The bottom line is....

Physical line count [2008-08-17]
It definitely sounds as if you were misled. My understanding has always been that a line is 65 characters including punctuation and spaces. You have a right to know EXACTLY how your pay is calculated in no uncertain terms. Personally, if someone told me they weren't going to pay me for spaces and/or punctuation, they'd start getting reports without spaces or punctuation!

The bottom line is.... [2008-06-29]
that offshored transcription work sucks. HIPAA does not apply, JCAHO does not apply, etc. There is really no obligation of offshored individual MTs or services to follow U.S. privacy laws. Plus I used to QA these reports, and 9 times out of 10 they have been horrible. The wrong patients were even put on reports!!! This is not to diss the offshored MTs which I am sure are as hardworking as we are, but to me it is a patient care issue.

Physical line count [2008-06-27]
I recently started a new job at a Florida hospital. I was told the line count incentive was 7 cents for lines over 1000. Well, after my first few days at work, I would note that I had typed 50 to 60 reports and my physical line count was only 1500 lines per night. When asking my boss, she was very vague about how physical line count was calculated. By the way, this is supposedly dictaphone's calculation of line count. Can anyone out there explain things a little better to me? I would think that spaces are not counted nor headers...... I feel like I was misled during the interview definitely. Thanks for your help!

They're not only doing it with line counts but also with report counts...sm [2008-02-13]
No more getting paid for links with radiology reports either.

VBC obscures line counting [2007-06-25]
VBC is an invention by Medquist to further obscure the line counting mess they created. MedQuist and Spheris dominated the committees that recommended this awful concept.

Management? [2008-10-29]
I've been in this a good long while too and hear what you are saying about organizing. Many of us believe there has to be a better way. Oneparadox in the MT-landthat has always puzzled me in the 10 or so places I worked: Why does any promotion from within a company result in less pay? I am a highly efficient producer of quality, so I have often been targeted for management, proofing, QA type positions, only to need to turn them down when I learn it involves at least a$5/hr pay CUT! I suppose the plus side is not having the pressure of production, but does this mean all the slowest, least efficient producers are in the lead positions? This is one of many things that does not make sense in the MT industry. How can we sell the value of what we do? What magic PR would work? The bottom line is....panies and hospitals need to cut corners, but if we could somehow convince them the corners they are cutting could be patient lives based on documentation errors, that would be key. We all have a stake in the nationwide shortage of MTs currently pegged at 40,000 and HIM supervisors pegged at 10,000. Yet under current conditions of wages literally staying the same for the past decade despite credentialing, continuing education, and high quality, I think it will take a huge top-down or bottom up approach toenforce nationwide standards that really include MTs at the table. Part of the problem is way bigger than us--the fragmented nature of healthcare in the US in general, and health documentation specifically. Can you imagine if every hospital, clinic and MT company had the same QA standards? Used the same IT network?Literally every place I have worked has a different system for QA, a different software platform, a different judge of what is adequate. I am considering education inHIM because I want to: 1)Earn more and collaborate with others to solve problems, 2) Use my years of experience as an MT to benefit other MTs, 3) Not throw the baby out with the bathwater by neglecting years of education and proficiency in order to become a waitress and earn more in tips than I can transcribing my fingers to the bone! There has to be some value in our collectiveexperience, and I have tried to support AHDI but with the down-spiraling economy, I cannot afford to renew my membership this year and will be paying off my state AHDI convention costs on my credit card for the next year. There has to be a better way!!

Physical line count [2008-08-17]
It definitely sounds as if you were misled. My understanding has always been that a line is 65 characters including punctuation and spaces. You have a right to know EXACTLY how your pay is calculated in no uncertain terms. Personally, if someone told me they weren't going to pay me for spaces and/or punctuation, they'd start getting reports without spaces or punctuation!

Physical line count [2008-06-27]
I recently started a new job at a Florida hospital. I was told the line count incentive was 7 cents for lines over 1000. Well, after my first few days at work, I would note that I had typed 50 to 60 reports and my physical line count was only 1500 lines per night. When asking my boss, she was very vague about how physical line count was calculated. By the way, this is supposedly dictaphone's calculation of line count. Can anyone out there explain things a little better to me? I would think that spaces are not counted nor headers...... I feel like I was misled during the interview definitely. Thanks for your help!

Time to introduce a bill [2008-06-27]
This is great news but from my experience, The bottom line is.... most companies care about. The company I worked for never paid for enough quality control hours-usually only one hour per day and outsourced it's MT work. Records came back with incorrect names, gender, diagnoses, procedures and labs because the outsourced Transcriptionist could not flag the work for the dictating doctor (boss said doctors were too busy to deal with it) and/or entered anything just to get the chart to clear medical records. They only dealt with issues when lawsuits arose and my guess would be that since most cases are arbitrated, the doctors were the winners yet again. All this is to say, even if the suits know they will get better quality, they do not care because they are only concerned with lining their pockets. It is not just MT jobs that suffer because of outsourcing. Will you (or anyone else for that matter)be denied work or insurance in the U.S. because an overseas transcriptionist entered erroneous information in your medical record? U.S. citizens would probably be outraged to discover this is happening to their private information despite HIPPA. I believe it is time to get tough and form a coalition to introduce a bill to end outsourcing of medical transcription. Time to take a stand and fight back.

I think by ignoring VR you are only (sm) [2008-06-09]
setting yourself up for standing in the unemployment line. Of course MTs hate it, but it's a fact of life, and it is not going to just dry up and blow away. Go with the flow. Some changes are not all that bad.

Stand firm! [2008-04-08]
I agree. I actually knew someone who typed some work with no spaces after a new client complained about the cost and said something about being ripped off because of paying for spaces. The gal that did this was actually a past president of AAMT, years ago I might add. She took it on the chin, took the next few tapes home, and returned a few reports with no spaces, no line spacing, etc. The office manager flipped her lid and went nutso on her. Hmmm, my friend said, I don't do anything I don't get paid for. End of story, end of a headache account. I still smile when I think of that story. That would be like a surgeon saying, Oh, I don't get paid for the stapling your wound shut, so I had the nurse use the masking tape. Single spacing after a period makes me crazy too. Do the math. It just to rip us off a bit. Think about how many spaces are saved over thousands and thousands of transcribed lines with single spacing after periods, and know if you are doing that you are undermining the profession and everyone in it. Quit being stupid. If your employer disagrees, tell him/her to have at it themselves.

Won't stop 'em [2008-03-28]
...and do you really think that will make a difference? I don't think you realize how much money they make by offshoring. The will not beadversely affectedby losingtax breaks - Tax breaksare really only an issuefor the little guy, the guy who needs the break in order to survive, but when you are making that much money, giving a little back to uncle Sam affects your bottom linevery minimally, relatively speaking. It certainly will not change the practice or stop them from making huge profits.

