events • Access to career related advice and articles • Access to regularly updated news, events and articles • Ability to sign up for automatic daily “job alerts”—email notification of new jobs

posted that meet job seeker selected criteria for sub-specialty and geographic location

New features for employers include: • Network Wizard- Allows SNM employers to see the other job boards on which

their listing may appear before purchasing a package; providing a better understanding of where the job is actually going.

• Searchable resume database – Because SNM represents the most qualified professionals, the resume database will give employers access to the best possible job seekers, so they can find their next employee without leaving the office!

• Auto notification – Employer may set the criteria for their job search and the system will email when new resumes are a match. No more time wasted visiting the site every day to see new candidates.

• Job activity tracking – Employer online account includes reports that show the number of individuals that have viewed the job, applied online, and even how many times the job was sent out in a “job agent” or “emailed to a friend.”

• Online job posting information – Now, the employer can manage their job postings online, anytime. Add, edit and delete company postings right from their office, even copy an expired or deleted ad for increased time savings.

Since January, SNM has generated over 180 media placements. Media requests from Medscape, Discover Magazine, CNN, Dr. Oz and NPR’s Sound Medicine were fielded on the Japan crisis, brain diseases, PET scans and other topics. The trade media also contacted SNM for information on various JNM articles and other nuclear and molecular imaging issues. Planning is currently underway for the SNM Annual Meeting press conference. SNM has continued to actively update and grow its social networking pages on Facebook (3,847 “likes”), Twitter (295 followers) and LinkedIn (826 members). Engagement is an important metric as it can demonstrates that the posts provoke conversation. SNM has steadily grown its social networking sites and has seen an increase in engagement over the past few months. In the coming months, SNM will focus on growing its fan/follower/member base and adding to its YouTube page. While this year wielded many changes both internally and externally, the SNM has been able to surpass most budget revenue numbers. With the dedication of our members and the leadership of the Board of Directors with guidance of the House of Delegates, we are working to navigate through this changing in a positive, yet strategic way. I’m excited

about the changes we have made and look forward to seeing what the remaining 4 months of the fiscal year have in store.

SNMTS Administrator

Special Reports

Informational Reports

Chapter Reports and Items for Discussion

NCOR DELEGATE/SPECIALTY AREA REPRESENTATIVE INFORMATIONAL REPORTING FORM

CHAPTER/SPECIALTY AREA: Central Chapter PRESENTED BY: Rebecca Sajdak_BA, CNMT, RT (N), FSNMTS PLEASE IDENTIFY THE THREE MOST PRESSING ISSUES OR CONCERNS THAT AFFECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS 1. OUTREACH TO PUBLIC- SNM NEEDS TO BE A RESOURCE FOR PEOPLE TO GO TO 2. JOB MARKET 3. TRAINING FOR TECHNOLOGISTS IN OTHER MODALITIES-CLINICAL COMPENTENCIES SUMMARY OF CHAPTER ACTIVITIES/SUCCESSES CCSNM held a Successful spring meeting in Chicago IL with over 200 attendees. We would like to thank Kathy Hunt and Dr. Fred Fahey for visiting and giving updates from the national level. 26 scientific abstracts were received with 18 being accepted for presentation. Three people from the central chapter are nominated to the national ballot, Dr. Gary Dillehay, Aileen Carey CNMT, and Rebecca Sajdak, CNMT, FSNMTS, Tina Bauman, CNMT Nancy McDonald has been selected to sit on the radiologic technologist advisory board for the state of Illinois as the nuclear medicine technologist representative. She has verified language for Illinois nuclear medicine technologist to perform CT in conjunction with PET. The central chapter has launched a new website that will allow us to monitor who and where we are attracting the most attention. The name change for the SNM was discussed with mixed comments LIST OF CHAPTER OFFICERS

(Include name, address, email, phone, fax, and term length) Central Chapter – Society of Nuclear Medicine

2011-2012 Board of Governors and TS Executive Council (March 28, 2011) Central Chapter Officers President Rick V. Hay, PhD, MD, FAHA 7954 Aspenwood Drive SE Ada, MI 49301 Ph: 616-682-0792; Fax: 616-558-7078 Email: [email protected] President – Elect/Secretary/Treasurer Rebecca Sajdak, BA, CNMT, RT (N), FSNMTS Loyola University Medical Center Section on Nuclear Medicine 2160 S. First Ave. Maywood, IL 60153 Phone: 708-216-3777; Fax: 708-216-5813 Email: [email protected]

Vice President/Program Chair Paresh Mahajan, MD Department of Nuclear Medicine William Beaumont Hospitals 3601 W. Thirteen Mile Road Royal Oak, MI 48073 Ph: 248-898-5000; Fax: 248-898-0768 Email: [email protected] Executive Director Merle Hedland Bacon-Hedland Management, Inc. 475 S. Frontage Road, Suite 101 Burr Ridge, IL 60527 Ph: 630-323-6880; Fax: 630-323-6989 Email: [email protected] Central Chapter Elected Board of Governors Kenneth (KG) Bennet, MD Department of Nuclear Medicine Elmhurst Memorial Hospital 200 North Berteau Ave Elmhurst, IL 60126 Ph: 630-941-4562 Email: [email protected] Jerry W. Froelich, MD Director, Nuclear Medicine & Molecular Imaging Department of Radiology University of Minnesota 223 Willoughby Way East Minnetonka, MN 55305 Ph: 612-626-2371; Fax: 612-626-2014 Email: [email protected] Medhat “Sam” Gabriel, MD Division of Nuclear Medicine Loyola University Medical Center 2160 S. First Avenue Maywood, IL 60153 Ph: 708-216-3777 Email: [email protected] Kastytis C. Karvelis, MD Division of Nuclear Medicine Department of Radiology (K-3) Henry Ford Hospital 2799 W. Grand Blvd. Detroit, MI 48202 Ph: 3133-916-3493 Email: [email protected]



Michelle Kritzman, MS Medical Nuclear Physicist Medical Physics Consultants, Inc. 2309 Shelby Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Ph: 734-662-3197: Fax: 734-662-9224 Email: [email protected] Paul J. Reaume, BS, ARRT, (R,N), CNMT PACS Coordinator Huron Valley Sinai Hospital C/o 8827 Dill Drive Sterling Heights, MI 48312 Ph: 586-909-7693; Fax: 877-751-1134 Email: [email protected] Dafang Wu, MD, PhD. William Beaumont Hospital Department of Nuclear Medicine Royal Oak, MI 48073-6769 Tel (248) 898-4151; Fax (248) 898-0487 E-mail: [email protected] Pager: 248-992-1892 Mary Yeomans, CNMT Nuclear Medicine Sales Medi-Nuclear Corp. 30029 Research Drive New Hudson, MI 48165 Ph: 248-926-9500; Fax: 248-926-0400 Email: [email protected]

Past Presidents on Board of Governors

Davide Bova, MD Assistant Professor, Stritch School of Medicine Director, Diagnostic Radiology Loyola University Medical Center 2160 South First Avenue Maywood, IL 60153 Ph: (708) 216-5222; Fax: 708-216-0899 E-mail: [email protected]

Michael A. Wilson, MD Section of Nuclear Medicine Department of Radiology University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics 600 Highland Avenue Madison, WI 53792 Ph: 608-263-5585; 608-265-7390 Email: [email protected]



Technologist Section Officers on Board of Governors President James Timpe, MS, RT (N)(MR) Director, Medical Imaging Advocate Condell Medical Center 801 S. Milwaukee Ave. Libertyville, IL 60048 Ph: 847-990-5384 Email: [email protected] President-Elect Lisa Riehle, CNMT Nuclear Medicine Technologist Northwestern Memorial Hospital 201 E; Huron-Galter 8-123 Chicago, IL 60611 Ph: 312-925-2340; Fax: 3312-926-8118 Email: [email protected] Technologists Elected to Board of Governors Paul J. Reaume, BS, ARRT, (R,N), CNMT PACS Coordinator Huron Valley Sinai Hospital C/o 8827 Dill Drive Sterling Heights, MI 48312 Ph: 586-909-7693; Fax: 877-751-1134 Email: [email protected] Mary Yeomans, CNMT Nuclear Medicine Sales Medi-Nuclear Corp. 30029 Research Drive New Hudson, MI 48165 Ph: 248-926-9500; Fax: 248-926-0400 Email: [email protected]

Chapter Delegates to SNM House of Delegates

CCSNM President Rick V. Hay, PhD, MD, FAHA 7954 Aspenwood Drive SE Ada, MI 49301 Ph: 616-682-0792; Fax: 616-558-7078 Email: [email protected]

CCTS President James Timpe, MS, RT (N)(MR) Director, Medical Imaging Advocate Condell Medical Center 801 S. Milwaukee Ave.

Libertyville, IL 60048 Ph: 847-990-5384 Email: [email protected]

CME Coordinator Kenneth (KG) Bennet, MD Department of Nuclear Medicine Elmhurst Memorial Hospital 200 North Berteau Ave Elmhurst, IL 60126 Ph: 630-941-4562 Email: [email protected]

Technologist Section Executive Council

President James Timpe, MS, RT (N)(MR) Director, Medical Imaging Advocate Condell Medical Center 801 S. Milwaukee Ave. Libertyville, IL 60048 Ph: 847-990-5384 Email: [email protected] President-Elect Lisa Riehle, CNMT Nuclear Medicine Technologist Northwestern Memorial Hospital 201 E; Huron-Galter 8-123 Chicago, IL 60611 Ph: 312-925-2340; Fax: 3312-926-8118 Email: [email protected] Secretary Elton A. Mosman, CNMT Mayo School of Health Sciences Nuclear Medicine Technology Program Siebens 10-10 200 First St. SW Rochester, MN 55905 Ph: 507-284-3245 Email: [email protected] Treasurer David A. Urani, MBA, CNMT Loyola University Medical Center 2160 S. First Avenue Maywood, IL 60153 Ph: 708-216-5927 Email: [email protected]


Immediate Past President Aileen M. Staffaroni, MS, CNMT Director, Nuclear Medicine Technology Program Clinical Assistant Professor Health Professions Department 4046 Health Science Center 1725 State Street La Crosse, WI 54601 Ph: 608-785-6625 [email protected]

National Council Delegate

Rebecca Sajdak, BA, CNMT, RT(N), FSNMTS Computer Specialist Loyola University Medical Center Section on Nuclear Medicine 2160 S. First Ave. Maywood, IL 60153 Phone: 708-216-3777; Fax: 708-216-5813 Email: [email protected] Technologists Elected to CCSNM Board of Governors Paul J. Reaume, BS, ARRT, (R,N), CNMT PACS Coordinator Huron Valley Sinai Hospital C/o 8827 Dill Drive Sterling Heights, MI 48312 Ph: 586-909-7693; Fax: 877-751-1134 Email: [email protected] Mary Yeomans, CNMT Nuclear Medicine Sales Medi-Nuclear Corp. 30029 Research Drive New Hudson, MI 48165 Ph: 248-926-9500; Fax: 248-926-0400 Email: [email protected] UPCOMING EVENTS (Include dates, places, and contact person) The Fall 2011 CCSNM chapter meeting and educational conference will be held at the Grand Traverse Resort in Traverse City, Michigan, October 13-16, 2011. Governance meetings will take place on Friday and the conference all day Saturday and until noon on Sunday. Our update conference theme is "The Changing Face of Nuclear Medicine and Noninvasive Imaging." We expect to schedule about 12 speakers in three topical areas, with a half-day session devoted to each. 2011 Fall Road Shows to feature “Imaging Wisely” The Central Chapter Continuing Education Committee chaired by Tina Bauman of Northwestern Memorial Hospital and co-chaired by Abbey Studer of Children’s Memorial Hospital is scheduling


a series of five Road Shows in 2011 with the title “ Imaging Wisely”. The Road Shows will be held in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. QUESTIONS/CONCERNS/IDEAS Forward completed Informational Reporting Form and any attachments to the SNM Headquarters office c/o Nikki Wenzel-Lamb, MBA, SNMTS Administrator and Director of Leadership Services, on or before Monday, May 2, 2011 at [email protected].


NCOR DELEGATE INFORMATIONAL REPORTING FORM

CHAPTER: _______Eastern Great Lakes Chapter_________________________________ PRESENTED BY: ___________George S. Pluchino__________________________________ PLEASE IDENTIFY THE THREE MOST PRESSING ISSUES OR CONCERNS THAT AFFECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS 1. JOB MARKET – DOWNSIZING/LAYOFFS VETEREN TECHNOLOGISTS, HIGH PERCENTAGE OF RECENT GRADUATES INABILITY TO SECURE EMPLOYEMENT. 2. NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGIST ABILITY TO OPERATE SPECT/CT AND PET/CT IN NEW YORK STATE. 3. DEALING WITH NEGATIVE MEDIA REPORTS/ COVERAGE REGARDING USE OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS, RADIATION DOSE TO PATIENTS DUE TO CT AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE PROCEDURES, JAPAN NUCLEAR REACTOR CRISIS. SUMMARY OF CHAPTER ACTIVITIES/SUCCESSES 29 th ANNUAL SNM EASTERN GREAT LAKES CHAPTER MEETING, EGL EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING, EGL GENERAL MEETING, NIAGARA FALLS ONTARIO, CANADA APRIL 27-30, 2011 LIST OF CHAPTER OFFICERS (Include name, address, email, phone, fax, and term length)

• Executive Director • Legislative Network Person • Membership Liaison – George S. Pluchino, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm and

Carlton Sts, Buffalo, NY 14263, 716-510-6860, [email protected] • NCD-Elect – George Pluchino (see above) • President – John Sperrazza (contact info recently changed ,will follow with addendum) • President Elect – George Pluchino (see above) • Public Relations Liaison - TBD

UPCOMING EVENTS (Include dates, places, and contact person) CALL FOR NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS OF EGL CHAPTER OFFICERS, QUESTIONS/CONCERNS/IDEAS Forward completed Informational Reporting Form and any attachments to the SNM Headquarters office c/o Nikki Wenzel-Lamb, MBA, SNMTS Administrator and Director of Leadership Services, on or before Monday, May 2, 2011 at [email protected].



