Guest guest Posted November 9, 2003 Report Share Posted November 9, 2003 It seems to me that part of the challenge of the survey is doing it on the proper scale. Another challenge, from my own perspective, is that it's only meaningful to me if enough people from a very specific area respond. If I'm working in Boston, it only helps me to know what people are charging around Boston or in a very limited area beyond - even 10 - 15 miles out the rates vary greatly. In that case, because such a limited field of information is actually useful, I think the risk of being seen as " price fixing " becomes much higher - the survey may be a broad one, but the information that applies to me is very restricted. My guess is that this will be a similar challenge for most of us in putting the information to good use. Rural Ohio will not necessarily be the same as rural Minnesota or Texas, and urban Boston won't necessarily be the same as Chicago or San Francisco. And what am I going to do? I'm going to look at what people in Boston are charging, and charge a similar amount. I'm not going significantly over (unless I can say I offer services above and beyond what others do) because presumably the market won't bear it, and I'm not going to go significantly under because I want to make a living wage. That may not be intentional price fixing, but the result to the consumer is essentially the same. My .02 - in Wellesley, MA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2003 Report Share Posted November 9, 2003 This concern is precisely the reason behind the requirement that five participants are required for any given statistic. When five participants combine their data and the fees are presented in a range of prices, " price fixing " (which again is a deliberate agreement to charge one price) is not at risk. I agree that the scale is important. If we get the go-ahead from the DOJ, I intend to publicize this survey widely and attempt to gain the input from as many private practice IBCLC's as possible. There undoubtedly will be fewer than five participants in some areas requiring that data to be rolled into other areas, but hopefully we can obtain some useful information in several areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2003 Report Share Posted November 10, 2003 - thanks so much for all the legwork on this. i, for one, really appreciate it! ? I am really looking forward to your perspective on this development . .. thanks! Lyla At 12:02 PM 11/9/2003 -0500, you wrote: This concern is precisely the reason behind the requirement that five participants are required for any given statistic. When five participants combine their data and the fees are presented in a range of prices, " price fixing " (which again is a deliberate agreement to charge one price) is not at risk. I agree that the scale is important. If we get the go-ahead from the DOJ, I intend to publicize this survey widely and attempt to gain the input from as many private practice IBCLC's as possible. There undoubtedly will be fewer than five participants in some areas requiring that data to be rolled into other areas, but hopefully we can obtain some useful information in several areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.