MTs and uniting [2008-02-05]
You will never be able to get all MTs to unite. It will never happen because everybody is so wishywashy about it. Afraid to lose their jobs maybe? What jobs? All US MTs are losing their jobs every day, little by little. Line counts are shrinking with no explanation. How about MT management, do they know? You know they aren't opening their mouth. They don't wanna lose their cushy jobs and will kissbutt when it comes to company officials who know nothing about transcription but think they do.Howlong will their jobs be around? Any company official cando a schedule, take sick calls,be the shoulder for an MT to cry on, and make customer service calls. Its a no-brainer. Management definitely is not standing up for MTs, lets see what happens when their turn comes.

Well said... [2007-08-12]
I could not have expressed myself better. I have been an MT for 35+ years and have watched our line count/rates decline and be manipulated. We the worker bees are the ones that take it in the shorts...the big companies still get their profits. Our professional organization does not even support us. It is all about politics and lining pockets. If I did not love what I am doing, I would have thrown in the towel a long time ago.

OUTSOURCING TO INDIA [2007-07-22]
OBVIOUSLY IT DOES MATTER HOW MUCH INDIAN MT'S ARE PAID. IF THE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES PAY MUCH LESS TO THEM, AND STILL CHARGE HOSPITALS, ETC., SAME AMOUNT PER LINE, THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY MAKING A MUCH LARGER PROFIT. IN ADDITION, THEY ARE TAKING WORK AWAY FROM U.S. MT'S, WHO ARE MUCH MORE QUALIFIED TO DO U.S. WORK ALSO, WHY ISN'T THERE BETTER ENFORCEMENT OF THE HIPPA REGULATIONS REQUIRED TO BE MET BY OFFSHORE TRANSCRIPTION REGARDING INFORMATION SECURITY?

Electronic Health Records on MSNBC--interesting article [2007-07-20]
Ifound this pretty interesting. Thought I would share with all of you. If you have already seen the article, sorry for the duplication. Electronic health records don FONT-FAMILY: Arial>Electronic health records -- touted by policymakers as a way to improve the quality of health care -- failed to boost care delivered in routine doctor visits, U.S. researchers said on Monday. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19684970/from/ET/

VBC obscures line counting [2007-06-25]
VBC is an invention by Medquist to further obscure the line counting mess they created. MedQuist and Spheris dominated the committees that recommended this awful concept.

VBC- just another way to rip us off. Dowetypereportslikethisnottomentionalltheworkwedonotgetpaidfor! [2007-05-26]
Do we get paid when the doctor changes his mind and redictates? No. Do we get paid extra when the doctor does not dictate the date of exam or the correct one, and we have to dig through 100 patient sheets? No. Do we get paid for looking up the spellings of doctors' names and addresses? No. Does the amount we are now getting paid cover software expenses, AAMT dues, business license, tax accountant, reference books, computers, car expenses for those accounts that insist on tapes that only put 1-2 reports on the tape that do not even cover gas or time spent driving/getting dressed, IT techs, phone lines, template setups, training other MTs, call-in systems, transcribers, foot pedals, office rent, medical expenses related to work injuries, paid time of when seeing a doctor for these injuries, surgeries, etc.? Not hardly. I have 7 years of experience working over 120 hours a week, 7 days a week and make less per line than the first 2 weeks I was interning in college. Jeesh, we have to hit the space bar to separate words. If you have radiculopathies as bad as I do, each keystroke hurts like heck, and I should get paid for it. Unfortunately, I cannot say space to my computer, and it magically puts it in. Just for once, instead of the doctors cutting our paycheck, why not going after the overpaid HIM department who came up with this hairbrain idea!!! They are on salary. It does not cost them money to go to the bathroom, yet everytime we take our hands off the keyboard, we pay! How would the HIM department like to read their reports like this? Laboratorydata:Completebloodcountstodayevealawhitebloodcellcountof,000/mm3,hemoglobin of2.3gm/dL,andaplateletcountof93,000/mm3. I say they can pick up my medical bills, which in the last 2 years were over $3 million with us paying over $90,000. Did I remember to include all the money it costs in lost work to apply for a job only to get ripped off on your paychecks or have them pay so late that after late fees, there is nothing left. Oh yeah, advertising, websites, e-mail accounts, FTP, cell phone, fax lines, equipment, equipment, equipment.

Well, it's better than being paid by the report [2007-04-03]
Which was the case when I had the doctor who added the 7+ sentences to his report. Three-line chest x-ray, two-page MRI, same pay. I'll take getting paid by the line any day over that.

@#$@%@# [2007-03-31]
and this is exactly why the pay per line stinks. The companies take all our money and we have to put up with the garbage. Is it so hard to tell these doctors to get their crap together or they will have to get somebody else to transcribe their reports.

Gerri, thank you for your nice response.. [2007-02-26]
Why don't you apply at some companies. You would probably do well. It may take awhile for you to work up your line count but it would come. Good luck and hope your husband does well. Thank you for your kindness.

The most I made as an MT was $68K and that was [2006-11-16]
one year only and it was in 1995. It went down from there because lines were counted differently. I made the $68K on gross lines and that was just 60 spaces on the line, 10-pitch courier. Now, as a QA manager I made over $60K and other positions in the field paid me over $50K, but these were not 8 hours a day...more like 24/7. I doubt I could make much today doing MT as I have moved into other areas of it, but I might be able to do $23-25 an hr if I did the 300 lph I did back in 2003. Believe me though, you really have to know pretty much everything to make that money and know how to spell on first shot, etc. It takes a long time to get to that point, more than 5 or 6 years of MT experience. This field is moving backwards for the MT unfortunately and I feel so badly for anyone coming into our field unless their aspirations are for management/mentoring, etc.

