Home Forums Discussions General Discussion leaving a/c

I would just like to add my dissent to the idea of paying per incident for support. I would be quite irked if I had to pay to get support for something I felt was an AC problem and not my lack of understanding. If we want support to be available when we need it we all need to pay for it all the time. As said previously, it is just like insurance. If you want to go bear go for it but the rest of us should pay for support.

Hi Bill,

Good post, and I agree mostly. I also think that Donna was just mentioning it as a possibility. The problem is support isn't there when we want it. And, it is also kind of like paying for people on Medicaid (not that some don't need it). I have a problem also with paying those who are calling for MU.

Also, paying per incident, gives AC incentive to do a better job with each support call and answer the phones more. Plus, most companies such as Microsoft don't charge if they don't fix the issue.

Support shouldn't say, well that can't be fixed or that is your problem. They should "own" the problem until it is fixed or not charge.

But, I do see the other side.

My point was that tech support for real AC program issues has not been available (despite paying for it), because the unlimited support is being abused by procrastinating individuals doing MU who are taking up all the support time. I don't want to pay for support that I cannot access when I really need it. On more than one occasion, I have had to use other tech folks to help me with AC when AC tech support was unavailable.

Something about this model needs to change.

I will bring this up. I think a good solution for those who use MU, and I can see why a lot would use it would be to have a separate, say, four support people dedicated to MU. This would have two advantages. First, it would free up the other support people to do the straight AC work, and Second, those who did the MU would be very good at it.

There would be all sorts of payment options. Maybe to hire four more people, MU participants could pay an extra whatever amount, especially since they will be receiving a large sum of money.

This would also help AC since they are doing "thousands" and "thousands" of calls; more than Dell does in two years.

We could also change the name from Guardian Angels to IT support or AC support.

Should I change the name of this thread?

It sounded like the idea of charging for MU webinars (as opposed to regular AC instructional webinars) was unpopular. Isn't it inconsistent to say that those should be free but MU support should cost extra?
And Bert, before anyone else jumps on you.... at this point, most people are doing MU to avoid future penalties, not to receive large sums of money.

First, no one has jumped on me yet. I welcome hearing the other side. And, my statements are only ideas. I don't believe that AC has serviced thousands of customer for MU education and attestation. I doubt it is 5,000, but that would be "thousands." If we go with two hours, then that is 416 days of support. So now we have AC using the excuse of MU for why the program can't be developed and using it for the reason why support isn't available. If this is true, we have a problem. We know about the walk out, but still AC had at least three years to predict the need for more support.

There are tons of companies out there that have different models of support. I pay for Adobe Acrobat support, but I certainly don't pay for Photoshop.

Bert, see PM.

I certainly agree that something has to be done to fix the support problems. I certainly would be pissed to pay per issue in addition to paying for Guardian Angel support already. Perhaps paying for MU assistance would be a way to do it...after all, that does require a lot more support than the average needs.

I mean, heck, I can't even get ahold of them to update my card information since I was just issued a new debit card. How stupid is it that I wait over a week to do something that simple?!? I just got a message that my eprescribing will be suspended until I talk to them and I can't. If I hadn't already got so much invested in making AC work for me, I'd be bailing. I'm worried this is a long term problem with them being bought up etc....

Robin,

I agree with you, and I am sorry you had to go through all that. But, just to clarify what a couple of us have been saying. We aren't suggesting paying per incident on top of paying support. It would be instead of.

Oh, I see. Yeah, I'd prefer to pay per incident. I wouldn't pay much most of the time and when I did I'd probably be thrilled to, just to get it fixed. :-) I do think there should be a deal that we don't have to pay if it's their problem rather than ours. But otherwise, especially if it improved support and support times I'd be happy to pay per incident.

I did get a voice message today with a direct extension to call instead of the general line (though this was instead of paging me as I'd requested). No one answered so I finally just left my card number on the voicemail. Stupid thing for me to do but I'm so fed up. But did want to publicly acknowledge that they did eventually contact me, for what that's worth. I'm moderately grateful. Sigh.

Robin,

I have sent you a PM. It will likely help you solve the issue very quickly. I would do this immediately before seeing another patient.

Not sure paying per incident for support as an alternative to guardian angel support makes business sense for AC. Many people like myself who rarely use tech support would simply save the $1200 a year and wait for an incident. I realize upgrades are the other advantage of guardian angel yet not everyone upgrades.

That's because if you upgrade, you then need IT support.