CHAPTER/SPECIALTY AREA: Greater New York Chapter PRESENTED BY: Steven Wozniak PLEASE IDENTIFY THE THREE MOST PRESSING ISSUES OR CONCERNS THAT AFFECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS

• JOB MARKET

• GETTING NJ TO ALLOW NMT’S TO OPERATE SPECT/CT AND PET/CT UNITS

• STABLE SOURCE OF MEDICAL ISOTOPES SUMMARY OF CHAPTER ACTIVITIES/SUCCESSES 40th Annual Spring Symposium was held on March 11th and 12th. Approximately 500 technologists were in attendance. It was a very successful meeting LIST OF CHAPTER OFFICERS (Include name, address, email, phone, fax, and term length)

• Executive Director – Mitch Stromer • Legislative Network Person – Michele Egberts – See President for contact info

• Membership Liaison • NCD-Elect – Steve Wozniak

• President – Michele Egberts, 2 Keystone Ave / Unit 200, Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 [email protected] (856) 489-5733 Fax (856) 489-5736 2 year term • Public Relations Liaison - ? -

UPCOMING EVENTS (Include dates, places, and contact person) Northeast Regional Meeting / October 2011


Mid-Eastern Chapter NCOR Delegate Information Reporting Form - February 2009

Presented by: Harish Vaidya, CNMT, MECSNM-TS National Council Delegate, Past President Elected Officers:

President Mark Crosthwaite [email protected] Pres.Elect Laurie Mixon [email protected] Treasurer Kathy Shoul [email protected] Secretary Teresa Buckley lotuswisdom@ymail NCOR Delegate Alison Ramos [email protected] Chapter Administrator Eleanor Dicks [email protected] Commercial Liaison Latda Philavanh [email protected]

Chapter Activities 2010-2011: January 20-2, 2011 – TS Delegates Mixon, Buckley, and Croswaite attend SNM Mid Winter Meeting in California

March 2-3, 2011 - Regional Workshop, Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC 1 CEU Credit each night April 8-11, 2011 MECSNM Physician Section 41st Annual Spring Meeting, 18.5 CEU Credits, Attendees October 22, 2010 – MECSNM-TS 41st Annual Fall Meeting, Dover, DE, 8 CEU Credits,

Installation of Officers for 2 year terms, Donations and presentations to support SNBM Education Research Fund – bracelets sold. exhibitors including SNM Headquarters Booth. Topical areas: Cardiac Viability, QC, 797 Regulations, HIDA Scanning, PET/CT Simulation.

Advocacy Activities: SNM/SNMTS in conjunction with RT in DC, stage a 3 day Advocacy Program beginning with an opportunity to meeting other representatives and learn issues to be advanced. The first full day is lead my renown experts who train attendees in methods of focused messaging in preparation to meeting the following with their respective congressional representatives. Debriefing and experience sharing follows the Hill visits. The MECSNM-TS plans to continue to encourage expanded participation of its membership in this advocacy activity. The importance of the legislative process and advocacy involvement will continue to be a priority. Chapter Plans for 2012: June 4-8, 2011 Attendance at SNM 58th National Meeting, San Antonio, Texas January 26-29, 2012 Delegate to attend Mid Winter SNM Meeting in Orlando, FL April 20-22, 2012 MECSNM 42nd Annual Spring Meeting, College Park, MD, CEU Credits, Commercial Exhibition

October 22, 2012, 42nd Annual MECSNM-TS Meeting, Annapolis, MD, Commercial Exhibition On-going Chapter Board Meetings and Planning Sessions via monthly conference calls

Plans in Progress: Increase Membership, Provide Regional CEU Opportunities through Chapter States, including BLS/ACLS, establish Chapter List serves for Immediate Dissemination of Information Maintain Updates on Chapter Website and links to other relevant sites.

Continued Areas of Interest: Job Security – Reimbursement Issues Accreditation Responsibility – Physician or Technologist Performance Demands (beyond scope of practice) Increasing Membership and Participation Better Volunteer Representation in National Programs More Support from National in Chapter Activities, including Scholarship Opportunities




https://mail.cardinalhealth.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=5cf76d962b6443a9899576897bdee625&URL=mailto%3alatda.philavanh%40petnetsolutions.com�

NCOR Chapter Delegate/Specialty Representative INFORMATIONAL REPORTING FORM

CHAPTER: Missouri Valley Chapter SNM PRESENTED BY: Nanci A. Burchell MBA, CNMT, FSNMTS PLEASE IDENTIFY THE THREE MOST PRESSING ISSUES OR CONCERNS THAT AFFECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS

1. JOB MARKET 2. DIFFICULTY IN RECRUITING LEADERSHIP 3. LOW COST EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES/SUCCESSES The MVC and Central Chapter had a very successful meeting in St. Louis in the fall of 2010. Planning for the 2011 is well underway. All speakers have been secured. We put out an electronic newsletter in January at a large cost savings to the Chapter. We also have a presence on Facebook. Even with gas prices skyrocketing, we look forward to meeting at the Lake of the Ozarks. There are many family oriented activities that attendees and their families will be able to take advantage of during our meeting time. The MVCTS is looking at ways to streamline our Chapter processes. Our Executive Director, Mark Wallenmeyer, has updated the web site, put our elections on line, and has provided for electronic registration for our upcoming meeting. Due to the difficulty in recruiting leadership candidates we are also looking at bylaw changes that would eliminate some current positions, consolidate others, and change the criteria for some offices. Stay tuned for further updates. The Kansas City subchapter has held several evening for credit meetings that were well attended. The South Central Kansas Sub-Chapter will be putting on a meeting in May and they always have good attendance and great vendor support. The subchapter meetings provide a valuable resource for our members to obtain continuing education credit, remain current in their practices, as well as network with other members. LIST OF CHAPTER OFFICERS

• Executive Director – Mark Wallenmeyer, CNMT [email protected] • NCOR Delegate – Nanci Burchell, CNMT [email protected] • President – Melody Yarbrough, CNMT [email protected] • President-Elect – Tracy Brillos, CNMT [email protected] • Sec./Treasurer – Mike Phelan, CNMT [email protected]





UPCOMING EVENTS MVC SNM Annual Meeting October 14-16, 2011 Country Club Hotel Lake Ozark, MO For more information visit: www.mvcsnm.org, meetings QUESTIONS/CONCERNS/IDEAS: We, as an organization, need to be more proactive in retraining/educating technologists in practice to survive and thrive in the changing nuclear and molecular medical profession. We could offer CT and MRI didactic training. The Chapters have to come up with new revenue streams due to a decrease vendor support, alternative methods of obtaining credit, and cost of putting on meetings. We still need to do a better job of involving students in the SNMTS and help them see the benefits of membership in their professional organization. We also need to have a mentoring program to bring up new leadership. The Leadership Academy is great, but there needs to be follow up, ongoing support of participants.

http://www.mvcsnm.org/�


CHAPTER: ____New England PRESENTED BY: ___Leo Nalivaika MBA,CNMT, RT(N), FSNMTS PLEASE IDENTIFY THE THREE MOST PRESSING ISSUES OR CONCERNS THAT AFFECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS LICENSURE IN REGARSDS TO PRO’S AND CON’S BY TECHNOLGISTS POSSIBLY HAVING SNM LEGILATIVE GROUP APPROACH NON LICENSED STATES WITH A STREAM LINE PLAN TOWARD LICENSURE JOB MARKET/MEDICARE/INSURANCE REFORM 797 AND OTHER REGULATORY ISSUES THAT MAY AFFECT TECHNOLOGISTS SUMMARY OF CHAPTER ACTIVITIES/SUCCESSES Grassroots held in the month of March in Rhode Island was very successful with4CEU’s offered and over 100 attendees. A mix of technologists from nuclear as well as radiology attended. NECTS Spring Symposium held on April 15th and 16th was very successful. There were over 200 attendees, over 20 exhibitors, 12 CEU’s, great speakers, a great success. The SNM President elect as well as Nikki Wenzel- Lamb attended from national. Our President Tony Sicignano has been visiting with technologists groups throughout the chapter. He has asked the members to express concerns as well as what the roups would like to see addressed within the chapter as well as national. This has worked very well especially with the members that are not centrally located..

LIST OF CHAPTER OFFICERS (Include name, address, email, phone, fax, and term length)

• Executive Director • Legislative Network Person • Membership Liaison • NCD-Elect Leo Nalivaika, MBA, CNMT,RT(N), FSNMTS 14 Oak Knoll, Worcester MA 01609 [email protected] , [email protected] © 508-414-4840 (H) 508-753-5931 (w) 774-443-2649 (F) 774-443-4472 Term expires June 2012 • President Tony Sicignano BS, CNMT, RT (N) Hospital of St. Raphael 1450 Chapel St. New Haven, Ct. 06511 Tel: 203-789-3134 Fax: 203-789-3664 E-mail work: [email protected] E-mail home: [email protected] Term expires April 2012 • Public Relations Liaison

UPCOMING EVENTS (Include dates, places, and contact person) October 28,29,30, 2011 New England /New York Northeast Meeting, Newport Rhode Island Contacts April Mann (New England) Mitch Strommer (NY) April 8th and 9th, 2012 NECTS Spring Symposium, Plymouth Mass. Contact Kathleen Krisak QUESTIONS/CONCERNS/IDEAS Forward completed Informational Reporting Form and any attachments to the SNM Headquarters office c/o Nikki Wenzel-Lamb, MBA, SNMTS Administrator and Director of Leadership Services, on or before Monday, May 2, 2011 at [email protected].







CHAPTER: _____Northern California_______________________ PRESENTED BY: Frances L. Neagley, CNMT, FSNMTS PLEASE IDENTIFY THE THREE MOST PRESSING ISSUES OR CONCERNS THAT AFFECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS

• Lack of concern • Leadership motivation • Restarting a dormant Chapter

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER ACTIVITIES/SUCCESSES

• Annual Northern California SNM/SNMTS Meeting February 24, 2011 Hilton Pleasanton; Pleasanton, CA

LIST OF CHAPTER OFFICERS

• Executive Director – Sue Hogeboom [email protected] 425-893-8410 • Board of Directors – Frances Neagley [email protected] 415-431-3447

Tracy Ybay [email protected] Howard Teng [email protected] UPCOMING EVENTS

• Annual Western Regional Chapters SNM Meeting Seattle, Washington; October 27-30, 2011

Contact – Sue Hogeboom QUESTIONS/CONCERNS/IDEAS






CHAPTER/SPECIALTY AREA: _______Pacific Northwest Chapter ___________________________________________ PRESENTED BY: __Elma s. Ferrer-Mcneal, NCOR __________________________________________________________ PLEASE IDENTIFY THE THREE MOST PRESSING ISSUES OR CONCERNS THAT AFFECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS 1. JOB MARKET 2. MEDICAL ISOTOPE SUPPLY 3. CONTINUING EDUCATION FOR PET/CT SUMMARY OF CHAPTER ACTIVITIES/SUCCESSES 2011 Spring Meeting held in Portland, Oregon on March 12-13th, 2011. Approximately about 250 technologists were in attendance. It was a Successful meeting. LIST OF CHAPTER OFFICERS (Include name, address, email, phone, fax, and term length)

• Executive Director Sue Hogeboom; [email protected]; 425-893-8410 • • Legislative Network Person Shelley Harnett, CNMT; [email protected]; 206-

598-4240; fax#206-598-3637 • Membership Liaison – Shelley Hartnett • NCD-Elect- Elma s. Ferrer-Mcneal, CNMT; [email protected]; 206-326-3027 or 206-326-

3804 • President- Sub Duggal; 360-738-6348; [email protected] • Public Relations Liaison

> Treasurer : Sharon Herzog, CNMT; 106-764-2374; [email protected] UPCOMING EVENTS (Include dates, places, and contact person) Western Regional Meeting in Seattle, WA on October 27-30th, 2011 Contact person: Sue Hogeboom, ph#425-893-8410 Email: [email protected]




Pacific Southwestern Chapter Technologist Section National Council Report.

June, 2011

Many of our past year’s initiatives came to fruition this year. Our new and improved website, www. nucgang.org, launched in March. Online registration is available for all PSWTC’s meetings. The site’s list-serve provides networking, benchmarking and knowledge enhancement for participants interested in molecular imaging. We invite you to visit our website and become part of our information network. Our Outreach Program and October, 2010 Leadership Academy provided a launch pad for many of our current chapter committee chairs and members. We appreciate their creative ideas and hard work. We welcomed many new members to the SNMTS who chose PSWTC as their local chapter. We also have the highest retention rate of any chapter, 98%! The chapter hosted its Spring Meeting April 16, 2011 in San Diego, California. The 8 hour course offered a broad range of topics and was well received by the 235 meeting attendants. Future meetings include Viva Las Vegas July 16-17, 2011 at Planet Hollywood and The Mickey Williams Memorial Meeting at City of Hope in Duarte California, 12/3/11. Our chapter is actively involved in California state legislature. SB 1237 was enacted this year. This bill mandates that all CT doses must be recorded (dictated) in the report and by 7/1/2012, all CT scanners in the state, including PET/CT and SPECT/CT must be accredited. We have also been working closely with the Arizona state legislature to facilitate legislation that would allow certified nuclear medicine technologists to perform diagnostic CT scans on hybrid equipment. The ASRT, along with the California Radiologic Society (CRS), are sponsoring a bill that will allow the California State Board of Medicine to recognize and license Radiologic Assistants ( RA). We explored partnering with the ASRT and the CRS to obtain NMAA licensing as well. Because the ACR has not approved the final draft of the NMAA physician extender’s scope of practice, this was not possible.

Members’ Concerns: The erosion of a CMT”s Scope of Practice, specifically the restriction of administering adjunctive medications used to perform nuclear medicine studies and the need for direct supervision to prepare and dispense radiopharmaceuticals, has made it difficult for some patients to obtain nuclear medicine studies because employers cannot afford to hire two- three differently licensed individuals to perform nuclear medicine procedures. The continued downsizing of many health care providers has made it difficult for technologists to find and retain employment. PSWTC Officers: President Sara Johnson, MBA, CNMT [email protected] President Elect Valerie Kalayeh, CNMT [email protected] Secretary Ganada Kearney, CNMT [email protected] Treasurer Kathy Thomas, MHA, CNMT [email protected] NCOR Lynne Roy, MBA, CNMT [email protected]







CHAPTER: Pittsburgh Chapter__________________________ PRESENTED BY: Seyed Mohammadi CNMT,PET,ARRT (N)(CT) PLEASE IDENTIFY THE THREE MOST PRESSING ISSUES OR CONCERNS THAT AFFECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS: a) Still lack of job and losing a job are the most issues for technologist specially for new grads and technologist who lost their job. b) Decrease of Nuclear Imaging procedure in outpatients and hospitals forcing technologist to flax time or reduce time. c) Closure of many independent cardiology office and loss of technologist jobs.

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER ACTIVITIES/SUCCESSES Pittsburgh Chapter held its Spring symposium on April 9/2011. LIST OF CHAPTER OFFICERS Chapter President: Tammy Lollo Work 412 3596674 Email: [email protected] Chapter Past President: David J. Mayle, CNMT RT (N)(R) Email: [email protected] Secretary: Jennifer Rice [email protected] Chapter Treasure: Shannon Cole Email: [email protected] NCOR delegate: Seyed Mohammadi Cell 412 983 0348 Work 412 359 3455 Email: [email protected] [email protected]



UPCOMING EVENTS (Include dates, places, and contact person) Pittsburgh Chapter Fall symposium on November/5/2011 Location: Regional Learning Alliance at Cranberry Woods Cranberry Twp., Pa. (724) 741-1000 Or Seyed Mohammadi Email: [email protected] [email protected] QUESTIONS/CONCERNS/IDEAS Concerns: Many Technologist who did not attended our chapter meeting told us when ask why did not come to the chapter symposium? Answered, I can get 6 credits in half hour from Internet site or I got 24 credits from Siemens or GE for purchasing a camera. With all restriction that we have to issues credit at our meeting, seems there is a easier way to get credits and there is no need for wasting one Saturday and money.