MedQuist Announces Unaudited Financial Results, 6 Million in Operating Loss [2006-05-11]
MT. LAUREL, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 11, 2006--MedQuist Inc. (Pink Sheets: MEDQ.PK) announced today certain preliminary, partial and unaudited financial results, and provided updated information regarding previously-announced litigation and governmental investigations and proceedings. Once the Company completes the financial assessment and review of its billing practices disclosed in the Company's previous filings with the SEC, KPMG LLP, the Company's independent registered public accounting firm, will complete the audit the Company's financial statements. The Company is continuing the process of working toward becoming current in its periodic reports pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company's review of its current and prior period unaudited financial statements, as well as KPMG LLP's audits for those periods, may identify adjustments or reclassifications which may be reflected in the periods to which they relate. At this time, the Company cannot estimate the total costs of (i) the billing review, (ii) defense of the class action matters, (iii) the SEC investigation, and (iv) compliance with the Department of Justice investigation, all of which have been previously disclosed in either the Company's filings with the SEC or the Company's press releases. Accordingly, the only costs related to the defense of these matters that have been included in the results below are actual costs incurred through March 31, 2006 by the Company. Because the completion of the billing review and resolution of the litigation and governmental investigatory matters are pending, the Company is not certain whether any changes to the accounting treatment of any component of its consolidated financial statements will be required and, if any changes are necessary, whether any such changes would have a material impact on its current or prior period consolidated financial statements. Accordingly, the financial information set forth below is preliminary, unaudited, and subject to change based on the completion of the financial assessment and review of the Company's billing practices, resolution of the class action matters and governmental investigations and proceedings, and the completion of the review and/or audit of its financial statements, as appropriate. The financial information and related narrative discussion set forth below is derived from the Company's internal books and records. The Company cautions investors not to place undue reliance on the financial information presented below. As a result of the developments described above and in the Company's previous SEC filings, the Company's financial statements have not been audited or reviewed by KPMG LLP, its independent registered public accounting firm. The financial information contained in this press release also has not been audited or reviewed by an independent registered public accounting firm. Such information is not a substitute for the information required to be reported in the Company's Forms 10-K and Forms 10-Q that have not yet been filed. There can be no assurance that the results of the billing review, and resolution of the litigation and governmental investigatory matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's revenue, results of operations and financial condition. Legal Proceedings Investigations and Proceedings Commenced by the SEC and the Department of Justice As previously announced, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) is currently conducting a formal investigation of the Company. The Company will continue to fully cooperate with the SEC. As previously announced, the Company received an administrative HIPAA subpoena for documents from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts on December 17, 2004. The subpoena sought information primarily about the Company's provision of medical transcription services to governmental and non-governmental customers. The information was requested in connection with a government investigation into whether Medquist and others violated federal laws in connection with the provision of medical transcription services. MedQuist continues to cooperate fully with the Department of Justice. Shareholder Securities Litigation As previously announced, a shareholder putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court District of New Jersey on November 8, 2004. The action, entitled William Steiner v. MedQuist, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-05487-FLW (the Shareholder Putative Action), was filed against the Company and certain former Company officials, purportedly on behalf of an alleged class of all persons who purchased MedQuist common stock during the period from April 23, 2002 through November 2, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period). The complaint specifically alleged that defendants violated federal securities laws by purportedly issuing a series of false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements allegedly had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. The complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, thereunder. Named as defendants, in addition to the Company, were its former president and chief executive officer and its former executive vice president and chief financial officer. On August 16, 2005, a First Amended Complaint in the Shareholder Putative Class Action was filed against the Company in the United States District Court District of New Jersey. The First Amended Complaint named additional defendants, including certain current and former directors, certain former Company officers, the Company's former and current external auditors and Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (Philips). Like the original complaint, the First Amended Complaint asserted claims under Sections 10b and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act) and Rule 10b5 of the Act. The Class Period of the original complaint was expanded 20 months and now includes the period from March 29, 2000 through June 14, 2004. Pursuant to an October 17, 2005 consent order approved by the Court, Lead Plaintiff Greater Pennsylvania Pension Fund filed a Second Amended Complaint on November 15, 2005. The Second Amended Complaint dropped Philips as a defendant, but alleges the same claims and the same purported class period as the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, discovery in the action is stayed pending the filing and resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss, which were filed on January 17, 2006, and will be fully briefed by May 26, 2006. The Court has not set a hearing date on the motions. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Second Amended Complaint are without merit, and is vigorously defending the action. Customer Litigation As previously announced, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court Central District of California. The action, entitled South Broward Hospital District, dba Memorial Regional Hospital, et al. v. MedQuist, Inc. et al., Case No. CV-04-7520-TJH-VBKx, was filed on September 9, 2004 against the Company and certain present and former Company officials, purportedly on behalf of an alleged class of non-Federal governmental hospitals and medical centers that the complaint claims were wrongfully and fraudulently overcharged for transcription services by defendants based primarily on the Company's use of the AAMT line billing unit of measure discussed below. The complaint charges fraud, violation of the California Business and Professions Code, unjust enrichment, conversion, negligent supervision and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, plus costs and interest, an injunction against alleged continuing illegal activities, an accounting, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Named as defendants, in addition to the Company, were a senior vice president, its former executive vice president of marketing and new business development, its former executive vice president and chief legal officer, and its former executive vice president and chief financial officer. On December 20, 2004, the Company and individual defendants filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, or in the alternative, to transfer the putative action to the United States District Court District of New Jersey. On February 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint both adding and deleting named plaintiffs in an attempt to keep the putative action in the United States District Court Central District of California. On March 30, 2005, the United States District Court Central District of California issued an order transferring the putative action to the United States District Court District of New Jersey. On August 1, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants filed their respective Answers denying the material allegations contained in the Second Amended Complaint. On August 31, 2005, the Company and individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim and a motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, or in the alternative, to stay pending arbitration. On December 12, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an Amendment to the Second Amended Complaint. On December 13, 2005, the Court issued an order requiring plaintiffs to file a Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Complaint on January 4, 2006. The Third Amended Complaint expands the claims made beyond issues arising from contracts based on AAMT line billing and beyond customers billed based on an AAMT line, alleging that the Company engaged in a scheme to inflate customers' invoices without regard to the terms of individual contracts and even in the absence of any written contract. The Third Amended Complaint also limits plaintiffs' claim for fraud in the inducement of the agreement to arbitrate to the three named plaintiffs whose contracts contain an arbitration provision and a subclass of similarly situated customers. On January 20, 2006 the Company and individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim and a motion to compel arbitration of all claims by the arbitration subclass and to stay the case in its entirety pending arbitration. On March 8, 2006 the Court held a hearing on these motions, and took the matter under submission. The Court has not yet ruled on the motions. The Company believes that the claims asserted have no merit and intends to vigorously defend the putative action. Medical Transcriptionist Litigation Hoffmann Putative Class Action As previously announced, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court Northern District of Georgia. The action, entitled Brigitte Hoffmann, et al. v. MedQuist, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-CV-3452, was filed with the Court on November 29, 2004 against the Company and certain current and former Company officials, purportedly on behalf of an alleged class of current and former employees and statutory workers of MedQuist, who are or were compensated on a per line basis for medical transcription services (the Class Members) from January 1, 1998 to the time of the filing of the complaint (the Class Period). The complaint specifically alleged that defendants systematically and wrongfully underpaid the Class Members during the Class Period. The complaint asserted the following causes of action: fraud, breach of contract, demand for accounting, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, conversion, negligence, negligent supervision, and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violations. Plaintiffs sought unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution. On December 1, 2005, the Hoffmann matter was transferred to the United States District Court District of New Jersey. As discussed immediately below under the heading Myers Putative Class Action, the Company believes that the claims presently asserted have no merit and intends to vigorously defend the putative action. Myers Putative Class Action As previously announced, a putative class action entitled, Myers, et al. v. MedQuist Inc. and MedQuist Transcriptions, Ltd., Case No. 05CV 4608 (JBS), was filed against the Company on September 22, 2005 in the United States District Court District of New Jersey. The action was brought on behalf of a putative class of MedQuist's employee and independent contractor transcriptionists who claim that they contracted with the Company to be paid per AAMT line, but were allegedly underpaid due to intentional miscounting of the number of characters and lines transcribed. The named plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and request an accounting. The allegations contained in the Myers case are substantially similar to those contained in the Hoffmann putative class action and the two actions have now been consolidated. