New LinkedIn data highlights workflow optimization, compliance, and clinical laboratory testing as fast-growing skills shaping the future of lab careers.
LinkedIn’s latest “Skills on the Rise” report offers fresh insight into how the healthcare workforce is evolving—and clinical laboratory professionals are directly impacted. The ranking, based on year-over-year growth in skill acquisition and hiring success, reflects real-time labor market demand between December 2024 and November 2025.
For laboratories facing staffing shortages, reimbursement pressure, and expanding test volumes, the findings reinforce a clear message: Technical expertise alone is no longer enough.
Operational Excellence and Compliance Take Center Stage
The No. 1 fastest-growing skill, Workflow Optimization, underscores mounting pressure on labs to improve efficiency across specimen processing, documentation, scheduling, and result reporting. As automation expands and margins tighten, laboratory managers are expected to streamline operations while maintaining quality and turnaround times.
Standards Compliance (No. 4) further highlights the regulatory realities labs operate within. With ongoing scrutiny around billing practices, data privacy, and quality systems, laboratorians must be fluent in compliance frameworks and documentation standards. Strong governance is no longer confined to the quality department; it is becoming a core competency across the laboratory workforce.
Photo credit: LinkedIn
Clinical Laboratory Testing itself ranked No. 7, which signals sustained demand for professionals skilled in analyzing blood, urine, and tissue samples for disease detection and monitoring. Growth in this skill aligns with rising diagnostic utilization driven by chronic disease prevalence, aging populations, and precision medicine initiatives.
Soft skills are gaining equal weight. Cross-Functional Communication (No. 2) reflects the increasing integration of laboratories within broader health systems. Lab professionals must collaborate effectively with physicians, nurses, IT teams, and administrators to ensure accurate test utilization, minimize errors, and support value-based care goals.
The appearance of Report Preparation (No. 10) points to another expanding expectation: turning complex clinical and operational data into actionable insights. As health systems rely more heavily on laboratory metrics to guide strategic decisions, professionals who can organize and present compliant, high-quality data will hold a competitive advantage.
Taken together, the report signals a shift in how laboratory expertise is defined. Tomorrow’s most competitive lab professionals will pair strong technical knowledge with operational savvy, regulatory fluency, data literacy, and communication skills—positioning the laboratory as a strategic driver of clinical and financial performance.
Until then, clinical laboratory professionals must push the proposed legislation forward to achieve PAMA reform.
Officials from one of the key groups behind the proposed RESULTS Act stated earlier this month that the goal is to have the legislation attached to a year-end spending bill in Congress.
That leaves approximately 10 months for the clinical laboratory industry to mount enough momentum to bring the proposal to a vote.
“It is never easy to get anything done on Capitol Hill,” noted Joyce Gresko, legal counsel for the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) and an attorney at Alston & Bird.
Gresko spoke during a Feb. 11 webinar hosted by ACLA about the current lab operating environment under the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA). PAMA-related cuts to clinical lab test reimbursement rates have been delayed until Jan. 1, 2027. However, in the nearer term, an important reporting milestone under PAMA begins on May 1.
Joyce Gresko, legal counsel for the ACLA and an attorney at Alston & Bird, urged clinical laboratories to contact members of Congress about passing the RESULTS Act. (Photo credit: Alston & Bird)
The RESULTS Act—more formally the Reforming and Enhancing Sustainable Updates to Laboratory Testing Services Act of 2025—calls for PAMA reform by permanently capping reimbursement cuts to 5% annually and identifying an independent claims database to help the federal government set Medicare rates for lab test claims. Currently those rates are set through lab-based reporting, an approach that has been largely criticized by the diagnostics industry.
Gresko noted that ACLA is eyeing the idea of the RESULTS Act becoming part of an end-of-year spending package in December, which could allow the proposal to pass as part of a larger vote. Such packages are typical in Congress.
Lawmakers Need to Hear about Support for the RESULTS Act
The ACLA has been among the loudest voices in the clinical laboratory industry supporting passage of the RESULTS Act. The bill was introduced in September 2025, as reported by Dark Daily.