CHAPTER: Southeast Chapter PRESENTED BY: Nancy McDonald-DeLoatch RT(R,N), CNMT, NCT PLEASE IDENTIFY THE THREE MOST PRESSING ISSUES OR CONCERNS THAT AFFECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS

1. Tight job market for new positions and hours being cut on existing jobs 2. Inability to perform CT on hybrid systems 3. Limitations being placed on scope of practice; i.e. not allowed to administer adjunct

pharmaceuticals to imaging procedures 4. Mammography technologists trying to prevent NMTs from positioning for BSGI

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER ACTIVITIES/SUCCESSES: Durham, NC was the host of the 2010 SECSNM Annual meeting.

Dr. Robert McDonald and Robert Pagnanelli chaired a program planning committee that put together a v ery su ccessful m eeting. Nuclear Medicine s tudents w ere on ha nd to he lp ou t with multiple o rganizational tasks and compete in poster presentations. Two–and-one-half days were packed with lectures on everything from the newest advancements in molecular imaging, r adiation dose reduction, and imaging t echniques to updates in old s tandbys l ike hepatobiliary, T l-201, a nd V /Q s canning. M ixed i n w ith a ll of these w ere w orkshops o n cardiology and CT, and a whole lot of Halloween fun Saturday evening. During the business meeting, Laura Norman recognized her council members and presented a special award to Cybil Nielsen for her outstanding contributions to the chapter.

Chapter committees are currently working on updating our website, policy and procedure manual revisions, c reating a st rategic pl an, a nd pl anning w orkshops f or t he a nnual m eeting. A distinguished service award for the technologists is also being developed. As grassroots outreach is a t op p riority, most o f t he st ates h ave h ad S EC r epresentation a t t heir sp ring m eetings an d several committees are a t work creating mechanisms for the easy d issemination of i nformation between technologists and other nuclear medicine professionals to/from appropriate chapter and national leadership. Around the states: Kentucky: The KY meeting was held on Saturday, March 26th, in Lexington , KY, and was attended by over 100 participants. 6 hrs of VOICE CEU credits were offered with talks ranging from organ donation, SNM Advocacy update, veterinary nuclear medicine and putting radiation exposure in perspective. Alabama: The AL meeting was held on April 15-17 in SanDestin, FL and was attended by over 130 participants. 10 hrs of VOICE CEU credits were offered with talks ranging from Airport X-Ray, Molecular Imaging, what the SNM is doing for you, gastric emptying, breast imaging, instrumentation, and student case reports.

North Carolina: The NC meeting was held at the Great Wolf Lodge in Concord, NC. Over 130 attendees enjoyed beautiful surroundings, great food, and the 12 speakers whose topics ranged from a review of the basics to what’s new in our profession. NC currently has a bill introduced into General Assembly for licensure of Rad. Techs. NMTs, and Rad. Therapy Techs.

South Carolina: SC held their annual spring meeting at Saluda Shoals in Columbia, SC. Over 160 attendees were provided with an array of topics from importance of patient prep in PET to FDA new drug approval. A new slate of officers was installed and members were informed that a bill in their state was successfully overturned that would have prohibited NMTs with CT certification from performing diagnostic CT scans. Georgia: Stone Mountain, GA was the scenic host of a standing room only meeting for the GSNMT. Two new officers were elected and 13 hours of CEU were offered. Attendees were encouraged to contact their representatives and vote against Georgia Bill 179 which would prohibit NMTs from being able to perform diagnostic CTs. Florida: The annual state meeting will be held in Tampa, Fl April 28-May1, 2011 and is traditionally attended by over 250 technologists. 23 CEUs are being offered as well as a 16 hour device specific CT course designed to satisfy the state’s requirement for non-RT(R)s to operate hybrid systems. Mississippi: The Mississippi Society of Nuclear Medicine held the annual meeting at the Hilton Conference Center if Jackson, Mississippi February 26-27, 2011. Twelve approved CE credits were offered to 125-150 physicians, nuclear medicine and radiologic technologists, and other interested health care providers. Topics included PET/CT, pulmonary, pediatrics, and cardiology. Dr. Ottis Ball gave a special presentation on the history on the MSNM and how it has impacted the state. Tennessee: The Nuclear Medicine Technologists of Tennessee (NMTT) Annual Meeting was held in Nashville, TN March 18-20, 2011. There were 195 attendees and a total of 13.5 CEUs offered. Students from the state of TN and surrounding states attended a 2-day board review seminar prior to the Annual Meeting that included a mock board exam. The students also participated in the Annual Meeting by presenting their research during the oral or scientific poster competition. The NMTT members approved a resolution to change the bylaws to incorporate the local organizations as chapters into the NMTT with one person from each chapter serving on the NMTT Executive Council. The chapters will still continue to have local meetings offering CEUs but it will be processed through the NMTT. The NMTT is in process of becoming incorporated and seeking a tax exempt status. This will allow grant requests from vendors that will help keep meeting registration and overall cost to a minimal amount. LIST OF CHAPTER OFFICERS: Executive Director: Merle Hedland Bacon-Hedland Management, Inc. 475 S. Frontage Road, Suite 101 Burr Ridge, IL 60527 630-323-6880 630-323-6989 F

[email protected] Legislative Network Person: Dan Basso CNMT, NCT, FSNMTS 818 St. Sebastian Way, Suite 305 Augusta, GA 30901 Ph: 706/724-3926 [email protected] Membership Liaison: Norman E. Bolus, CNMT, MPH Director, Assistant Professor, Nuclear Medicine Technology Program Clinical & Diagnostic Department UAB School of Health Professionals, Room 441 1705 University Blvd Birmingham, AL 35294-1212 Ph: 205-934-3427 Email: [email protected] NCD: Sheila A. Knepfle, CNMT, NCT 8417 Hunting Saddle Drive Hudson, FL 334667 Ph: 901-590-5414 [email protected] President: Nancy McDonald-Deloatch, RT(R,N), CNMT, NCT St. Vincent's Medical Center, Medical Sciences Education 14461 Woodfield Circle South Jacksonville, FL 32258 Ph: (904) 308-8993 Email: [email protected] Public Relations Liaison: ? UPCOMING EVENTS: 2011 Annual Meeting September 22-25, 2011 Hilton Clearwater Beach Hotel Clearwater Beach, Florida The program committee under the guidance of Dr. Jon Baldwin has been hard at work finalizing our 2011 program. T he f ocus w ill be on education for t echnologists, NMT s tudents, r adiology residents and nuclear medicine fellows. There will even be a l ittle “friendly” competition in the form of a pa per pr esentation be tween t he N MT s tudents an d t he residents. Workshops on Education a nd P ET w ill t ake pl ace on Thursday. O n S aturday e vening w e w ill be t urning t he hotel deck into “Margaretville”. Please see our website for details www.secsnm.org

2012 SEC Annual Meeting September 20-23, 2012 Hilton Savannah DeSoto Savannah, GA

http://www.secsnm.org/�


CHAPTER: Southwest Chapter Society of Nuclear Medicine PRESENTED BY: Michael Kroeger PLEASE IDENTIFY THE THREE MOST PRESSING ISSUES OR CONCERNS THAT AFFECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS: 1) NUCLEAR MEDICINE PHYSICIAN RESIDENCY REORGANIZATION 2) SNM CHANGES 3) RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AVAILABILITY SUMMARY OF CHAPTER ACTIVITIES/SUCCESSES The SWCSNM hosted annual education meeting in Oklahoma City, OK the end of March. Attendance was down compared to previous years, most likely due to SNM annual meeting in San Antonio, TX this June. LIST OF CHAPTER OFFICERS

SWCSNM OFFICERS LIST 2011-2012

President President-Elect Pam Alderman Joel Culver c/o Baylor Univ. Medical Center 215 Lexington Drive 623 Northill Drive Big Sandy, TX. 75755-2444 Richardson, TX 75080 Richardson, TX 75080 work (214) 820-1419 home (903) 636-9104 fax (214) 820-1421 cell (903) 752-3990 email [email protected] email [email protected] [email protected] Past President/ Nominating Chair Secretary Dallas Miller Julie Lentz-Koehn c/o VA Medical Center 115 13300 Linden St

921 N.E. 13th Street Piedmont, OK 73078 Oklahoma City, OK 73104 home (405) 373-3042 work (405) 456-5643 cell (405)684-0484 home (405) 359-2938 work (405) 456-5165 cell (405) 488-5383 email [email protected] Email [email protected] [email protected]




Representative, House of Delegates Member, National Council of Representatives Deborah Havens Michael Kroeger 324 Oak Ridge Lane 463 Lamont Street Haughton, LA. 71037 Corpus Christi, TX. 78411 home (318) 949-1239 home (361) 857-2982 work (318) 934-0536 work (361) 537-3513 cell (318) 349-6422 cell (361) 866-1814 email [email protected] email [email protected] [email protected] Executive Director Charles Metzger 910 Pecan Street Kerrville, TX. 78020-3054 work (830) 257-0112 fax (830) 257-0119 email [email protected]

UPCOMING EVENTS (Include dates, places, and contact person) Planning date and site for fall technologist meeting. To coincide with nuclear medicine week. Favored site is Dallas, TX. Contact Charlie Metzger and/or www.swcsnm.org. QUESTIONS/CONCERNS/IDEAS: Forward completed Informational Reporting Form and any attachments to the SNM Headquarters office c/o Nikki Wenzel-Lamb, SNMTS Administrator and Director of Leadership Services, on or before Monday, January 4, 2010.


http://www.swcsnm.org/�

Reports of the Specialty Area Representatives


SPECIALTY AREA: Education PRESENTED BY: Mark H. Crosthwaite, M.Ed., CNMT, PET PLEASE IDENTIFY THE PRESSING ISSUES OR CONCERNS THAT AFFECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS

• There is continued interest in some Community College based NMT programs to transition to the bachelorette level, however, grant money support ended last year. The results from this continued endeavor has generated a Resource Manual to help schools make this transition process. This manual should be available at our June 2011 meeting.

• Technical standards template and guides have been approved during the Mid-Winter 2011 meeting.

• There will be an active agenda for the educators and students at this year's June meeting. Please refer to the schedule of events for additional detail.

• Program directors will be receiving a flash drive that contains a myriad of data related to documents developed for educators by the SNMTS. This includes, but not limited to: Transition Manual, Student Packet for SNMTS membership, How to write an article/abstract, technical standard of our profession, and other pertinent data.

• From the information being received from other program directors, it seems that there has been a reduction in enrollment. However, this has not been scientifically documented.

Commentary Some ten pulse years ago I remember talking with the vendors at our annual meeting, about how few PET scanners were being sold and that only 60 or so units were in operation across the US. Disappointing. Then came the reimbursement of single lung nodule and a growth curve for PET began to climb. As the reimbursement picture continued to improved, so did the need for PET. The next major development was the fusion of CT in molecular imaging. From an educational standpoint, I wonder how do we keep up with all this! Doesn't it feel somewhat overwhelmed? More importantly, how do we prepare our students for what happens after graduation? Can we give them a competitive edge? While CT has become incorporated into JRC standards, one has to ask, "how far does one incorporate it?" Is there enough time in your NMT curriculum to implement more than just the fundamentals of CT (didactic/clinic)? Then let us not forget about MRI and its fusion into our evolving modality. Should we be preparing our students for yet another paradigm shift? This commentary has no answer. My goal is only to raise the question(s). Think outside the box. Look beyond our comfort zone and foresee the challenges that lie ahead.

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES:

Cloud computing and nuclear medicine

With the advent of smart phones and the applications accompanying those phones, comes a new reality in the nuclear medicine profession. As with other providers of services such as CRM (customer relationship management) systems, MIS (management information systems), DSS (decision support systems), and ERP (enterprise resource planning) systems, medicine can now receive and deliver information at the touch of a button.

In the technology area there are three interrelated changes: (1) the emerging mobile digital platform, (2) the growth of online software as a service (SaaS), and (3) the growth in “cloud computing” where more and more business software runs over the internet. IPhones, Blackberry’s and tiny web surfing netbooks are not just gadgets anymore. They represent the new emerging computing platforms based on an array of new hardware and software technologies. Business computing is moving from PC’s and desktop machines to these mobile devices. Managers are increasingly using these devices to coordinate work, communicate with employees, and provide information for decision making.

The strength of cloud computing and the growth of the mobile digital platform means that organizations can rely more on telework, remote work, and distributed decision making. When profit margins are being reduced, it is important for managers to consider cost saving and cost effective methodologies to build value. Scalable cloud service providers give customers processing, storage, networking, and other computer services at a set price as opposed to someone having to purchase the hardware and software as well as the costs associated with the maintenance for cooling and updating these computer systems.

Consider the purchase of an expensive camera system, minus the cost of the computers and the software. The computer hardware and software would be cloud based (possibly at the camera manufactures’ facility). A monthly service fee could be instituted to provide for the hardware and software required to run the camera. Although this is entirely a hypothetical scenario, its possibilities need not be ruled out. Another example of changes occurring in the medical field due to the evolution of cloud computing and all the components associated with this technology, is the FDA approval of the smart phone medical application, Mobile MIM. This smart phone application allows for viewing medical images on a mobile device. MIMcloud is an internet based service which allows transfer of encrypted medical data. This application is HIPPA compliant and is to be used only when the physician does not have access to a workstation.

Nuclear medicine has always been on the forefront of advanced technologies. In relation to cloud computing, nuclear medicine’s potential is limitless and that is exciting for all of us.

Specialty Area INFORMATIONAL REPORTING FORM

Specialty Area: Industry Specialty Area PRESENTED BY: Peggy Squires PLEASE IDENTIFY THE THREE MOST PRESSING ISSUES OR CONCERNS THAT AFFECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS (Please provide specific details.)

• COMPLIANCE WITH FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR VENDOR CREDENTIALING; KNOWING THE PROCESS AT EACH FACILITY

• EDUCATION FOR CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS REGARDING OIG REGULATIONS TO PROTECT BOTH FACILITY AND VENDOR

• APPROPRIATE REIMBURSEMENT FOR DIAGNOSTIC AND THERAPEUTIC RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS

SUGGESTIONS FOR ASSISTING WITH THE ISSUES LISTED ABOVE.

• VOICE approved education • SmartBrief announcements on CMS changes (i.e. new Quadramet

reimbursement effective April 1, 2011)

UPCOMING EVENTS RELATED TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS (Include dates, places, and contact person) None QUESTIONS/CONCERNS/IDEAS Forward completed Informational Reporting Form and any attachments to the SNM Headquarters office c/o Nikki Wenzel-Lamb, MBA, SNMTS Administrator and Director of Leadership Services, on or before Monday, May 2, 2011 at [email protected].


Specialty Area INFORMATIONAL REPORTING FORM

Specialty Area: Nuclear Cardiology PRESENTED BY: Nancy McDonald-DeLoatch, NCT, RT (N/R), CNMT PLEASE IDENTIFY THE THREE MOST PRESSING ISSUES OR CONCERNS THAT AFFECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS (Please provide specific details.)