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on January 31, 2006. The named plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and demand an accounting. On March 7, 2006 the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the consolidated amended complaint. The motion has now been fully briefed. The Court has not set a hearing date on the motion. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the consolidated actions have no merit and intends to vigorously defend the suit. Derivative Litigation On October 4, 2005, the Company announced the dismissal with prejudice of a shareholder derivative action filed in United States District Court District of New Jersey. The suit, Rhoda Kanter (Plaintiff) v. Hans M. Barella et al. (Defendants), was filed on November 12, 2004 against Philips and ten current and former members of MedQuist's Board of Directors. MedQuist was named as a nominal defendant. In a ruling dated September 21, 2005, the Court found Plaintiff's allegations that MedQuist's Board members breached their fiduciary duties to the Company to be insufficient. The Plaintiff had alleged that for a period from 2001 through 2004, the Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by permitting artificial inflation of billing figures; failing to adequately ensure accurate and lawful billing practices; and failing to accurately report the Company's true financial condition in its published financial statements. To the contrary, the Court concluded: Far from alleging facts supporting a substantial likelihood of liability, Plaintiff here has painted a picture of a board of directors that acted responsively given the circumstances . . . . On October 3, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order dismissing the action with prejudice. On November 16, 2005, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. On December 13, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On March 21, 2006, Plaintiff filed her opening brief on appeal. On April 20, 2006, MedQuist and the other defendants filed their opposition briefs. The appeal will be fully briefed by May 4, 2006. The Court of Appeals has not set a hearing date for the appeal. Customer Accommodations As previously disclosed, the primary allegations in a number of the litigation matters relate to how the Company interpreted the AAMT line billing unit of measure. The AAMT line billing unit of measure was developed in 1993 through a collaboration among several industry organizations with the intent of providing standardization in industry billing practices. However, due to inherent ambiguities in the definition of this unit of measure not fully anticipated at the time of its introduction, AAMT line-based billing was applied inconsistently throughout the medical transcription industry and eventually renounced by the groups initially responsible for its development. Despite these issues, a number of companies in the industry have continued to use AAMT line-based billing, and some customers still request proposals and contracts based on the AAMT line. Like many medical transcription service providers, MedQuist once used the AAMT line unit of measure to calculate invoices for many of its medical transcription clients. It has been widely recognized and well documented throughout the industry, however, that the AAMT definition of a line is inherently ambiguous and subject to a wide variety of interpretations. In fact, no single set of AAMT characters was ever defined for this unit of measure. Accordingly, MedQuist began the process in 2004 of transitioning its AAMT line-based customers off the AAMT line unit of measure and, in April 2005, the Company completely eliminated the use of the AAMT line for billing and called on other industry transcription providers to follow its lead. Due to these AAMT line unit of measure ambiguities, and the disparity in its interpretation, health care providers have raised concerns regarding charges for transcription services by their respective transcription providers, including the Company. In response to those concerns, and to foster ongoing business relationships with its customers, the Company has approached certain customers and offered to resolve any issues related to their prior AAMT line and other billing related issues. As previously disclosed, the Company's Board of Directors has authorized Company management to make accommodation offers, up to an aggregate amount of $65.0 million, to certain customers to resolve any concerns over AAMT and other billing related issues. As of March 31, 2006, (i) the Company has entered into agreements with certain customers who have accepted accommodation offers to resolve concerns over AAMT and other billing related issues, and paid or credited an aggregate amount of $31.3 million as an accommodation to those customers and (ii) additional accommodation offers have been made by the Company to certain other customers in the aggregate amount of $11.9 million. From April 1, 2006 through the date of this release, the Company has entered into agreements with additional customers and paid or credited an aggregate amount of $2.9 million and has extended accommodation offers to additional customers in the aggregate amount of $1.1 million. Company management currently intends to make additional accommodation offers in the future, consistent with the Board's authorization described above, although the timing and amount of such offers have not yet been determined and the Company's plans may change in the future. The accommodation offers do not represent an estimate of potential liability, if any, in any of the previously disclosed litigation or investigatory matters pending against the Company. The Company is unable to predict how many customers, if any, will accept the outstanding accommodation offers on the terms proposed by the Company, nor is the Company able to predict the timing of the acceptance (or rejection) of any of these outstanding accommodation offers. Until such offers are accepted, the Company may withdraw or modify the terms of the accommodation offers at any time. In addition, the Company is unable to predict how many of the future offers, if made, will be accepted on the terms proposed by the Company. The Company believes that its existing cash resources and cash flows from operations are sufficient to fund all of the customer accommodation offers it may make. By accepting the Company's accommodation offers, the customer must agree, among other things, to release the Company from any and all claims and liability regarding prior AAMT and other billing related issues. The accommodation offers made to date, and those offers which may be made in the future, are not an admission of liability by the Company of any wrongdoing or an admission or acknowledgement that its billing practices with respect to such customers were or are incorrect. MedQuist Inc. -- Preliminary and Unaudited Financial Information (in millions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Three months ended ---------------------------------------- March 31, 2006 March 31, 2005 ------------------ ------------------ Revenues $ 97 $ 108 Operating loss $ (8) $ (2) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- As of As of March 31, 2006 December 31, 2005 ------------------ ------------------ Cash $ 164 $ 178 Debt $ - $ - Three Months Ended March 31, 2006 Revenues: Preliminary, unaudited results indicate that the Company's revenues decreased $11 million to $97 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006 from approximately $108 million for the comparable 2005 period. This decline in revenues is largely due to decreases in transcription outsourcing services and product sales of $9 million or 10%, and $2 million or 27%, respectively. The decline in transcription outsourcing revenues is largely due to a decrease in the volume of lines transcribed primarily related to clients for whom we no longer provide transcription services. Additionally, pricing pressures continued on the base transcription business during the first quarter 2006, but revenues were impacted far less by pricing pressures than in the comparable 2005 period. Management expects that pricing pressures will continue for the foreseeable future but that the introduction of several new sales initiatives and improved customer service programs should cause transcription volume to stabilize or improve throughout the duration of 2006. Operating Loss: Preliminary, unaudited results indicate that our operating loss increased $6 million to a loss of approximately $8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006 from an operating loss of $2 million for the comparable 2005 period. The operating loss of $8 million was primarily attributable to $9 million of costs associated with the following: (1) costs related to the ongoing billing review including (i) legal fees incurred in connection with governmental investigations and proceedings and defense of the class action matters and (ii) non-legal professional fees; and (2) increased expenses related to prior years' accounting reviews and audit. Operating loss was also impacted by the $11 million decline in revenues over the same period. Balance Sheet Highlights: As of March 31, 2006, the Company had $164 million in cash and cash equivalents and no debt. The $14 million decrease in cash as of March 31, 2006 compared with December 31, 2005 was primarily attributable to accommodation payments ($10 million) and capital expenditures ($4 million). There were no issuances of capital stock or other securities for the three months ended March 31, 2006. The Company expects to incur significant costs and expenses in the future relating to the ongoing billing review, defense of the class action matters and governmental investigations and proceedings, and accommodation agreements. These costs and expenses include (i) legal fees relating to the SEC and Department of Justice investigations and proceedings, (ii) legal fees relating to defense and resolution of the litigation matters described above, (iii) customer accommodation payments and credits, and (iv) non-legal professional fees. The timing and level of these costs and expenses is, in many cases, not within the Company's control. While the Company is unable to predict the timing and level of these costs and expenses, the Company currently believes that it has sufficient resources, including cash on hand and cash flow from operations to fund these costs and expenses. However, there cannot be any assurance that unanticipated changes in the level of these costs will not exceed the Company's available cash resources, nor can there be any assurance that sufficient financing from external sources will be available to the Company on acceptable terms, if at all. In the event that the Company's cash requirements exceed its available cash resources, or if the timing of such costs and expenses requires the Company to divert cash resources away from operations, the Company may not be able to execute its operating plan, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and results of operations. Other Developments Restructuring: As previously disclosed, in conjunction with the Company's movement to a single national service and support organization, a restructuring plan was developed in 2005 to consolidate approximately forty-eight (48) operating facilities and centralize certain components of the business in order to improve operating efficiencies. The Company is expecting to incur total restructuring costs of up to $8.5 million associated with this plan through the end of the fourth quarter of 2006. The Company incurred $1 million of restructuring costs for the three months ended March 31, 2006. This restructuring is expected to generate annualized savings of approximately $18.5 million. The Company realized approximately $1.9 million in savings during the three months ended March 31, 2006. Specifically, the Company has shifted resources to a single national service delivery and support organization for all of the Company's services and products and is in the process of eliminating local service centers. The plan does not contemplate reductions of, and the Company has no current intentions to reduce, its medical transcription workforce. Rather, the Company will continue in its efforts to hire additional qualified transcriptionists. Further, although the Company is consolidating its local service centers as described above, customer-facing teams, led by account managers, will continue to coordinate customer support on the local level. The customer-facing teams will continue to work with and be supported by the Company's centrally managed customer service organization.