Through a special ACLA website, StopLabCuts.org, 190,000 messages have been sent to Congress from lab industry professionals, Gresko said. She urged others to let their opinions be heard by lawmakers.
“Please weigh in with your members of Congress,” she said.
PAMA cuts have costs the diagnostics industry $3.8 billion over the last decade, noted Susan Van Meter, president of the ACLA.
For labs, those cuts “have had a negative impact on being able to maintain access to a whole level of [diagnostic] services,” Van Meter added.
New PAMA Reporting Window Starts on May 1 for Clinical Labs
While the RESULTS Act gets debated, clinical laboratories will need to prepare for their next reporting window under PAMA, which begins on May 1 and ends on July 31.
PAMA requires affected labs to submit information about tests they perform to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, including what private payers reimbursed labs for each test. This data establishes Medicare reimbursement rates under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule.
In a twist, Congress revised that data collection to include 2025 commercial rates for labs, not 2019 data as was originally mandated.
Laboratories that have not started preparing for this reporting window need to begin now.
Nearly 90% of patients express interest in predictive lab tests, according to a new national survey—creating new opportunities and challenges for clinical laboratories navigating consumer demand, data fragmentation, and Medicare payment cuts.
A new national survey of 1,000 US patients points to a significant shift in how consumers view diagnostic testing—one that has direct implications for clinical laboratories navigating financial pressure, patient engagement, and changing care models.
The YouGov survey, commissioned by Siemens Healthineers, found that patients increasingly expect greater control over when and why lab tests are ordered. Among adults who have had lab work in the past two years, 93% said they expect their physician to order a test upon request. More than a third (37%) have asked for testing based on information from personal research, such as advice from family, friends, or online sources, and 17% have made requests influenced by social media content. For lab leaders, the data signal a move away from strictly symptom-driven, clinician-initiated testing toward more consumer-driven demand.
Patients Push for Predictive Testing, Testing Provider Authority
Interest in predictive and proactive testing is especially high. Nearly nine in 10 respondents (89%) said they are interested in lab tests that can help predict future health risks. That interest is already translating into action: 27% of patients reported pursuing blood testing from a trusted lab provider out of curiosity, without a physician’s recommendation. Another 22% said they had used at-home or self-tests—such as genetic, fertility, or hormone tests—out of curiosity. While self-testing remains less common than lab-based bloodwork, the trend underscores a growing appetite for earlier insights into health status.
Despite this increased autonomy, trust in clinicians remains strong, though not absolute. While 95% of respondents said they trust their provider to order the most appropriate tests, that confidence drops when a requested test is declined. Thirteen percent said they do not trust their doctor’s guidance if advised against a test they asked for, highlighting a delicate balance for providers and laboratories as patient satisfaction and evidence-based medicine increasingly intersect.
“It’s clear: patients want more control over their health and information about their health earlier,” said Michele Zwickl, head of laboratory solutions for Diagnostics at Siemens Healthineers North America. (Photo credit: Siemens Healthineers)
Data Gaps and Cost Pressures Challenge Labs
The survey also raises concerns about data fragmentation. Nearly half (49%) of patients who pursued testing out of curiosity said they did not share their results with a healthcare provider. Additionally, 20% reported they would not disclose to their doctor if they had followed medical advice from social media. For laboratories, this lack of transparency can complicate result interpretation, particularly when undisclosed supplements, diets, or alternative therapies may influence lab values.
Cost remains a major fault line. While many patients are willing to pay out of pocket for elective or curiosity-driven testing, affordability remains a barrier for essential care. Among respondents with unpaid medical bills, 52% said their debt included unpaid lab testing fees. Still, patients clearly value laboratory diagnostics: 98% said lab results provide meaningful health insights, and 94% reported they are more likely to follow a physician’s advice when it is supported by test results. Notably, patients are far less willing to delay bloodwork due to cost than other services—only 5% would postpone lab tests, compared with 22% who would delay imaging.