1. The current push to reduce or eliminate medical radiation exposure to the public points to nuclear cardiology as the highest deliverer of diagnostic radiation through MPI imaging. Although in some cases this may be true, it media does not take into account the risks vs benefits nor the newest technologies which can reduce exposure to patients by as much half. We are already fighting to keep our share of the patient population as a result of isotope shortages and reimbursement cuts.

2. Although the CME reimbursement cuts have been halted for a year, the battle is not over.

Insurers will continue to cut reimbursement for procedures if we do not find an amicable solution which will allow physicians to continue to practice diagnostic medicine. Out-patient centers continue to close or sell to hospitals leaving many technologists without employment.

3. Technetium shortage. We are only out of the water for a brief period of time. Canada is

due to permanently shut down its’ reactor in 2015 leaving us with a long term or permanent shortage of 99mTc

SUGGESTIONS FOR ASSISTING WITH THE ISSUES LISTED ABOVE.

1. Work with the media and government officials to let everyone know the benefits of MPI imaging have been validated and proven over many years and showcase the latest technology that allows for the same high quality, sensitive, and reliable diagnostics that we have always provided while reducing exposure by as much as a half.

2. Continue the work of the advocacy committee in bringing the message to Capital Hill that

the drastic reimbursement cuts will only hurt the future of health care by forcing physicians out of business and hospitals to close departments.

3. Continue working with government to procure a domestic source of medical grade

isotopes. UPCOMING EVENTS RELATED TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS (Include dates, places, and contact person) ASNC Annual Meeting September 8-11, 2011 Denver, Co. Forward completed Informational Reporting Form and any attachments to the SNM Headquarters office c/o Nikki Wenzel-Lamb, MBA, SNMTS Administrator and Director of Leadership Services, on or before Friday, December 10, 2010 at [email protected].


New Business

Old Business

Adjournment (3:00pm)

Informational Reports

Committee Report SNM Board of Directors

June 2011 ADVOCACY COMMITTEE

Committee Charges for 2010-2011:

Goal B: Enhance Marketing

• Increase visibility at chapter and local organization meetings.

Goal F: Optimize Advocacy

• Reorganize the SNMTS culture to be the repository of legislative and advocacy information on nuclear medicine and molecular imaging.

• Promote the NMAA and ensure that its role is recognized in all states.

Goal G: Improve Resource Management

• Increase development of revenue-producing programs.

Progress of Charge/Objectives/Goals to Date:

CARE bill update: The CARE bill, which will create minimal federal credentialing and education standards, did not pass in the 111th Congress. Congressmen Ed Whitfield (KY-1) and John Barrow (GA-12) are preparing to re-introduce the CARE bill in the House. Senators Enzi (R-WY) and Harkin (D-IA) have agreed to reintroduce their bill in the Senate.

SNM and SNMTS had Capitol Hill Day on May 2, 2011. The CARE bill was one of the issues discussed

with Congressional offices. Over 45 meetings were held with 30 participants from 14 states.

• The CRCPD Part Z Committee has an ongoing process to work with the SNMTS Advocacy Committee in adopting the recommendations of the SNMTS CT White Paper.

• The Committee continues to locate state regulatory representatives from each state and have 35%

completed.

• State Care bills have been introduced in Georgia and North Carolina.

• The Scope of Practice went to the Board of Directors. They requested that the responsibility guidelines be added.

• Update of the Performance and Responsibility Guidelines for NMTs.

Additional Goals/Objectives Added for 2010-2011:

• Implement the 3 year strategic plan that was created for the committee.

• Reorganize the SHPL program. The focus will be narrowed to focus on Technologist issues in the states. It will be renamed the State TAG Team (Technologist Advocacy Group.) Efforts are underway to identify those individuals who will serve as the main contact in each state. Those selected for the TAG Team will also be called upon for federal and other broader efforts.

• Aggressively lobby the accrediting agencies to adjust their requirements for imaging and therapy personnel to at least meet the CARE bill standards.


June 3, 2011 Committee on Bylaws


1. Maintain the Bylaws and Procedures of the SNMTS.

2. Review all proposed amendments to the Bylaws and report them to the Executive Board (EB), as well as the National Council.

Current Working Objectives/Goals:

1. Update SNM Procedure Manual to be consistent with current committee charges.

2. Work with Nominating Committee to ensure election procedures are followed.


1. The NCOR Checks and Balances Task Force requested that the SNMTS Bylaws Committee review the Bylaws can procedures to determine if there was an existing policy for attendance for voting and non-voting members of the NCOR and Executive Board. Upon review, the Bylaws Committee Indicated that there were references to attendance, but no formal policy (pg. 11 in the procedure manual). Currently, in the Policy and Procedures it states that members must “attend and be prepared for all NCOR meetings,” it goes on to say “attendance at NCOR meetings should be mandatory.” The committee has developed proposed language for a new attendance policy for chapter delegates and elected members of the Executive Board and NCOR. The final step is to further define an excused vs. and unexcused absence. The final language will be presented to the SNMTS NCOR and Executive Board on a future conference call this fall or during the 2012 Mid-Winter Meeting.

2. The Policy and Procedure Manual is currently under revision. It has been circulated to the various staff liaisons for review and updating of their committee sections. The Bylaws Committee will be reviewing the procedures on their next conference call and have agreed that there will be a formal review of the Policies and Procedures each year.

Additional Goals/Objectives Added for 2010-2011:

1. NCOR Speaker Voting Privileges – the SNMTS Executive Board requested a working group be established to discuss the possibility of making the NCOR speaker a voting position on the SNMTS Executive Board. The Working Group has been formed, with representation from the SNMTS Executive Board, NCOR and Bylaws Committee. The first call will be May 26 and a final report will be submitted to the EB and NCOR during the Mid-Winter Meeting.

Finance Committee Committee Report

SNMTS Executive Board June 2011

Committee Charges for 2010-2011: • Provide informational financial reports to the Executive Board regarding assets in the SNM Capital Fund, actual

and budgeted revenue and expense, and the overall financial affairs of the SNMTS. • Make recommendations regarding fiscal policy, strategy, and expenditures for the succeeding year. • Submit the proposed budget for the following year to the Executive Board for approval.

• Identify and prioritize activities for better utilization of human resources, including leadership and staff.

Current Working Objectives/Goals: • The Finance Committee is working to optimize the financial position of the SNMTS and to ensure its short-term

and long-term financial stability. The financial stability goals are achieved via review of the proposed budget for the following year and, after its approval, review the progress toward meeting the budget.

• Evaluate any recommendations from the Management Fee Task Force (MFTF). Progress of Charge/Objectives/Goals to Date: • Thus far in FY 2011, the SNMTS is on track to meet its budgeted bottom line of $1,166. Better than expected

revenue from advertising and educational products along with prudent expense management have helped SNMTS get into position to meet its budgeted bottom line for FY 2011.

• At March 31, 2011, the SNM Capital Fund’s fair market value was $4,427,396 (SNM’s portion totaled approximately $3,528,925 and the SNMTS portion totaled $899,471). Since March 31, 2010, the SNM Capital Fund increased $449,716 or 11.3%. Of the increase, $91,358 is related to the SNMTS portion of the fund’s assets. Overall, the fund’s performance has mirrored that of the benchmarks set forth in the SNM Investment Policy Statement.

• During FY 2011, the SNM/SNMTS Management Fee Task Force (MFTF) met to review the methodology used

to determine the fee. As a result of its review, the MFTF recommended certain changes to the methodology used in prior years. The revised methodology has been presented to the SNMTS Finance Committee for approval.

• During FY 2011, the committee approved two resolutions to (1) reinstate approximately$10,000 of travel

reimbursements and (2) reallocate funding available in the SNMTS budget for purposes of supporting a reception for the outgoing editor of the JNMT.

Additional Goals/Objectives Added for 2010-2011: • Provide support to the SNMTS representatives on the MFTF. • Provide support to those leading any new initiatives arising from the SNMTS strategic planning workshop. • Provide support to any SNMTS leadership group considering activities or proposals that may result in a financial

impact to the operating budget. • Evaluate any SNM resolutions that may have a financial impact on the SNMTS operating budget and, if

necessary, suggest alternatives that will reduce or eliminate losses or generate benefits to the SNMTS.


June 2011 SNMTS Committee on Scholarships, Grants, and Awards

Chair: Anne Stachowiak-Fisher, CNMT Staff Liaison: Nicole Mitchell

Committee Charges for 2011: The SNMTS Committee on Scholarships, Grants, and Awards, is responsible for the recipient selection of the awards and grants sponsored by the SNMTS. Additionally, this committee is responsible for the review and development of new SNMTS awards. Current Working Objectives/Goals: The SNMTS Committee on Scholarships, Grants, and Awards’ work relates most closely to the Goal A of the Strategic Plan, which states, “SNM will be members’ indispensable resource for education, knowledge exchange, training a nd net working.” As well as Goal A2 in the strategic plan, which is to: “Create and aw ard gr ants and fellowships for individuals interested in Molecular Imaging.” Progress of Charge/Objectives/Goals to Date: 2011 SNM/SNMTS Grants, Awards & Scholarships Support for SNM & SNMTS scholarships, grants and awards in the amount of $443,700 will be received from the following organizations/institutions:

organization/institution grant

amount programs funded The Education & Research Foundation for SNM $305,700

SNM & SNMTS grants, awards, scholarships (see list below)

SNMTS Professional Development Education Fund $10,000

Mickey Williams & Professional Development Scholarships

Nihon Medi-Physics Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan $128,000

SNM Wagner-Torizuka Fellowships

$443,700 Programs offered in 2011 are as follows:

Physician/Scientist Programs Technologist Programs

Alavi-Mandell Publication Award 16 @ $150 Paul Cole Technologist

Scholarships 15 @ $1,000, 3 @ $500*

Complimentary JNM to internationals various

SNMTS Travel & Student Travel Awards** 25 @ $1,000

SNM Molecular Imaging Grant for Jr. Medical Faculty

1 @ $100,000 over 2 years

SNMTS Bachelors Degree Completion Scholarship 2 @ $4,000

SNM Postdoctoral Molecular Imaging Scholar Program

1 @ $60,00 over 2 years

SNMTS Advanced Practitioner Program Scholarship 1 @ $5,000

Blahd Pilot Research Grant 1@ $25,000 Susan C. Weiss Clinical

Advancement Scholarship 3 @ $500

SNM Student Fellowship 4@ $3,000 SNMTS Outstanding

Technologist & Educator Award $750 Council Young Investigator

Abstract Awards $7,000 SNMTS Best Paper 1 @ $500

SNM Travel Awards 23 @ $1,000 PDEF Mickey Williams Minority

Scholarships 2 @ $2,500


Varies @ $24,000 annually

PDEF Professional Development Scholarship 1 @ $5,000

Please note that the above awards are all supported by a grant from the Education and Research Foundation for SNM with the exception of the PDEF Professional Development & Mickey Williams Minority Scholarships and the SNM Wagner-Torizuka Fellowship Program, which is sponsored by Nihon Medi-Physics Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan. * The Southeastern Michigan Associates and Technical Affiliates (SEMATA), a local grassroots affiliate organization of the Central Chapter of SNM, has funded three $500 scholarships that will be awarded to students geographically located in Southeastern Michigan. **Travel Awards given to technologists and NMT students will be awarded proportionally to the number of applications received from each group. 2011 ERF-funded SNM/SNMTS Grants, Awards & Scholarships The Education and Research Foundation for SNM has reported that they are able to provide $305,700 to fund SNM/SNMTS programs in FY2011 following $215,000 in support during FY2010, a $90,700 increase. During conference calls over the fall/winter the SNM Awards Committee discussed which of the awards are of priority and how funding should be allocated after reviewing the financial realities faced by SNM & ERF moving forward into 2011. In December, the Awards Committee decided to maintain the same grants, awards and scholarship programs in 2011 as was offered in 2010; the only exception being to offer the every other year and two-year awards according to their set schedules in 2011 (Tetalman Award, Molecular Imaging Research Grant for Junior Medical Faculty and Postdoctoral Molecular Imaging Scholar Program). The funding received from the ERF in excess of these 2011 grants, awards and scholarship programs shall be placed in a discretionary educational fund that can be reallocated to support activities with a clear educational purpose. In 2011 grants, awards, and scholarships in the amount of $215,672 will be offered through funding received from the Education and Research Foundation. The currently proposed for 2011 programs can be found below. Taking this into account, the discretionary educational fund maintains a balance to support activities with a clear educational purpose. These activities should be presented by the SNM Board of Directors to the Awards Committee, who will recommend to the BOD which educational programs should receive ERF funding. This procedure shall be evaluated annually upon ERF’s announcement of the amount of their annual grant to support SNM/SNMTS programs.

ERF-funded SNM/SNMTS Awards Award Amount

# Awards 2011 Award

Expenses

FY12 Obligations from 2011

awards

Named Endowments Alavi-Mandell Publication Award $150 16 $2,400 Complimentary JNM to internationals $2,272 1 $2,272 Paul Cole Technologist Scholarships $1,000 & $500 15,3 $17,500 Mark Tetalman Award, every other year $5,000 1 $5,000 Molecular Imaging Awards SNM Molecular Imaging Research Grant for Junior Medical Faculty, 1 @ $50,00/year for 2 years, not offered in 2010 resume 2011 (Anger Prize)

$50,000 1 $50,000 $50,000

SNM Postdoctoral Molecular Imaging Scholar Program, 1 @ $30,00/year for 2 years, not offered in 2010 resume 2011

$30,000 1 $30,000 $30,000

SNM Predoctoral Molecular Imaging Scholar Program, 1 @ $20,00/year for 2 years- do not offer in 2011, resume 2012

$20,000 0 $0

Research Grants Blahd Pilot Research Grant $25,000 1 $25,000

Trainee Awards SNM Student Fellowship $3,000 4 $12,000 Council Young Investigator Abstract Awards $1,000 7 $7,000 Travel Awards SNM Travel Awards $1,000 23 $23,000 SNMTS Travel & Student Travel Awards $1,000 25 $25,000 Technologist Awards SNMTS Bachelors Degree Completion $4,000 2 $8,000 SNMTS Advanced Practitioner Program $5,000 1 $5,000 Susan C. Weiss Clinical Advancement Scholarship $500 3 $1,500 SNMTS Outstanding Technologists $750 2 $1,500 SNMTS Best Paper $500 1 $500

TOTALS 89 $215,672 $80,000

# Awards 2011 Award Expenses


awards

New SNMTS Award Development Currently, a new SNMTS award program is under development and is on the agenda for discussion by the SNMTS Exective Committee at the Annual Meeting.

The SNMTS Certification Exam Scholarship Program was created to assist individuals with the costs associated with taking certification exams related to advancing his/her nuclear medicine careers. Eligible certifications exams include, but are not exclusive to:

• BD- Bone Density • CT- Computer Tomography • MRI- Magnetic Resonance Imaging • NC- Nuclear Cardiology • NMAA- Nuclear Medicine Advanced Associate • PET- Positron Emission Tomography • SON- Sonography • VS- Vascular Somography

Applicants chosen to receive the Certification Exam Scholarship will be reimbursed for half (50%) of the cost of the certification exam, up to $500.00.