$50,000 [2006-05-05]
sure you can, if you type 200 lpm and work 24/7!!!!!!!! i've been doing this almost 20 years with a fairly good line rate,$30 is tops for me at a 40 hour week.

my my $ 50-80,000 year huh sm [2006-04-23]
You are joking - take 7 cents per 65 line that is what is out there 7 and 8 and MUCH LOWER too.. Say 33 lines a page = 132 lines/hr so say you were ABLE to maintain 4 pages every single hour, that is, no matter what (rather unpredictable for sure): $9.24 hr.= $369 week $1478 a month at 1920 hours year = $17,740 a year. Now ladies and gents that is welllllll below the national federal poverty level THOUSANDS below. The statement $50-80,000 is gar bbbbage and an injustice to those eager mostly single mothers with no child support to fool with. so that would be $1091. week ($50,000) So at $9.24 hr (4 pg) that would be 118 pages AN HOUR = $1090. week PLEAZZZZZ. Use calculators MTs, can't figure, post on the boards somebody can help do it for you. Don't buy in the scams. Do the math, do the math.

MedQuist Announces Preliminary, Partial and Unaudited [2006-01-19]
MT. LAUREL, N.J. --(Business Wire)-- Jan. 19, 2006 -- Medquist Inc. (Pink Sheets: MEDQ.PK) announced today certain preliminary, partial and unaudited financial results, and provided updated information regarding previously-announced litigation and governmental investigations and proceedings. Once the Company completes the financial assessment and review of its billing practices disclosed in the Company's previous filings with the SEC, the Company expects that KPMG LLP, its independent registered public accounting firm, will review and/or audit the Company's financial statements, as appropriate. The Company is continuing the process of working toward becoming current in its periodic reports pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company's review of its current and prior period unaudited financial statements, as well as KPMG LLP's audits for those periods, may identify adjustments or reclassifications which may be reflected in the periods to which they relate. At this time, the Company cannot estimate the total costs of (i) the billing review, (ii) defense of the class action matters, (iii) the SEC investigation, and (iv) compliance with the Department of Justice investigation, all of which have been previously disclosed in either the Company's filings with the SEC or the Company's press releases. Accordingly, the only costs related to the defense of these matters that have been included in the results below are actual costs incurred through December 31, 2005 by the Company. As described in the Customer Accommodations discussion under the heading Legal Proceedings, an accrual has been made in an amount up to which the Company's Board of Directors has authorized the Company to make accommodation offers to certain of its customers. Because the completion of the billing review and resolution of the litigation and governmental investigatory matters are pending, the Company is not certain whether any changes to the accounting treatment of any component of its consolidated financial statements will be required and, if any changes are necessary, whether any such changes would have a material impact on its current or prior period consolidated financial statements. Accordingly, the financial information set forth below is preliminary, unaudited, and subject to change based on the completion of the financial assessment and review of the Company's billing practices, resolution of the class action matters and governmental investigations and proceedings, and the completion of the review and/or audit of its financial statements, as appropriate. The financial information and related narrative discussion set forth below is derived from the Company's internal books and records. The Company cautions investors not to place undue reliance on the financial information presented below. As a result of the developments described above and in the Company's previous SEC filings, the Company's financial statements have not been audited or reviewed by KPMG LLP, its independent registered public accounting firm. The financial information contained in this press release also has not been audited or reviewed by an independent registered public accounting firm. Such information is not a substitute for the information required to be reported in the Company's Forms 10-K and Forms 10-Q that have not yet been filed. There can be no assurance that the results of the billing review, and resolution of the litigation and governmental investigatory matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's revenue, results of operations and financial condition. Legal Proceedings Investigations and Proceedings Commenced by the SEC and the Department of Justice As previously announced, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) is currently conducting a formal investigation of the Company. The Company will continue to fully cooperate with the SEC. As previously announced, the Company received an administrative HIPAA subpoena for documents from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts on December 17, 2004. The subpoena sought information primarily about the Company's provision of medical transcription services to governmental and non-governmental customers. The information was requested in connection with a government investigation into whether MedQuist and others violated federal laws in connection with the provision of medical transcription services. MedQuist continues to cooperate fully with the Department of Justice. Shareholder Securities Litigation As previously announced, a shareholder putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court District of New Jersey on November 8, 2004. The action, entitled William Steiner v. MedQuist, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-05487-FLW (the Shareholder Putative Action), was filed against the Company and certain former Company officials, purportedly on behalf of an alleged class of all persons who purchased MedQuist common stock during the period from April 23, 2002 through November 2, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period). The complaint specifically alleged that defendants violated federal securities laws by purportedly issuing a series of false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements allegedly had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. The complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, thereunder. Named as defendants, in addition to the Company, were its former president and chief executive officer and its former executive vice president and chief financial officer. On August 16, 2005, a First Amended Complaint in the Shareholder Putative Class Action was filed against the Company in the United States District Court District of New Jersey. The First Amended Complaint named additional defendants, including certain current and former directors, certain former Company officers, the Company's former and current external auditors and Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (Philips). Like the original complaint, the First Amended Complaint asserted claims under Sections 10b and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act) and Rule 10b5 of the Act. The Class Period of the original complaint was expanded 20 months and now includes the period from March 29, 2000 through June 14, 2004. Pursuant to an October 17, 2005 consent order approved by the Court, Lead Plaintiff Greater Pennsylvania Pension Fund filed a Second Amended Complaint on November 15, 2005. The Second Amended Complaint dropped Philips as a defendant, but alleges the same claims and the same purported class period as the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, discovery in the action is stayed pending the filing and resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss, which were filed on January 17, 2006, and will be fully briefed by May 1, 2006. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Second Amended Complaint are without merit, and is vigorously defending the action. Customer Litigation As previously announced, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court Central District of California. The action, entitled South Broward Hospital District, dba Memorial Regional Hospital, et al. v. MedQuist, Inc. et al., Case No. CV-04-7520-TJH-VBKx, was filed on September 9, 2004 against the Company and certain present and former Company officials, purportedly on behalf of an alleged class of non-Federal governmental hospitals and medical centers that the complaint claims were wrongfully and fraudulently overcharged for transcription services by defendants based primarily on the Company's use of the AAMT line billing unit of measure discussed below. The complaint charges fraud, violation of the California Business and Professions Code, unjust enrichment, conversion, negligent supervision and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, plus costs and interest, an injunction against alleged continuing illegal activities, an accounting, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Named as defendants, in addition to the Company, were a senior vice president, its former executive vice president of marketing and new business development, its former executive vice president and chief legal officer, and its former executive vice president and chief financial officer. On December 20, 2004, the Company and individual defendants filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, or in the alternative, to transfer the putative action to the United States District Court District of New Jersey. On February 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint both adding and deleting named plaintiffs in an attempt to keep the putative action in the United States District Court Central District of California. On March 30, 2005, the United States District Court Central District of California issued an order transferring the putative action to the United States District Court District of New Jersey. On August 1, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants filed their respective Answers denying the material allegations contained in the Second Amended Complaint. On August 31, 2005, the Company and individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim and a motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, or in the alternative, to stay pending arbitration. On December 12, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an Amendment to the Second Amended Complaint. On December 13, 2005, the Court issued an order requiring plaintiffs to file a Third Amended Complaint and set forth a briefing schedule for the filing of anticipated motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, which have been set for hearing on March 8, 2006. Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Complaint on January 4, 2006. The Third Amended Complaint expands the claims made beyond issues arising from contracts based on AAMT line billing and beyond customers billed based on an AAMT line, alleging that the Company engaged in a scheme to inflate customers' invoices without regard to the terms of individual contracts and even in the absence of any written contract. The Third Amended Complaint also limits plaintiffs' claim for fraud in the inducement of the agreement to arbitrate to the three named plaintiffs whose contracts contain an arbitration provision and a subclass of similarly situated customers. The Company believes that the claims asserted have no merit and intends to vigorously defend the putative action. Medical Transcriptionist Litigation Hoffmann Putative Class Action As previously announced, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court Northern District of Georgia. The action, entitled Brigitte Hoffmann, et al. v. MedQuist, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-CV-3452, was filed with the Court on November 29, 2004 against the Company and certain current and former Company officials, purportedly on behalf of an alleged class of current and former employees and statutory workers of MedQuist, who are or were compensated on a per line basis for medical transcription services (the Class Members) from January 1, 1998 to the time of the filing of the complaint (the Class Period). The complaint specifically alleged that defendants systematically and wrongfully underpaid the Class Members during the Class Period. The complaint asserted the following causes of action: fraud, breach of contract, demand for accounting, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, conversion, negligence, negligent supervision, and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violations. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution. On December 1, 2005, the Hoffmann matter was transferred to the United States District Court District of New Jersey. The Company believes that the claims presently asserted have no merit and intends to vigorously defend the putative action. Myers Putative Class Action As previously announced, a putative class action entitled, Myers, et al. v. MedQuist Inc. and MedQuist Transcriptions, Ltd., Case No. 05CV 4608 (JBS), was filed against the Company on September 22, 2005 in the United States District Court District of New Jersey. The action was brought on behalf of a putative class of MedQuist's employee and independent contractor transcriptionists who claim that they contracted with the Company to be paid per AAMT line, but were allegedly underpaid due to intentional miscounting of the number of characters and lines transcribed. The named plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and request an accounting. The allegations contained in the Myers case are substantially similar to those contained in the Hoffmann putative class action and the two actions have now been consolidated. On January 3, 2006, a consent order was executed pursuant to which the Hoffmann and Myers plaintiffs will file a single, consolidated class action complaint on or before January 31, 2006. As with the Hoffmann putative class action, the Company believes that the claims presently asserted in the Myers action have no merit and intends to vigorously defend the consolidated actions. Derivative Litigation On October 4, 2005, the Company announced the dismissal with prejudice of a shareholder derivative action filed in United States District Court District of New Jersey. The suit, Rhoda Kanter (Plaintiff) v. Hans M. Barella et al. (Defendants), was filed on November 12, 2004 against Philips and ten current and former members of MedQuist's Board of Directors. MedQuist was named as a nominal defendant. In a ruling dated September 21, 2005, the Court found Plaintiff's allegations that MedQuist's Board members breached their fiduciary duties to the Company to be insufficient. The Plaintiff had alleged that for a period from 2001 through 2004, the Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by permitting artificial inflation of billing figures; failing to adequately ensure accurate and lawful billing practices; and failing to accurately report the Company's true financial condition in its published financial statements. To the contrary, the Court concluded: Far from alleging facts supporting a substantial likelihood of liability, Plaintiff here has painted a picture of a board of directors that acted responsively given the circumstances . . . . On October 3, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order dismissing the action with prejudice. On November 16, 2005, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. On December 13, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Customer Accommodations The primary allegations in a number of the litigation matters relate to how the Company interpreted the AAMT line billing unit of measure. The AAMT line billing unit of measure was developed in 1993 through a collaboration among several industry organizations with the intent of providing standardization in industry billing practices. However, due to inherent ambiguities in the definition of this unit of measure not fully anticipated at the time of its introduction, AAMT line-based billing was applied inconsistently throughout the medical transcription industry and eventually renounced by the groups initially responsible for its development. Despite these issues, a number of companies in the industry have continued to use AAMT line-based billing, and some customers still request proposals and contracts based on the AAMT line. Like many medical transcription service providers, MedQuist once used the AAMT line unit of measure to calculate invoices for many of its medical transcription clients. It has been widely recognized and well documented throughout the industry, however, that the AAMT definition of a line is inherently ambiguous and subject to a wide variety of interpretations. In fact, no single set of AAMT characters was ever defined for this unit of measure. Accordingly, MedQuist began the process in 2004 of transitioning its AAMT line-based customers off the AAMT line unit of measure and, in April 2005, the Company completely eliminated the use of the AAMT line for billing and called on other industry transcription providers to follow its lead. Due to these AAMT line unit of measure ambiguities, and the disparity in its interpretation, health care providers have raised concerns regarding charges for transcription services by their respective transcription providers, including the Company. In response to those concerns, and to foster ongoing business relationships with its customers, the Company has approached certain customers and offered to resolve any issues related to their prior AAMT line and other billing related issues. The Company's Board of Directors has authorized Company management to make accommodation offers, up to an aggregate amount of $65.0 million, to certain customers to resolve concerns over AAMT and other billing related issues. As of December 31, 2005, (i) the Company has entered into agreements with certain customers who have accepted accommodation offers to resolve concerns over AAMT and other billing related issues, and paid or credited an aggregate amount of $20.5 million as an accommodation to those customers and (ii) additional accommodation offers have been made by the Company to certain other customers in the aggregate amount of $13.8 million. From January 1, 2006 through the date of this release, accommodation offers have been made to additional customers in the aggregate amount of $1.7 million. Subject to the previously mentioned authorization of the Company's Board of Directors, Company management currently intends to make additional accommodation offers in the future, although the timing and amount of such offers have not yet been determined and the Company's plans may change in the future. The accommodation offers do not represent in any way the Company's estimate of potential liability, if any, in any of the previously disclosed litigation or investigatory matters pending against the Company. The Company is unable to predict how many customers, if any, will accept the outstanding accommodation offers on the terms proposed by the Company, nor is the Company able to predict the timing of the acceptance (or rejection) of any of these outstanding accommodation offers. Until such offers are accepted, the Company may withdraw or modify the terms of the accommodation offers at any time. In addition, the Company is unable to predict how many of the future offers, if made, will be accepted on the terms proposed by the Company. The Company believes that its existing cash resources and cash flows from operations are sufficient to fund all of the customer accommodation offers it may make. By accepting the Company's accommodation offers, the customer must agree, among other things, to release the Company from any and all claims and liability regarding prior AAMT and other billing related issues. The accommodation offers made to date, and those offers which may be made in the future, are not an admission of liability by the Company of any wrongdoing or an admission or acknowledgement that its billing practices with respect to such customers were or are incorrect. -0- *T MedQuist Inc. - Preliminary and Unaudited Financial Information (in millions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Three months ended ----------------------------------- 12/31/2005 12/31/2004 ---------------- ---------------- Revenues (1) $ 96 $ 112 Operating loss (1) $ (78) $ 0 Cash (2) $ 178 $ 196 Debt (2) - Current $ 0 $ 25 - Long term $ 0 $ 0 Twelve months ended ----------------------------------- 12/31/2005 12/31/2004 ---------------- ---------------- Revenues (3) $ 411 $ 456 Operating (loss)income (3) $ (98) $ 25 Cash (2) $ 178 $ 196 Debt (2) - Current $ 0 $ 25 - Long term $ 0 $ 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes: (1) Information presented for the three months ended (2) Information presented as of the date noted above (3) Information presented for the twelve months ended *T Three months ended December 31, 2005 Revenues: Preliminary, unaudited results indicate that the Company's revenues decreased from approximately $112 million for the three months ended December 31, 2004 to approximately $96 million for the comparable 2005 period. The decline in revenues is largely due to a decrease in the volume of lines transcribed primarily related to clients for whom we no longer provide transcription services. Additionally, while pricing pressures continue on the base transcription business, the pricing pressure has not had as great an impact on revenues during the second half of 2005 as it did in the first half. Management expects that pricing pressure will continue for the foreseeable future but that the introduction of several new sales and improved customer service initiatives will cause transcription volume to stabilize or improve in 2006. Operating Income: Preliminary results indicate that operating income declined $78 million from approximately $0 million for the three months ended December 31, 2004 to an operating loss of approximately $78 million for the comparable 2005 period. The operating loss was attributable to the following: restructuring charges ($4 million), audit fees in connection with the Company's 2003, 2004 and 2005 fiscal years ($4 million), asset impairments ($2 million) and $69 million in costs incurred during the three months ended December 31, 2005 related to the ongoing billing review, including: (i) customer accommodation payments and accruals ($60 million), (ii) legal fees incurred in connection with governmental investigations and proceedings and defense of the class action matters, and (iii) non-legal professional fees. Operating income in 2005 was also impacted by the $16 million decline in revenues over the same period. Fiscal 2004 results reflect $6 million in costs related to the ongoing billing review. Twelve Months ended December 31, 2005 Revenues: Preliminary, unaudited results indicate that the Company's revenues decreased from approximately $456 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2004 to approximately $411 million for the comparable 2005 period. The decline in revenues is due to (i) a decrease in the volume of lines transcribed primarily related to clients for whom we no longer provide transcription services and (ii) reductions in transcription service rates due to pricing pressure in the medical transcription industry. Management expects that pricing pressure will continue for the foreseeable future but that the introduction of several new sales and improved customer service initiatives will cause transcription volume to stabilize or improve in 2006. Operating Income: Preliminary, unaudited results indicate that operating income declined $123 million from an operating income of approximately $25 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2004 to an operating loss of approximately $98 million for 2005. The operating loss was attributable to the following: restructuring charges ($4 million), audit fees in connection with the Company's 2003, 2004 and 2005 fiscal years ($4 million), asset impairments ($2 million) and $101 million in costs incurred in 2005 related to the ongoing billing review, including: (i) customer accommodation payments and accruals ($65 million), (ii) legal fees incurred in connection with governmental investigations and proceedings and defense of the class action matters, (iii) non-legal professional fees, and (iv) costs associated with separation and replacement of the Company's management team, including members at the executive level. Operating income in 2005 was also impacted by the $44 million decline in revenues over the comparable period, which represents the impact of both the pricing pressures experienced most strongly in the first six months of 2005 and of volume declines throughout the twelve months ended December 31, 2005. Fiscal 2004 results reflect $15 million in costs related to the ongoing billing review. Balance Sheet Highlights: At December 31, 2005, the Company had $178 million in cash and cash equivalents and no debt. There were no additional issuances of capital stock or other securities for the twelve months ended December 31, 2005. The Company expects to incur significant costs and expenses in the future relating to the ongoing billing review, defense of the class action matters and governmental investigations and proceedings, and accommodation agreements. These costs and expenses include (i) legal fees relating to the SEC and Department of Justice investigations and proceedings, (ii) legal fees relating to defense and resolution of the litigation matters described above, (iii) customer accommodation payments and credits, and (iv) non-legal professional fees. The timing and level of these costs and expenses is, in many cases, not within the Company's control. While the Company is unable to predict the timing and level of these costs and expenses, the Company currently believes that it has sufficient resources, including cash on hand and cash flow from operations to fund these costs and expenses. However, there can be no assurance that unanticipated changes in the level of these costs will not exceed the Company's available cash resources, nor can there be any assurance that sufficient financing from external sources will be available to the Company on acceptable terms, if at all. In the event that the Company's cash requirements exceed its available cash resources, or if the timing of such costs and expenses requires the Company to divert cash resources away from operations, the Company may not be able to execute its operating plan, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and results of operations. Other Developments Restructuring: As previously disclosed, in conjunction with the Company's movement to a single national service and support organization, a restructuring plan has been developed which consolidates approximately forty-eight (48) facilities and centralizes certain components of the business. The Company is expecting to incur restructure costs associated with this restructuring plan of up to $8.5 million and the restructuring is expected to generate annualized savings of approximately $18.5 million. Specifically, MedQuist has shifted resources to a single national service delivery and support organization for all of the Company's services and products, eliminating local service centers. This transition has resulted in the consolidation of approximately thirty-eight (38) facilities as of December 31, 2005, with ten (10) more scheduled over the next six months. The plan does not contemplate reductions of, and the Company has no current intentions to reduce, its medical transcription workforce. Rather, the Company will continue in its efforts to hire additional qualified transcriptionists. Further, although the Company is consolidating its local service centers as described above, customer-facing teams, led by account managers, will continue to coordinate customer support on the local level. The customer-facing teams will work with and be supported by the Company's centrally managed customer service organization.