June 3, 2011 EDUCATORS COMMITTEE

Committee Charges from SNMTS Strategic Plan The purpose of the Committee is to plan and coordinate activities related to outreach, educators, students and programmatic implementation. Working Objectives/Goals The charges of the Committee incorporate the following SNM Strategic Goals and Objectives:

• Goal A: Increase Membership o Reach and retain student members after graduation o Provide sessions at Annual Meeting that attract new members

• Goal B: Enhance Marketing o Educate and promote the mission and vision of the SNMTS to chapters and members o Develop materials that outline the benefits of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging o Promote the profession to high school and undergraduate students o Increase visibility at chapter and local organization meetings

• Goal C: Improve Leadership o Create career-enhancing initiatives and programs for SNMTS members o Be more proactive in identifying young, passionate, dedicated technologists and recruit them into

SNM activities • Goal D: Advance Education

o Increase the number of online or live educational offerings for technologists o Continue to promote the SNMTS curriculum guide as the standard for the profession

• Goal G: Improve Resource Management Committee Charges for 2009-2010 Outreach – Goals A and B

• Coordinate finding speakers and work with chapters to offer Outreach presentation. • Represent SNMTS at the National HOSA meeting.

Educators and Students – Goals A, B, C, D and G • Plan the Educators Forums for the Annual Meeting • Coordinate judging of the student presentations and posters at the Annual Meeting • Support for Educators to begin Continuing Education programs in their areas for technologists in the field

needing to enhance their skills in new and emerging technologies • Work on building the Educators Resource Link on the SNM website • Coordinate Student Registry Review course at Annual Meetings and chapter meetings • Develop Technical Standards document for SNMTS

Programmatic Implementation – Goal D • Complete transitioning Pilot Program • Develop resources for programs that are considering transitioning • Publish an article in the JNMT on the transition experience, showcasing the work done by the Transition

Task Force and Advisory Board.

Progress on Goals/Objectives for 2010-2011 Outreach – Goals A and B

• The number of requests for the presentation have declined over the past few months. Most chapters have utilized the presentation. Any requests that come in are continued to be honored.

• The Committee will send a representative to this year’s National HOSA meeting in June. • The presentation “What is Nuclear Medicine?” that was developed by a student technologist for last

year’s contest continues to be used at school and other local meetings. The presentation will be taken to the National HOSA meeting as well.

Educators and Students – Goals A, B, C, D and G

• Three Educators Forums have been planned for the Annual Meeting. Topics include NMTCB Update, Writing and Publishing a Scientific Paper, Comparison of State Requirements for CT/PET/Diagnostic/Non-Diagnostic, JRCNMT Update, How to Use the SNM NMT Baccalaureate Transition Resource Manual and Transitioning to a BS Level Program, Clinical Education at a Distance, and Novel Educational Tools and Dealing with the Millennium Students. New this year is the Educators Book Club. The Committee selected a book that will be discussed at the Forum. A new book will be added to the schedule each year.

• The Committee has coordinated judging of the student presentations and posters at the Annual Meeting • This year’s Educators & Students Luncheon will include a presentation on How to Make Yourself

Marketable in a Tight Economy. This presentation will offer VOICE credit. • The Committee continues to support Educators in locating resources and Continuing Education programs

in their areas for technologists in the field needing to enhance their skills in new and emerging technologies

• This year the Educators Resource Link was successfully launched on the Educators e-community page. The next step is to encourage educators to share their resources on the site.

• The Committee again has coordinated Student Registry Review course at Annual Meetings and chapter meetings.

• The Technical Standards Template and Guidelines were completed and approved by the NCOR and Executive Board at the 2011 Mid-Winter Meeting.

Programmatic Implementation – Goal D

• The Transition Task Force Advisory Board successfully completed the Pilot Program with three schools who transitioned to the baccalaureate level in 2010. Three more schools have been selected and the Advisory Board is currently working with them to determine the best way to make their transition. The Pilot Program schools are:

o Northwestern Memorial Hospital o Florida Hospital College of Health Sciences o Southeast Technical Institute

The three schools that are being assisted this year are: o GateWay Community College, Arizona o Chattanooga State Community College, Tennessee o Research Medical Center, Kansas

• The first edition of the SNM NMT Baccalaureate Transition Resource Manual was completed and approved by the NCOR and Executive Board at the 2011 Mid-Winter Meeting. The Manual is being launched at the Annual Meeting. Following the launch, the Manual will be send to all applicable program directors.

• The Committee continues to work on the article in the JNMT on the gap analysis data collected last year. This is the primary goal for the last quarter of the fiscal year.

Additional Goals/Objectives Added for 2010-2011 None at this time.


June 3, 2011 Membership Committee

Committee Charges for 2010-2011: 1. Develop specific membership initiatives to reach nonmembers.

2. Better market SNMTS member benefits

3. Track retention rates and improve overall statistical gathering to use toward marketing.

4. Increase the perceived value of the SNMTS fellow credential status. Recognize and promote SNMTS fellows

publicly for their dedication and expertise within the profession.

5. Improve communication between national and chapter leadership and membership.

6. Allow the general membership greater access to leadership.

Current Working Objectives/Goals Goal A – Objective 2 – Strategy 10 – Promote job listings as a benefit. Objective 3 – Strategy 2 – Cross-Tabulating SNMTS vs. the competitor. Goal B – Objective 3 – Strategy 5 – Encourage chapters to promote SNMTS fellows. Educate the chapters about the value of being a fellow. Goal B – Objective 6 – Strategy 1 – Create a specific SNMTS marketing message for technologists.

Goal B – Objective 7 – Strategy 1 – Create SNMTS electronic social networking, such as Facebook, Twitter, and blogs. Progress of Charge/Objectives/Goals to Date:

SNM conducted a lapsed member recover program this year. As part of this program, we go back to 2009 and 2008 lapsed members and offer incentives for them to renew. In addition, the list of lapsed members was sent to each chapter with the request to assist in contacting these members. Lists are sent to chapter administrators and presidents.

Recruitment and Retention

A survey was sent to individuals who joined last year (2010), but did not renew this year to find out why they chose not to renew. The results will be finalized by the AM2011 and will be reviewed by the committee. In FY2011, 22 new members have joined under the Scientific Laboratory Professionals. The Committee agreed that it was important to begin working with these individuals and try to identify what their member needs are and why they joined the SNM. A draft survey is being developed and will be reviewed during the AM2011 meeting.

The committee reviewed the SNMTS Membership Welcome packet and requested several updates. The updates were made and the welcome packet continues to be distributed via e-mail no more than two weeks after individuals joins the SNMTS

Welcome Packet

SNMTS Leadership are continuing to participate in chapter meetings. The leadership, and staff, attended 5 chapter meetings this year.

Chapter Meetings

The new Fellow application is now available online. There were two individuals who submitted for consideration for SNMTS fellow in 2011. Both individuals were approved by the SNMTS NCOR and Executive Board and will received their Fellow plaque and pin during the SNMTS Awards Recognition Ceremony at the SNM Annual Meeting in San Antonio.

Fellow Application

Additional Goals/Objectives Added for 2010-2011: None at this time.


June 3, 2011 NOMINATING COMMITTEE

Committee Charges for 2009-2010: • The Nominating Committee will conduct the annual election process for the SNMTS. • The Nominating Committee will oversee the online voting process for the current year election and will

oversee a complete transition to online-only voting for future years. • The Nominating Committee will review the Election Handbook and provide suggestions to the Bylaws

Committee. Current Objectives/Goals (please reference Strategic Plan): Review candidates for the following open positions: Member-at-Large (NCOR), Education Specialty Rep, Student Specialty Rep, Cardiology Specialty Rep, Manager Specialty Rep. Industry Specialty Rep, and Emerging Technologies Specialty Rep. and approve slate. Successfully hold SNMTS National and NCOR election for above-mentioned positions. Progress of Charge/Objectives/Goals to Date: The SNMTS National Election went live April 4 and closed May 12, 2011. The final results included 786 returned ballots from 9,246 eligible members; totaling a participation rate of 8.5%. By comparison, 748 members participated in last year’s election for a 7.37% response. Overall 76.1% of the voting membership was very satisfied with the online voting system. SNMTS President-Elect – Brenda King SNMTS Secretary – Laura Wall SNMTS Finance Committee (3-year) – David Campbell Delegate-at-Large – Tina Buehner, Cindi Luckett-Gilbert, Anthony Knight, Aaron Scott The slate of candidates has been approved for the Nominating Committee. The NCOR will vote on the Nominating Committee and Director-at-Large positions in June. Additional Goals/Objectives for 2009-2010: None at this time.


June 2011 NUCLEAR MEDICINE WEEK TASK FORCE

Committee Charges for 2010-2011: Nuclear Medicine Week 2011 campaign and product sales Current Objectives/Goals (please reference Strategic Plan): Goal B: Enhance Marketing – Increase the professional visibility and recognition of the SNMTS through effective branding and communication. Improve the public perception and understanding of the use of radioactive materials in medicine. Objective 2: Develop educational materials that outline the benefits of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging.

- Enhance the promotion and visibility of Nuclear Medicine Week - Create a task force focused on Nuclear Medicine Week

Goal G: Improve Resource Management – Increase revenue-producing projects. Improve internal organizational efficiency. Objective 1: Increase development of revenue-producing programs.

- Have NCOR delegates provide input from chapters as to what the chapters would like to see offered. - Send more frequent emails about SNMTS items for sale, and include the less expensive items such to take

advantage of impulse purchases.


1. Theme was finalized and products selected. Prices need to be set.

Theme: Visualizing a brighter & healthier tomorrow. Products for sale: Poster Pin Pen

Blanket Key chain t-shirt

mouse pad lunch sak

2. NMW Toolkit will be designed and housed on the web site. It will also be part of the email blasts. This kit includes

the following documents:

• Fact sheet

Samples of: • Letter to Government Official • Official Proclamation • Media Advisory • Steps to obtaining media coverage • News release • Public Service Announcement • Suggested activities

Additional Goals/Objectives for 2010-2011: Continue to assist in the marketing of the Molly99 Awareness Campaign

Committee Report

SNMTS Executive Board June 3, 2011

Professional Development Task Force Committee Charges for 2010-2011: 1. 2010 Leadership Academy

2. Teach Technologist Membership About Governance

3. Mentoring Program

4. Young Professionals Committee

5. Professional Development Educational Session Current Objectives/Goals (please reference Strategic Plan): Goal C – Objective 2 – Enhance the Leadership Academy. Goal C – Objective 3 – Strategy 2 - Create “Governance 101”—what is it, how do you get involved, etc. Goal C – Objective 3 – Strategies 4 & 5 -- Expand mentoring program & Update mentoring plan so that mentors understand their roles and expectations. Goal C – Objective 3 – Strategy 8 -- Create a Young Professionals Committee. Goal C – Objective 4 – Strategy 1 -- Create educational sessions about the SNMTS governance structure for any technologist interested in becoming involved in governance. Progress of Charge/Objectives/Goals to Date: A. Leadership Academy

The 2010 Leadership Academy was successfully held in Indianapolis, IN. The next leadership academy will be held in conjunction with the 2012 MWM to take advantage of reduced travel costs and to allow attendees the opportunity to participate in governance activities.

B. Expand mentoring program. The project has been broken into three separate projects: (1) create a guide on how to be a mentor, (2) pare the current manual down to an abridged version, with only hot topics, (3) and development of the mentoring program itself to pair junior individuals with more experienced individuals. Marcia Cousino, MBA, CNMT, NCT has already done a lot of work on how to be a mentor. Task Force members will be volunteering to update various sections of the manual. We hope to have a draft ready for review later this year.

C. Leadership track - AM 2011

There will be two leadership tracks at the SNM Annual Meeting; Leadership - Part I: Research, Regulations, and Policies - Why Nuclear Medicine Technologists Are Essential! and Leadership - Part II: How to Be a Leader in an Ever-Changing Field.

D. NCOR orientation There was no NCOR orientation at the Mid-Winter Meeting. The orientation will be given by a past leadership academy attendee during the SNM Annual Meeting. In addition, and to ensure that all

members of the NCOR are present for the orientation, the orientation will be held the first 15 minutes of the NCOR meeting.

E. First-timers brunch - AM 2011

The format for the brunch will stay the same for 2011 as it was successful last year. Kathy Hunt will provide a brief discussion of some highlights over the past year. Ann Marie Alessi will give the “Overview of SNMTS - What it Does for You”, and another individual, preferably someone relatively new to the profession, will be identified for the “Navigating the Annual Meeting” presentation.

F. New Professionals Working Group Composition of Task Force - The Task Force agreed to contact the chapters to request that they appoint a new professional and student representative to the Task Force. This will be accomplished via a letter to the NCOR representatives. The letter will be distributed later this summer, with a deadline of midsummer for submission of a representative.


January 21, 2011 Program Committee

Committee Charges for 2010-2011: Organize the SNMTS scientific and teaching program at the Mid-Winter and Annual Meetings of the Society Current Working Objectives/Goals • Goal A: SNMTS will be the indispensable resource in promoting, and educating in knowledge exchange,

Training, and networking for nuclear medicine, molecular imaging and therapy • Goal C: SNMTS will be a leader in educational and credentialing/licensing efforts for imaging specialists

in nuclear medicine, molecular imaging and therapy Progress of Charge/Objectives/Goals to Date: The committee members worked hard to provide our membership with a wide variety of continuing education opportunities. This year we are offering the following Categoricals and CE sessions: 3 Categoricals on Saturday, June 4, 2011

• Cardiology • PET/CT • General Nuclear Medicine

11 CE Session Tracks on Saturday, June 4 – Tuesday June 7, 2011

Neurology Nuclear Medicine Advanced Associates Cardiovascular Pediatrics Coding & Reimbursement PET/CT General Nuclear Medicine Radiopharmacy & Radiation Safety Leadership Therapy/Oncology Advocacy

This year, we are again starting the technologist CE sessions on Saturday, June 4 after the completion of the Categoricals. This addition to the SNMTS Program was very successful last year. Additional Goals/Objectives Added for 2010-2011 None at this time.

SNMTS PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE REPORT SNMTS Executive Board

June 2011


1. Sustain JNMT’s high quality content and support the activities of the JNMT editor for continuous journal development.

2. Support Uptake’s Editorial Board and the continuous high quality of the section’s newsletter. 3. Preserve the section’s active and proactive book program. 4. Ensure the committee’s goals and objectives continuously support the overall TS strategic plan.

Current Working Objectives/Goals:

1. Include mission and vision in all SNMTS publications (Uptake, JNMT). Completed.

2. Email Uptake to a wider audience (including members). Completed.

3. Have the Uptake editorial board establish a chapter presidents column to be run in each issue. Moved to JNMT

4. Have the Uptake editorial board establish an NMAA column. Moved to JNMT

5. Create a regular column in Uptake on advocacy issues, concerns, and successes. Completed.

6. Select an editor for JNMT for the term beginning July 2011. Completed

7. Publish books. Completed—3 revised books released this year.

Progress of Charge/Objectives/Goals to Date: The committee has been very busy in the past several months.

JNMT • JNMT statistics: submissions, acceptance rate and page count all look good. • Next JNMT editor: At the Midwinter Meeting, the committee recommended Norman Bolus as the next editor

of JNMT, to begin his transition July 1, 2011, and his term January 1, 2012. The Executive Board approved the committee’s recommendation.

• Editor transition: Norman Bolus’s contract has been finalized and signed, and he has scheduled training at SNM HQ in June.

• Subscriptions: Subscriptions are lower YTD than last year at the same time. However, we are awaiting a report from ALPSP, with which we negotiated inclusion in a journal consortium. According to the information we have, this may have brought in more than 20 further subscriptions, which would put us on target.

• The SNMTS mission and vision are now included in JNMT. • JNMT will establish a chapter president’s column and an NMAA column. • A JNMT/Uptake reader survey has been created and will soon be implemented.

Uptake • Uptake is doing extremely well. All scheduled issues have been published this fiscal year, and three of them

were extended 4 pages in order to accommodate an additional ½ page ad. In the past 2 years, Uptake has moved from a budgeted $26,000 net expense to a projected $12,000 net profit. The newsletter is now bringing in advertising that exceeds the costs of the newsletter. The 2011 budget is $26,000, and $38,000 total is now committed for additional advertising—$12,000 over budget.

• Uptake is now emailed out to all SNMTS members. • A regular column is printed in Uptake on advocacy issues, concerns, and successes • The SNMTS mission and vision are now included in Uptake.

Books • As of May 10, book sales for SNMTS are 21% ahead of last year’s (same time) in number and 52% in

revenue. • The second edition of Nuclear Cardiac Imaging was released in January 2011. • The second edition of Practical Math was released in February 2011. • The fourth edition of Review of Nuclear Medicine Technology with Preparation for Examinations released

April 1, 2011. It has been retitled Steves’ Review of Nuclear Medicine Technology with Preparation for Examinations.

• A Nuclear Medicine Physics and Instrumentation Lab Manual authored by Cybil Nielsen, LeRoy Stecker and Stephanie Land is in development, with initial draft now due in October 2011.

• A revision of SPECT: A Primer is now in progress, with initial draft due in December 2011. • Additional new and revised books are under consideration.


June 3, 2011 Research Task Force

Committee Charges for 2010-2011: 1. Identify gaps in statistics and research needed within the Nuclear Medicine Technologist Community

2. Conduct research via surveys, focus groups, etc. to fulfill gaps identified.

3. Analyze research and report to the Executive Board on a regular basis

4. Disseminate results of the research to NMT community as deemed appropriate by the Executives Board

5. Work with other SNMTS Committees to utilize the research gathered to implement changes or future goals

within the SNMTS

Current Working Objectives/Goals Identify gaps in statistics and research needed within the Nuclear Medicine Technologist Community Conduct research via surveys, focus groups, etc. to fulfill gaps identified. Progress of Charge/Objectives/Goals to Date: Task Analysis - The research gathered in this task analysis will help in preparing to write another new white paper on the importance of transitioning to a Bachelor's Degree as entry level. The committee finalized the survey and distributed it to clinical nuclear medicine technologists on May 11, 2011. The survey will close on June 1. SNMTS Publications Survey – the committee reviewed a survey developed by the SNMTS Publications Committee. The JNMT/Uptake survey was approved by the committee and will be distributed to SNMTS members following the SNM annual meeting. NMAA Survey – the committee has started discussions regarding a NMAA survey. The NMAA survey will be similar to the task analysis but will ask some additional questions to gage the level of support within the community regarding the NMAA.

Additional Goals/Objectives Added for 2010-2011: Over the next several months, the Research Committee will begin working on the Task Analysis survey and a survey to assist the SNMTS Membership Committee in identifying the reasons why individuals do not renew their membership.


June 3, 2011 Student Membership Task Force

Committee Charges for 2010-2011: Created by the Membership Committee to address the specific needs of the students. Responsible for promoting membership in the SNMTS, retain members, and seek ways to expand the services and benefits available to members of the nuclear medicine community as an enticement to membership. Increase awareness of nuclear medicine technology and related fields, and the Technologist Section, thereby attracting new members and retaining current members and increasing the profile of the TS as the leading organization in the field. Create membership/marketing programs to attract new members and leadership. Current Working Objectives/Goals Goal A – Objective 1 – Reach and retain student members after graduation Goal B – Objective 4 - Promote the nuclear medicine and molecular imaging profession to high school and undergraduate students, with the intention of recruiting future healthcare professionals. Goal B – Objective 6 – Strategy 1 – Create a specific SNMTS marketing message for technologists.

Goal B – Objective 7 – Apply new forms of marketing directed toward the younger professional. Goal C – Objective 3 - Be more proactive in identifying young, passionate, dedicated technologists and recruit them into SNM activities. Progress of Charge/Objectives/Goals to Date:

1. The committee finalized and distributed a survey for free-trial students who did not transition. The survey will be distributed to the free-trial students who did not transition to full technologist members. Once the survey has closed, results will be distributed to the committee for review.

2. The committee created a formal template for program directors to submit their students. The template will include an alternate e-mail address section.

3. The Committee is developing a program directors packet that will be distributed each summer to all nuclear medicine technologist program directors. The timeline for finalizing the packet is August 1, 2011

4. 117 programs submitted students for 2011, 19 schools did not submit last year (2010), but submitted this year (2011), 6 program directors that had lapsed membership renewed in either 2010 or 2011, and 20 Program Directors are NOT currently SNMTS members.

5. 2nd

Annual NMTCB/SNMTS Program Directors Reception will be held on Saturday, June 4 at 5:30pm. As a special gift to the program directors, the SNMTS and NMTCB will be distributing a flash drive that will have some pertinent information for nuclear medicine technologist program directors.

Additional Goals/Objectives Added for 2010-2011: The committee is submitting a formal resolution to the Executive Board requesting that a transition program be implement for free-trial students transitioning to technologists members. The retention rate for free-trial students transitioning to full members is, on average, 38%. The Student Membership Task Force believes that by reducing the membership fee for the first year following graduation that more students will continue their membership ($52). The reduced fee will allow them to keep the benefits they need and will show that the SNMTS is still supportive of them during their transition period.

Development Office Report June 2011

Bob Milanchus, Director of Development Nicole Mitchell, Development Program Manager

Development Office Update As the 2011 fiscal year draws to a close, the Development Department continues to make strong strides in building relationships with the corporate community. 2011 was primarily comprised of in-person corporate fundraising visits, which were made to either build new, or to enhance ongoing relationships for SNM. Both the Clinical Trials Network and SNM projects-at-large were discussed. Visits were made to Covidien, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eckert & Ziegler, Eli Lilly, GE Healthcare, IBA, Johnson and Johnson, Lantheus, Medimmune, Millenium/Takeda, Molecular Insight, Novartis, Pfizer and Siemens. These corporate visits made by Leadership opened the door to continued discussions regarding support of a mriad of SNM programs, and in some cases answered questions that were holding back the corporations’ decisions to join the CTN or support SNM initiatives. As a result of these visits and meetings held at the SNM, many companies have indicaed a level of interest in supporting SNM programs. Through a meeting held at the Mid-Winter meeting and personal visits, four biomarker developer companies have indicated that they will be joining the Biomarker Developers Working Group; Covidien, IBA, Siemens and UPPI. Additionally, many current supporters have expressed an interest in continuing supporting SNM at their annual giving level for years to come. Continued support for unrestricted activities is expected to be received from COvidien, Eckert & Ziegler, Eli Lilly, IBA, Lantheus and Molecular Insight. To-date the Development Department has collected $3,712,000 in corporate pledge installments for the MI Campaign and $1,410,000 for the Clinical Trials Network. A summary of the status of current pledges for these initiatives is found below. SNM Clinical Trials Network Campaign Fundraising Summary

company type amount revenue to-date

pledge balance

Astra Zeneca gift $20,000 $20,000 - Merck gift $20,000 $20,000 - BMS gift $20,000 $20,000 - BMS pledge $750,000 $300,000 $450,000 Genentech pledge $750,000 $750,000 $0 Eli Lilly pledge $750,000 $300,000 $450,000

$2,310,000 $1,410,000 $900,000

SNM MI Campaign Fundraising Summary

company type amount revenue to-date

pledge balance

Bayer pledge $500,000 $200,000 $300,000 BMS/Lantheus pledge $500,000 $500,000 - Bracco pledge $250,000 $150,000 $100,000 Cardinal pledge $265,000 $265,000 - Covidien pledge $500,000 $400,000 $100,000 Digirad gift $5,000 $5,000 - Eckert & Ziegler pledge $50,000 $20,000 $30,000 Flouropharma pledge $20,000 $20,000 -

GE Healthcare pledge $1,000,000 $850,000 $150,000 Hermes gift $5,000 $5,000 - IBA pledge $500,000 $375,000 $125,000 MDS Nordion pledge $250,000 $200,000 $50,000 Mediso pledge $50,000 $20,000 $30,000 Medrad gift $5,000 $5,000 - Molecular Insight pledge $50,000 $40,000 $10,000 Nuview pledge $20,000 $5,000 $15,000 Philips pledge $300,000 $150,000 $150,000 Rotem pledge $2,000 $2,000 - Siemens pledge $500,000 $500,000 -

$4,772,000 $3,712,000 $1,060,000

Of the above anticipated pledge balance receivables, the SNM Development Office is hoping to collect $530,000 in additional MI Campaign and $150,000 in Clinical Trials Network pledge installments. 2011 SNM/SNMTS Grants, Awards & Scholarships Support for SNM & SNMTS scholarships, grants and awards in the amount of $443,700 will be received from the following organizations/institutions:

organization/institution grant

amount programs funded The Education & Research Foundation for SNM $305,700

SNM & SNMTS grants, awards, scholarships (see list below)

SNMTS Professional Development Education Fund $10,000

Mickey Williams & Professional Development Scholarships

Nihon Medi-Physics Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan $128,000


$443,700 Programs offered in 2011 are as follows:

Physician/Scientist Programs Technologist Programs

Alavi-Mandell Publication Award 16 @ $150 Paul Cole Technologist

Scholarships 15 @ $1,000, 3 @ $500*

Complimentary JNM to internationals various

SNMTS Travel & Student Travel Awards** 25 @ $1,000

SNM Molecular Imaging Grant for Jr. Medical Faculty

1 @ $100,000 over 2 years

SNMTS Bachelors Degree Completion Scholarship 2 @ $4,000

SNM Postdoctoral Molecular Imaging Scholar Program

1 @ $60,00 over 2 years

SNMTS Advanced Practitioner Program Scholarship 1 @ $5,000

Blahd Pilot Research Grant 1@ $25,000 Susan C. Weiss Clinical

Advancement Scholarship 3 @ $500

SNM Student Fellowship 4@ $3,000 SNMTS Outstanding

Technologist & Educator Award $750 Council Young Investigator

Abstract Awards $7,000 SNMTS Best Paper 1 @ $500

SNM Travel Awards 23 @ $1,000 PDEF Mickey Williams Minority

Scholarships 2 @ $2,500


Varies @ $24,000 annually

PDEF Professional Development Scholarship 1 @ $5,000

Please note that the above awards are all supported by a grant from the Education and Research Foundation for SNM with the exception of the PDEF Professional Development & Mickey Williams Minority Scholarships and the SNM Wagner-Torizuka Fellowship Program, which is sponsored by Nihon Medi-Physics Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan. * The Southeastern Michigan Associates and Technical Affiliates (SEMATA), a local grassroots affiliate organization of the Central Chapter of SNM, has funded three $500 scholarships that will be awarded to students geographically located in Southeastern Michigan. **Travel Awards given to technologists and NMT students will be awarded proportionally to the number of applications received from each group. 2011 ERF-funded SNM/SNMTS Grants, Awards & Scholarships The Education and Research Foundation for SNM has reported that they are able to provide $305,700 to fund SNM/SNMTS programs in FY2011 following $215,000 in support during FY2010, a $90,700 increase. During conference calls over the fall/winter the SNM Awards Committee discussed which of the awards are of priority and how funding should be allocated after reviewing the financial realities faced by SNM & ERF moving forward into 2011. In December, the Awards Committee decided to maintain the same grants, awards and scholarship programs in 2011 as was offered in 2010; the only exception being to offer the every other year and two-year awards according to their set schedules in 2011 (Tetalman Award, Molecular Imaging Research Grant for Junior Medical Faculty and Postdoctoral Molecular Imaging Scholar Program). The funding received from the ERF in excess of these 2011 grants, awards and scholarship programs shall be placed in a discretionary educational fund that can be reallocated to support activities with a clear educational purpose. In 2011 grants, awards, and scholarships in the amount of $215,672 will be offered through funding received from the Education and Research Foundation. The currently proposed for 2011 programs can be found below. Taking this into account, the discretionary educational fund maintains a balance to support activities with a clear educational purpose. These activities should be presented by the SNM Board of Directors to the Awards Committee, who will recommend to the BOD which educational programs should receive ERF funding. This procedure shall be evaluated annually upon ERF’s announcement of the amount of their annual grant to support SNM/SNMTS programs.

ERF-funded SNM/SNMTS Awards Award Amount

# Awards 2011 Award

Expenses


awards

Named Endowments Alavi-Mandell Publication Award $150 16 $2,400 Complimentary JNM to internationals $2,272 1 $2,272 Paul Cole Technologist Scholarships $1,000 & $500 15,3 $17,500 Mark Tetalman Award, every other year $5,000 1 $5,000 Molecular Imaging Awards SNM Molecular Imaging Research Grant for Junior Medical Faculty, 1 @ $50,00/year for 2 years, not offered in 2010 resume 2011 (Anger Prize)

$50,000 1 $50,000 $50,000

SNM Postdoctoral Molecular Imaging Scholar Program, 1 @ $30,00/year for 2 years, not offered in 2010 resume 2011

$30,000 1 $30,000 $30,000

SNM Predoctoral Molecular Imaging Scholar Program, 1 @ $20,00/year for 2 years- do not offer in 2011, resume 2012

$20,000 0 $0

Research Grants Blahd Pilot Research Grant $25,000 1 $25,000

Trainee Awards SNM Student Fellowship $3,000 4 $12,000 Council Young Investigator Abstract Awards $1,000 7 $7,000

Travel Awards SNM Travel Awards $1,000 23 $23,000 SNMTS Travel & Student Travel Awards $1,000 25 $25,000 Technologist Awards SNMTS Bachelors Degree Completion $4,000 2 $8,000 SNMTS Advanced Practitioner Program $5,000 1 $5,000 Susan C. Weiss Clinical Advancement Scholarship $500 3 $1,500 SNMTS Outstanding Technologists $750 2 $1,500 SNMTS Best Paper $500 1 $500

TOTALS 89 $215,672 $80,000

# Awards 2011 Award Expenses


awards

ERF-funded Award Programs Success Tracking The SNM/ERF Task Force along with the Awards Committee will be working A report is currently being compiled of research project progress and final reports received from past & current grantees over the past few years. This report serves as an ‘identifier of success’ of the SNM & SNMTS awards programs. Once finalized, these reports will be presented to the SNM BOD and ERF BOD to illustrate that SNM is being an appropriate husbander of the Foundation’s monies. This report also includes a survey that can will be distributed to previous grant recipients and will serve as an identifier of the successes of the ERF-funded programs and will also assist in the Foundation’s fundraising efforts as well. SNM Guidelines for Naming Opportunities for Endowed & Honorary Named Awards, Programs, and Educational Initiatives The Development Department, SNM/ERF Task Force, and the Awards Committee have been working on creating guidelines that will govern the naming of all awards, programs, and educational initiatives that are presented by the Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM) and funded through gifts and sponsorships. This document is currently in the final draft stages and should be completed in the near future.