Integrity [2005-10-11]
You're so right!! Outsourcing is really a dangerous business because it isn't about quality of patient care; it's all about money. I have been a medical Transcriptionist for 29 years and I have seen this profession devolve to that of a factory worker on a production line. Not that there's anything wrong with working in a factory, but we have a much more grave responsibility upon us because what we put in a report, if incorrect, can potentially cause harm or even death to a patient. This fact alone motivates me to give meticulous attention to make sure I get it right, even if it takes long periods of listening and re-listening and lots of research to do so. We need to stop and think, if this were my mother, my father, my loved one, or myself, would I want someone to be racing through the process of transcribing a history and physical, consultation, operative report, or any other medical report to see how many lines can be produced for the day?? If this is what we've devolved into, then it's time for me to get out of this profession because I refuse to be driven by how many lines per hour I can transcribe versus the quality and accuracy of what I transcribe. There are so few who really understand, especially in management, what being a really good medical transcriptionist entails. Transcribing medical dictation and doing it accurately requires a tremendous amount of knowledge, skill, and research, as well as paying attention to the smallest of details in order to prevent harm to patients. I fear we're headed in a very dangerous direction. The fact that an organization like AAMT ascribes to this line-count/productivity mentality baffles me. Patients' health and lives should be our top priority and we should be so very careful not to misinterpret what a doctor is dictating. This often involves a lot of painstaking effort, but it's worth the time it takes to get it right.