Committee Minutes

SNMTS Bylaws Committee Conference Call February 4, 2011

Minutes Participants: Laura Wall, MBA, CNMT, NCT; Ann Marie Alessi, BS, CNMT, NCT, RT(N); Michele Panichi-Egberts, CNMT; Eileen Craveiro, CNMT Staff Participants: Nikki Wenzel-Lamb, MBA I. Welcome and Call to Order

Laura Wall, MBA, CNMT, NCT, SNMTS Bylaws Committee Chair called the conference call to order at 2:08pm.

II. Policy and Procedure Manual The committee reviewed the Policy and Procedure manual and determined that the manual should be reviewed yearly to ensure its accuracy. Each committee member should be assigned a section to review for consistency. Nikki will make the first revisions to the manual and send to the committee for review.

III. NCOR Voting – Speaker Task Force Laura informed the Committee that the NCOR Speaker is currently a non-voting position on the Executive Board. As a follow-up to the Checks and Balances conversation, the Executive Board requested that a task force be formed to review the voting privileges of the NCOR speaker on the Executive Board. The task force will be charged with researching the reasons why this position is not a voting member, and the possible benefits of changing the position to become a voting member. The task force will also review the entire SNMTS voting structure, including why officers cannot vote on the NCOR. The task force will be comprised of 2 individuals from the NCOR, 2 from the Executive Board and 2 from the SNMTS Bylaws Committee. (The individuals from the EB and Bylaws Committee have already been selected.) Michele Panichi-Egberts and Eileen Craveiro volunteered to serve on the task force.

IV. Attendance Policy The Committee reviewed the policies and procedures and determined that while one of the duties of the NCOR members is to attend the meetings, there is no formal attendance policy. The committee agreed that two policies should be created; (1) one for chapter delegates and (2) for elected positions. The following suggestions were made regarding a formal policy. a. Written permission must be obtained, from the SNMTS President, NCOR Speaker of

Committee Chair for missing a meeting. b. All individuals are allowed one unexcused absence. c. The employer approval letter should be included in all candidate packets for elected

individuals. d. Include the following statement under the quorum section of the NCOR and EB of the

procedures as well as the general attendance section of the Policy and Procedure Manual – “failure to attend any mandatory meetings without prior notification, is an indication of

V. Next Steps Nikki will revise the Policy and Procedures manual and send to Laura and Ann Marie for first review. On the next conference call the committee will work to define the difference between an unexcused and excused absence.

VI. Adjournment The conference call adjourned at 3:17pm.

SNMTS Membership Committee Conference Call Minutes

April 25, 2011

Members in Attendance Kathy Krisak, Tracy Brillos, Norman Bolus, Eileen Craveiro, Mark Crosthwaite, Valerie Green-Kalayeh, Sara Johnson, April Mann, Nancy McDonald-Deloatch, Abraham Morris, Leo Nalivaika, Fran Neagley, David Perry, George Pluchino, Anthony Sicignano, Kathy Thomas, Melody Yarbrough Members Not in Attendance Pam Alderman, Joe Hawkins, David Mayle, Dallas Miller, Cybil Nielsen, Laura Norman, Michele Panichi-Egberts, Alison Ramos, John Sperrazza, Sherry Reuter, James Timpe, Laura Wall, Tracy Ybay, Ellie Zimmer Staff in Attendance Nikki Wenzel-Lamb I. Welcome and Call to Order

Kathy Krisak, CNMT, FSNMTS, SNMTS Membership Committee Chair, called the conference call to order at 5:06pm (ET). A quorum was not present.

II. Review Minutes from January 2011 Meeting As a quorum was not present for the conference call, it was requested that the minutes from the January 2011 conference call be distributed via e-mail for review and approval.

III. Review Requested Reports

Member recruitment and retention reports were distributed to the committee members. As of April 15, 2011, the SNMTS needs 156 additional members to renew and 499 new members to join to meet budgeted numbers. In addition, so far, from October 1, 2010 to April 15, 2011, 799 new members have joined. Following the conference call, Nikki will distribute the summary of marketing efforts over the last quarter.

IV. Scientific Laboratory Professionals Mrs. Krisak reminded the committee about the new membership category that was created last year for Scientific Laboratory Professionals. In FY2011, 22 new members have joined under this category. The Committee agreed that it was important to begin working with these individuals and try to identify what their member needs are and why they joined the SNM. Nikki will draft a short 5-10 question survey to distribute to the Scientific Laboratory Professional – new members – and will send to the committee for review.

V. Survey to Members Who Joined in 2010 But did Not Renew

The Committee reviewed and approved the draft survey to individuals who joined last year (2010), but did not renew this year to find out why they chose not to renew. The survey will be distributed next week and the results will be reviewed during the SNM Annual Meeting.

VI. New Business

The Committee noted the importance of the SNMTS Leadership and staff attendance at the annual chapter meetings. Members are able to network with the leadership and share their concerns and get questions answered at the SNM Booth.

VII. Adjourn The conference call adjourned at 5:46pm.

SNMTS Nominating Committee May 19, 2011

Minutes

Member Participants: Cybil Nielsen, MBA, CNMT; Dot Houston, CNMT, RT(N); Nancy McDonald, CNMT Staff Participants: Nikki Wenzel-Lamb, MBA I. Welcome and Call To Order

The conference call was called to order at 4:03pm. II. Results of the SNMTS National Election

Cybil read the results of the SNMTS National Election:

President-Elect: Brenda King, CNMT, FSNMTS Secretary: Laura Wall, CNMT, NCT, RT(N) Finance Committee (3-year):David Campbell, CNMT Delegate-at-Large: Tina Buehner, MS, CNMT, RT(N)

Anthony Knight, MBA, CNMT, RT(N), NCT Cindi Luckett-Gilbert, MHA, CNMT, FSNMTS Aaron Scott, BS, CNMT

The election results (percentages) will only be shared with the Nominating Committee. In addition, the overall percentage of voters increased from last year, 2010. In addition, once on-site, during the NCOR meeting, the committee will present the slate for Director-at-Large and Nominating Committee.

III. Adjournment

The conference call was adjourned at 4:15pm.

1

SNMTS Publications Committee

Conference Call, Thursday, November 18, 2010

Attending: Kathy Thomas, Chair, Paul Christian, Andrew Friden, Janet Gelbach, Shelley Hartnett, Bill Hubble, Tony Knight, Martha Mar, Frances Neagley, David Perry, Rebecca Maxey, Susan Alexander, Susan Martonik

Book status: The Nuclear Cardiology Imaging book is complete pending cover design and will be released in January, with VOICE credit. Practical Math is in its final stage of production and will be released soon. Steves’ Review of Nuclear Medicine Technology is through review and in production. For SPECT/CT: A Primer – the author has been identified, and a digital copy of existing manuscript is in his hands; manuscript is due Fall 2011; we will apply for VOICE credit. Other books in the early stages of production include C. Nielsen’s instrumentation workbook.

JNMT Report: JNMT editor F. Neagley reported on the status of JNMT. She noted that for the most part, the JNMT is status quo.

JNMT Editor Search: The Editor Search Task Force is in the application review stage, utilizing the approved objective rating forms. At MWM applicants will be interviewed and a recommendation forwarded to the committee and ultimately the Executive Board for approval.

UPTAKE : All scheduled issues have been All advertising spaces have been sold; the publication now pays for itself plus some additional revenue. Three enhanced issues will have 4 additional pages. Publication Committee members and others are invited to submit articles of interest.

2010-11 Financials: Publications revenues are expected to be up this year with the release of the three updated books. Advertising also is up from the same time last year, especially for Uptake.

Proposed New Book Projects: The group discussed several new book projects proposed by committee members, decided to pursue further and assigned tasks.

MWM Schedule: JNMT Editor interviews will be the afternoon of Friday, January 21, with a Publications Committee meeting following.


March 9, 2011 Minutes

Committee Members in Attendance: David Gilmore, MS, CNMT, RT(N), FSNMTS; Norman Bolus, CNMT, MPH; Joe Hawkins, CNMT, MSEd; Robert Pagnanelli, BS, RT(R)(N), CNMT, NCT Staff in Attendance: Nikki Wenzel-Lamb, MBA I. Welcome and Introductions

David Gilmore, Committee Chair, called the conference call to order at 10:10am.

II. Discussion of Task Analysis Survey The committee discussed developing a task analysis survey to gather information on what nuclear medicine technologists are currently doing in the field.

The committee suggested the following questions:

a. Are you doing contrast media? 1. If yes, how often?

b. Are you doing PET/CT 1. If yes, how often?

c. PET/MR – where are they? d. How many have taken cross-sectional anatomy course?

David will seek clarification from the SNMTS Leadership regarding what specifically they would like answered by the survey. There was agreement that there is no need to do a full task analysis survey as that information is collected by the NMTCB.

Committee members were asked to think about questions for the survey. Nikki will distribute the previous task analysis survey that was done in conjunction with the baccalaureate degree curriculum.

III. Nuclear Medicine Advanced Associate (NMAA) Survey

It was suggested that the previous NMAA Survey be distributed so the committee can begin reviewing it. The committee agreed that once the task analysis survey is completed, they could revise those questions to make it relevant for the NMAA Survey. There was agreement that in distributing the survey, the SNMTS needs to be prepared for less than positive feedback.

Committee members were asked to provide questions by March 18, 2011.

IV. Adjournment

The conference call was adjourned at 10:43am.


May 3, 2011 Minutes

Committee Members in Attendance: David Gilmore, MS, CNMT, RT(N), FSNMTS; Norman Bolus, CNMT, MPH; Joe Hawkins, CNMT, MSEd; Robert Pagnanelli, BS, RT(R)(N), CNMT, NCT Staff in Attendance: Nikki Wenzel-Lamb, MBA I. Welcome and Introductions

David Gilmore, Committee Chair, called the conference call to order at 10:04am.

II. Discussion of Task Analysis Survey The committee reviewed the draft task analysis survey. In reviewing the survey, the following questions were reviewed for similarity: #11 and #19 #18 and #22 #16 and #29 and #30 (maybe) Should #17 and #24 and #25 be together (or can one be removed)? The committee agreed on several changes, reflected in Appendix A. Nikki will finalize the changes and re-distribute to the committee for final approval. The survey will be distributed May 11 and will close June 1. Preliminary results will be reported to the Executive Board during the June meeting.

III. Adjournment The conference call was adjourned at 10:59am.

SNMTS Student Membership Task Force

April 21, 2011 Conference Call - Minutes

Member Participants: Joseph R. Hawkins, CNMT, M.S.Ed; Norman Bolus, CNMT, MPH; Robert P. Cleary, MBA, CNMT; Mark H. Crosthwaite, CNMT; Norma Green, MBA, RT(N); William Hubble, MA, CNMT, FSNMTS; Lisa Riehle; Richard States, DHSc, MBA, CNMT, RT(N); Chip Stecker, III, CNMT; Ann Volsar, CNMT; Deborah A. Wilkinson, BS, CNMT Members Not in Attendance: Cynae Derose; Vesper Grantham, Med, CNMT, RT(N); Carlyn M. Johnson, CNMT; Anthony W. Knight, MBA, CNMT, RT(N), NCT; John G. Radtke, CNMT; Leesa Ann Ross, CNMT; Kelly Reese Staff Participants: Nikki Wenzel-Lamb, MBA; Joanna Spahr I. Welcome and Call to Order

Joseph R. Hawkins CNMT, M.S.Ed, Chair, called the meeting to order at 11:05am. A quorum was present.

II. Programs Still Outstanding a. Letter to Program Directors

The committee reviewed the program director fast facts, highlights included; 117 programs submitted students for 2011, 19 schools did not submit last year (2010), but submitted this year (2011), 6 program directors that had lapsed membership renewed in either 2010 or 2011, and 20 Program Directors are NOT currently SNMTS members. The SNMTS sent a letter to all program directors who had not submitted their students in December. Some committee members indicated that they received a letter stating that they had not submitted their students, when they had. Nikki indicated that staff had caught this error as several program directors had duplicate records in the membership database and therefore were sent an e-mail. This issue has been resolved.

b. Program Directors Reception at AM2011

Joe announced that the 2nd Annual NMTCB/SNMTS Program Directors Reception will be held on Saturday, June 4 at 5:30pm. All committee members should plan to attend. As a special gift to the program directors, the SNMTS and NMTCB will be distributing a flash drive that will have some pertinent information for nuclear medicine technologist program directors. The committee requested that the following information be included:

i. Student Welcome Packet ii. Student Information – standardize a template for all program directors

(alternate e-mail address) iii. How to Write an Abstract iv. Technical Standards v. Important Educator links

NMTCB will also be submitting some information to include on the flash drives.

c. Program Directors Packet Joe reminded the committee of their decision to put together a program directors packet that will be distributed each summer to all nuclear medicine technologist

program directors. Staff is currently working on a poster design for program directors to put up in their classroom. In addition, program directors who do not attend the reception at the SNM Annual Meeting will also receive a flash drive with all of the information include. The timeline for finalizing the packet is August 1, 2011.

d. Market Awards/Grants to Students

The committee suggested sending targeted e-mails to all students with the specifics of the awards offered by the SNMTS. The e-mails should include eligibility requirements as well as deadline for application. Nikki will work with staff to implement this marketing initiative in the fall (as many of the grants/awards have already been granted for FY2011).

III. Student Welcome Packet

The committee reviewed the student welcome packet and suggested making some changes to make the packet smaller. Committee members will review the packet over the next couple weeks and send any comments for additions/deletions to Nikki. a. New Template for Submitting Students

In addition, it was requested that a template be created for program directors to submit their students. The template should include a place for alternate e-mail addresses. SNM should ask the program directors to gather this information ahead of time to ensure that we are able to contact the students post graduation.

b. Congratulations to Graduating Students The committee agreed that moving forward staff should contact the program directors in April each year and ask for a list of graduating students. The SNM will send each of the students a congratulatory e-mail with a small gift (perhaps a discount or free offer form the SNM store).

IV. Survey’s to Students The committee reviewed the draft survey for free-trial students who did not transition. No changes were made. The survey will be distributed to the free-trial students who did not transition to full technologist members. Once the survey has closed, results will be distributed to the committee for review. In addition, a second survey will be developed and distributed to current students. The committee members suggested the following questions: a. What are their needs – are they aware of benefits? b. Is the SNMTS is promoted within their program? c. What is your preferred method of communication with the SNM? d. Work on over the summer and distribute in September. Debbie Wilkinson and Joe Hawkins volunteered to work with staff to finalize the survey.

V. Mentorship programs

Chip Stecker, III, CNMT, Professional Development Task Force Chair, indicated that the PDTF was working to develop a mentoring program and update the mentoring manual. This initiative is not complete and will be worked on in FY2012 by the new committee. Committee members agreed that it may be hard to create a mentoring program as people are becoming even more stretched for time.

VI. New Ideas a. Free-Trial Students

In reviewing the transition numbers for free-trial students to technologist members, the committee agreed that there is a huge loss in the number of tech students who

transition. At best, 30% of the free-trial students who are eligible to transition, actually transition.

A motion was made to offer a reduced membership rate for student during the first year of transition from free-trial to technologist member ($52). It was moved, seconded and voted to offer a reduced membership rate for student during the first year of transition from free-trial to technologist member ($52). Nikki will pull the background information and financial data together and draft a formal resolution for presentation to the SNMTS Executive Board during the June meeting.

b. Chapters and New Members The committee suggested that each chapter personally connect with the new members to let them know that they are available if they need any assistance. They could also try to find a time to meet at the Annual Meeting, if the new member is attending.

VII. Adjourn The conference call adjourned at 11:49 pm.

Executive Board Minutes

1

SNMTS Executive Board Meeting SNM Mid-Winter Meeting

Saturday, January 22, 2011 from 8:00am – 12:00pm Sierra/Ventura Room, Renaissance Palm Springs Hotel

Palm Springs, CA

MINUTES Members in Attendance: Kathy Hunt, MS, CNMT; Ann Marie Alessi, BS, CNMT, NCT, RT(N); Cybil Nielsen, MBA, CNMT; Kathleen Krisak, CNMT, FSNMTS; Cindi Luckett-Gilbert, MHA, CNMT, FSNMTS; Aaron Scott, BS, CNMT; Tony Knight, MBA, CNMT, RT(N), NCT; Danny Basso, CNMT, NCT, FSNMTS; Kathy Thomas, MHA, CNMT, PET, FSNMTS; Sara Johnson, MBA, CNMT, NCT; James Timpe, MS, RT(N)(MR); Brenda King, CNMT, FSNMTS; Ellie Zimmer, CNMT, RT(N) Guests in Attendance: Norman Bolus, CNMT, MPH; Michele Panichi-Egberts, CNMT; Mark Wallenmeyer, MBA, CNMT, RT(N); Laura Wall, MBA, CNMT, NCT; Michael Kroeger, BHS, CNMT, NCT, PET; David Urani, MBA, CNMT; Frances Neagley, CNMT, FSNMTS; Rebecca Sajdak, CNMT, FSNMTS; Mark Crosthwaite; Teresa Ellmer Buckley, Rebecca Sajdak, CNMT, FSNMTS; Fred Fahey, DSc; George Segall, MD SNM Staff in Attendance: Nikki Wenzel-Lamb, MBA; Jenny Mills; Vince Pistilli; Virginia Pappas; Judy Brazel; Bob Milanchus; Christina Cachuela; Rebecca Maxey; Lynn Barnes; Sue Bunning; Bonnie Clarke; Marybeth Howlett 1. Welcome and Call to Order

Kathy Hunt, MS, CNMT, SNMTS President called the SNMTS Executive Board Meeting to order at 8:11am. Kathy Krisak, CNMT, FSNMTS, SNMTS Secretary established that a quorum was present.

2. Commencement Actions A. Approval of the Agenda

A motion was made to approve the agenda for the January 22, 2011 meeting.

It was moved, seconded and voted to approve the agenda for the January 22, 2011 meeting.

B. Approval of the Standing Rules Kathy Hunt, MS, CNMT reviewed the standing rules.

A motion was made to approve the standing rules for the January 22, 2011 meeting.

It was moved, seconded and voted to approve the standing rules for the January 22, 2011 meeting.

C. Approval of Prior Minutes The Executive Board reviewed the previous Executive Board meeting and conference call minutes. A motion was made to approve the SNMTS Executive Board minutes of the September 11, 2010 meeting and December 12, 2010 conference call. It was moved, seconded and voted to approve the SNMTS Executive Board minutes of the September 11, 2010 meeting and December 12, 2010 conference call.

D. Confidentiality Policy Kathy Hunt, MS, CNMT, SNMTS President reviewed the SNMTS Confidentiality Policy.

2

3. JNMT Editor for 2012-2016

Kathy Thomas, MHA, CNMT, PET, FSNMTS. SNMTS Publications Committee chair reviewed the proposed resolution to approve Norman Bolus, CNMT, MPH as the new JNMT editor for 2012-2016. A motion was made to approve Norman Bolus, CNMT, MPH as the JNMT editor for 2012-2016. It was moved, seconded, and voted to approve Norman Bolus, CNMT, MPH as the JNMT editor for 2012-2016.

4. SNMTS Educators Committee

A. Technical Standards Guidelines

Norman Bolus, CNMT, MPH, SNMTS Educators Committee Chair, reviewed the proposed resolution to approve the Guidelines for Creating Technical Standards in Nuclear Medicine Technology. The Technical Standards Guidelines were developed to provide guidance on how to create technical standards for NMT programs.

A motion was made to approve the Guidelines for Creating Technical Standards in Nuclear Medicine Technology. It was moved, and voted to approve the Guidelines for Creating Technical Standards in Nuclear Medicine Technology.

B. SNMTS Baccalaureate Transition Manual

Mr. Bolus reviewed a second proposed resolution from the SNMTS Educators Committee to approve the SNMTS Baccalaureate Transition Resource Manual. The resource manual was developed to provide information and resources for programs considering transitioning or implementing transitioning to a baccalaureate degree level.

There was discussion regarding how the Committee plans to get this resource manual to the community colleges. Mr. Bolus stated that the intent was to post the manual on the SNMTS website. It was suggested that the SNMTS send out an email or letter to program directors highlighting not just the manual, but everything that has built up to the manual. A motion was made to approve the SNMTS Baccalaureate Transition Resource Manual.

It was moved and voted to approve the SNMTS Baccalaureate Transition Resource Manual.

C. Transition Advisory Board Update

Mr. Bolus reported that the Transition Advisory Board has successfully helped three programs move to a baccalaureate degree last year. The Board has accepted three more applications for the coming year. The board is taking the time to meet face to face with administration of these programs to help them develop a plan to transition to baccalaureate.

5. SNMTS Finance Committee

Cindi Luckett-Gilbert, MHA, CNMT, FSNMTS gave a brief summary of the SNMTS financial status. In FY2010, the SNMTS had a lack about $89,000 in revenue related to registrations and educational fees. The SNMTS ended FY2010 with a surplus of $18,101. The 2010 annual audit has been completed, and the SNM and SNMTS had a clean audit.

Ms. Luckett-Gilbert reviewed the proposed resolution to not increase the SNMTS membership dues for next year.

A motion was made to approve that the SNMTS membership dues remain the same for FY2012.

3

It was moved, seconded, and voted to approve that the SNMTS membership dues remain the same for FY2012.

Ms. Luckett-Gilbert also reported that the management fee task force is currently negotiating the next management fee for the SNMTS. The task force is working to come up with a reasonable percentage of revenue and expenses that are shared with the SNM.

6. Membership Committee

Kathy Krisak, CNMT, FSNMTS, SNMTS Membership Committee Chair, reviewed the proposed resolutions to approve Peggy Squires and Dan Guarasci for SNMTS fellow status in 2011. A motion was made to approve Peggy Squires as a 2011 SNMTS fellow. It was moved, seconded, and voted to approve Peggy Squires as a 2011 SNMTS fellow.

Brenda King, CNMT, FSNMTS, NCOR Speaker, reported that the NCOR discussed Dan Guarasci’s application at length during their meeting because there was concern regarding his lack of activity at the national level; however he was approved by the NCOR.

A motion was made to approve Dan Guarasci as a 2011 SNMTS fellow. It was moved, seconded, and voted to approve Dan Guarasci as a 2011 SNMTS fellow.

7. SNMTS Program Committee

Ellie Zimmer, CNMT, RT(N), SNMTS Program Chair presented a proposal of new abstract categories for the Annual Meeting that would go into effect for the 2012 Annual Meeting. There was concern that there is not a category to cover CT and emerging technologies. The Program Committee is charged with re-evaluating the new proposed abstract categories to ensure all abstracts fit into a category. It was recommended that the Committee evaluate the 2011 Annual Meeting abstract submissions with these proposed categories to determine if any categories are not covered.

8. 2018 Annual Meeting Site Selection

Fred Fahey, DSc, SNM General Program Chair reported that the NCOR voted for Charlotte and Philadelphia as the top two choices for the 2018 Annual Meeting site. A motion was made to approve the NCOR’s recommendation of Philadelphia and Charlotte as the two options for the 2018 Annual Meeting site. It was moved, seconded, and voted to approve the NCOR’s recommendation of Philadelphia and Charlotte as the two options for the 2018 Annual Meeting site.

9. Nominating Committee Update Cybil Nielsen. MBA, CNMT reported that Michael Kroeger, BHS, CNMT, NCT, PET was elected as the new NCOR Speaker-elect. Ms. Nielsen also requested volunteers to serve as candidates in the 2011 elections for President-Elect, Secretary, Delegates-at-Large (8), Director-at-Large, and Members-at-Large (2). Five additional candidates are needed at this time. She reported that a major reason that members are not volunteering is because of the recent cuts for travel reimbursement. Everyone except the specialty representatives receive at least some funding to attend the meetings. It was recommended that individuals who were told previously that they will receive reimbursement should receive their reimbursement.

A motion was made that, moving forward, when someone accepts a position to run that it is effectively seen as a contract and the terms of that contract cannot change throughout the individual’s term. The motion was seconded.

4

It was noted that the Executive Board needs more information before approving the motion. If the resolution is approved, it must go back to the SNMTS Finance Committee to be flushed out.

A motion was made to refer this resolution to reinstate the finances to the level that was agreed upon when the person took office for current and future elected individuals to the finance committee to review and flush out and bring back to the Executive Board. It was moved, seconded, and approved to refer this resolution to reinstate the finances to the level that was agreed upon when the person took office for current and future elected individuals to the finance committee to review and flush out, and bring back to the Executive Board.

Laura Wall reported that Mimi Porter is willing to run for the manager specialty representative. Staff will research why the terms of the technologists members on the SNM Board are not staggered currently.

10. Follow-up from NCOR Meeting

Brenda King, CNMT, FSNMTS, NCOR Speaker reported that the NCOR revised the agenda format for the NCOR meeting at the 2011 Mid-Winter meeting, by dividing the attendees into five break-out groups to discuss five major topics identified in the reports submitted to the NCOR. Ms. King noted that this new meeting style seemed to be effective. Ms. King reviewed the proposed resolution to approve the following recommendations from the NCOR Checks and Balances Task Force:

A. NCOR members are notified prior to the Executive Board conference calls/meetings and will be given the opportunity to submit action/discussion items for inclusion on the agenda.

B. Executive Board agenda items known prior to SNMTS Executive Board meetings should be distributed to the NCOR before each Executive Board meeting, such that NCOR members may comment and discuss

C. Following the Executive Board meeting, where the resolutions are reviewed and voted on, the Executive Board will distribute a summary document on the decisions made. If a contrary vote is made by the Executive Board, then the summary will include an explanation of why a different decision was made.”The Board wishes this decision was contrary to the decision of the NCOR and this is why….”

The resolution has no financial impact. It was agreed that it is the responsibility of the NCOR speaker to communicate the information to the NCOR members, and the speaker has permission to communicate the information to the NCOR members. It was noted that the SNMTS policies and procedures state this under the duties and responsibilities for the NCOR speaker. Attendees were reminded to relook at their specific duties in the policies and procedures manual, which can be downloaded from the SNM website. There was general agreement that these three recommendations are already outlined in the SNMTS policies and procedures manual. A motion was made to call the question. It was moved, seconded and voted to call the question.

A motion was made to approve the SNMTS NCOR Checks and Balances Task Force recommendations. The motion failed. The Executive Board adjourned for a break at 9:46am. The Executive Board reconvened at 10:11am.

5

Moving forward, staff will include a PDF of the SNMTS Bylaws and Policies and Procedures manual on the flash drives for future meetings. In addition Brenda King, CNMT, FSNMTS will report back to the NCOR regarding the Executive Board meeting, and specifically address why this resolution did not pass at the Executive Board meeting.

11. Advocacy Committee Report

Danny Basso, CNMT, NCT, FSNMTS, SNMTS Advocacy Committee Chair reported that the Committee will be working on revising the CARE bill, as it was not passed by congress last year. SNM had a successful Government Relations Retreat during the RSNA meeting last year, where they created an action tracker grid to capture all of the SNM/SNMTS government relations activities.

12. SNM Education and Research Foundation (ERF) Report

Val Cronin, CNMT, FSNMTS, ERF President reported that the ERF and SNM are currently working on a demonstration project to develop a half-day education session that can be given at chapter and other local meetings. SNM and ERF are also preparing to launch a new three-year fundraising plan. It was noted that everyone is happy to see the relationship improving.

13. Informational Reports

A motion was made to approve the information reports included in the agenda attachments. It was moved, seconded, and voted to approve the information reports included in the agenda attachments.

14. SNMTS President’s Report

Kathy Hunt, MS, CNMT, SNMTS President gave a summary of her written report in the Executive Board meeting agenda attachments.

15. SNMTS President-Elect Report Ann Marie Alessi, BS, CNMT, NCT, RT(N), SNMTS President-Elect gave a brief summary of her written report in the Executive Board meeting agenda attachments.

16. NCOR Speaker as Voting Member

There was general discussion as to why the NCOR Speaker is not a voting member of the SNMTS Executive Board. It was noted that the members of the Executive Board were elected by the general membership, but the Speaker of the NCOR is not voted by the general membership. There was agreement that the Board should research the reasons why this position is not a voting member, and the possible benefits of changing the position to become a voting member.

A motion was made to add the NCOR Speaker as a voting member of the SNMTS Executive Board. The motion was seconded.

It was recommended that the Board appoint a task force to research this further and bring a recommendation to the Executive Board so the Executive Board can make an informed decision. The task force should look at the entire SNMTS voting structure, including why officers cannot vote on the NCOR.

Kathy Thomas, MHA, CNMT, PET, FSNMTS rescinded her motion stated above. Kathy Hunt, MS, CNMT will create a task force with members of the Bylaws Committee and other individuals involved in the restructuring to evaluate the pros and cons of having the NCOR speaker as a voting member of the Executive Board.

17. Meeting Site Selection

A motion was made to recommend to the SNM Board of Directors that the technologist section share in the selection of the Mid-Winter and Annual Meetings on a bi-annual basis.

6

There was general disagreement with this resolution, as many members feel that the SNMTS is already making significant progress in the right direction. Ellie Zimmer, CNMT, RT(N), was appointed last year to represent the technologists as co-chair in the site selection process. Cindi Luckett-Gilbert rescinded her motion as stated above.

18. Adjournment

A motion was made to adjourn the Executive Board meeting at 11:20am. It was moved, seconded, and voted to adjourn the Executive Board meeting at 11:20am.