Medquist counts on the very VOLUME of their work to hide their billing *inaccuracies*. [2005-10-11]
They have some large hospitals.You take an 800 bed hospital getting a bill once a month that is 8 inches thick! Daily logs, sans LINE COUNTS, with just a total. Who is going to take the time to investigate that? These large services count on the overwhelming time it would take to verify billing. I have seen it done time and time again.

MedQuist Relief for Katrina Victims [2005-09-15]
MOUNT LAUREL, N.J., Sept. 14 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Today, MedQuistInc. (Pink Sheets: MEDQ), with nearly 10,000 people spread across the UnitedStates, announced the immediate actions that the company took in response tothe aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, including aid from the company to itspeople in the areas hardest hit by the hurricane. The Company's firstpriority in the days after the storm was to identify the Medquist employeesand statutory workers who were in Katrina's path, determine their status andset aside funds to provide financial assistance to those who lost their homes.We have been concentrating first on finding our people - many of whom workfrom home - to provide them with personal financial assistance if they havelost their home, and, if necessary, with new computers to help them return towork from wherever they are staying, says Frank W. Lavelle, MedQuist'spresident. Company employees and statutory workers who have been affected byHurricane Katrina are encouraged to contact MedQuist's toll-free technicalsupport line, 1-800-DICTATE. We're encouraging everyone in the MedQuist family who has been affectedby Katrina to call in, even if they have already been in touch with someonefrom the company, says Lavelle. And we want them to keep us updated ontheir location if they move again in the next few weeks. In addition,MedQuist's clients who need any kind of assistance due to damage from Katrinashould call MedQuist's toll-free technical support line for clients,1-888-DICTATE. Ensuring that our clients have the ability to continue toprovide medical care is of the highest priority to everyone at MedQuist, addsLavelle. In addition to providing personal financial assistance to MedQuist'semployees and statutory workers who have lost their homes to the storm,MedQuist has also made a donation of $20,000 to the American Red Cross forHurricane Katrina disaster relief. The company is committed to matching thedonations of its employees and statutory workers as well, up to an additional$30,000. Since the storm, MedQuist people have been calling and asking what theycan do to help, says Lavelle. They have offered everything from places forpeople to stay to giving some of their paid time off to our employees who areout of work because of Katrina. In response to that generosity, MedQuist hasset up a bank for paid time off hours so that employees can donate time thatwill be used for other employees who have been victims of the storm. Theoutpouring of offers doesn't surprise me a bit, adds Lavelle. We arefortunate at MedQuist that we have such wonderful caring people affiliatedwith the company who have been looking for ways to help each other and othersin the region affected by Hurricane Katrina. MedQuist, a member of the Philips Group of Companies, is a leadingprovider of electronic medical transcription, health information and documentmanagement products and services. MedQuist provides document workflowmanagement, digital dictation, speech recognition, mobile dictation devices,Web-based transcription, electronic signature, medical coding products andoutsourcing services. Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Actof 1995: Statements in this press release regarding MedQuist's business whichare not historical facts are forward-looking statements that involve risksand uncertainties. For a discussion of such risks and uncertainties, whichcould cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward-looking statements, see Risk Factors in the Company's Annual Report or Form10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2002.

Outsourcing as a crutch to ESL dictators [2005-09-11]
The most probable reason for the boom in outsourcing is that the accent-ridden medical doctors who have the privilege of working in this country and providing a comfortable life for themselves and their families is that the ESL docs simply are unable or unwilling to lose their accent and adjust themselves appropriately to the United States. It's much easier for them to outsource to their home countries because they are more easily understood and/or they can dictate in their native language. The language barrier not something that is worth understanding and/or support. To me, it's a symptom of laziness and very unprofessional. The language barrier is a problem for PATIENTS of ESL doctors as well. Bush should be well advised of yet another source that is stealing US jobs and/or undermining the MT industry. Years ago, I was a temp for a major publisher of medical books. They had outsourced the duty of scanning in line art for their books at a reduced rate from labor in India. In return, the scanned images were returned, and we were in charge of cleaning up the images using PhotoShop. What's the point in having them do this job for pennies on the dollar when we had to turn around and clean up their work. They didn't even know enough whether to scan it as line art or scan it as a photo = fuzzy images. In all actuality, they didn't save a thing.