These expectations come as laboratories face mounting reimbursement pressure. Upcoming Medicare payment cuts of up to 15% for roughly 800 tests, combined with prior reductions under PAMA affecting 72% of commonly used assays, threaten to widen the gap between patient demand and lab capacity. Industry leaders warn that continued cuts could stifle innovation and limit access. Legislative efforts such as the RESULTS Act are gaining attention as potential mechanisms to stabilize reimbursement and preserve testing access.
For lab leaders, success will hinge on aligning growing patient demand for access and insight with operational and financial sustainability.
This article was created with the assistance of Generative AI and has undergone editorial review before publishing.
Vacancy rates in U.S. medical laboratories have declined since COVID-19 highs, but ASCP’s latest survey finds staffing levels remain well above pre-pandemic norms as retirements accelerate and recruitment challenges deepen.
The American Society for Clinical Pathology’s (ASCP) 2024 Vacancy Survey shows that staffing conditions inside U.S. medical laboratories have improved modestly since the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic but remain unresolved. Vacancy rates have declined compared with 2020–2022, yet they are still significantly higher than pre-pandemic levels, underscoring persistent recruitment and retention challenges that continue to affect laboratory operations nationwide.
Conducted every two years for the past 37 years, the ASCP Vacancy Survey is the most widely cited barometer of workforce conditions in laboratory medicine. The 2024 survey gathered responses from 1,027 laboratory leaders and human resources professionals, representing staffing data for 18,626 laboratory employees across the United States. Participants came from hospitals of all sizes, reference laboratories, academic medical centers, public health laboratories, blood centers, government facilities, and industry settings.
Retirements Accelerate as Workforce Recovery Remains Uneven
“Although vacancy rates are lower than those reported during the pandemic, laboratories are still operating under sustained workforce pressure,” the authors wrote. “The data suggest that recovery has been uneven and incomplete.”
Retirement trends emerged as a major concern. Ten of the 17 laboratory departments included in the survey reported rising retirement rates compared with previous cycles. As experienced professionals exit the workforce, laboratories face the dual challenge of replacing technical expertise while maintaining service levels amid already-elevated vacancy rates. Survey authors warned that retirements are accelerating faster than the pipeline of newly trained professionals entering the field.
AI Readiness and Workforce Gaps Vary Widely Across Laboratories
“Continued challenges in recruitment, combined with increasing retirements, pose a serious risk to long-term workforce stability,” the report stated. Without intervention, ASCP cautioned that shortages could deepen, particularly in highly specialized laboratory disciplines.
The survey also sheds light on how laboratory leaders are thinking about artificial intelligence. Respondents most frequently cited “adapting to emerging technologies” as their top concern related to AI adoption.
However, enthusiasm for AI’s potential to transform laboratory operations remains strong. Laboratories that had already implemented AI tools or provided AI training to staff reported significantly more optimism and confidence.
“Enthusiasm about AI was notably higher in laboratories that demonstrated AI proficiency among laboratory professionals and other experts,” the authors noted, suggesting that education and hands-on experience play a critical role in shaping perceptions of new technology.
Geographic and departmental trends further highlight workforce disparities. Blood bank and transfusion medicine departments accounted for the largest share of reported personnel, while flow cytometry represented the smallest. Regionally, the South Central Atlantic reported the highest participation, while the Central Southwest reported the lowest. The states with the most respondents were New York, Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, and California.
Testing volumes varied widely. Nearly 40% of respondents reported performing more than 100,000 clinical pathology tests annually, while fewer than one in five laboratories reported anatomic pathology volumes exceeding 50,000 cases per year, reflecting the diverse operational scales represented in the data.
New Analytics Underscore Urgent Need for Laboratory Workforce Advocacy
The 2024 survey also marked a methodological shift. ASCP transitioned its analysis from traditional statistical software to Python-based data processing, allowing for more flexible analysis and integration of qualitative feedback. According to the authors, this change enhances reproducibility and aligns the survey with modern data-science practices increasingly used in healthcare analytics.
Ultimately, the report calls for urgent, coordinated action. ASCP emphasized the need for stronger advocacy for laboratory professionals, expanded credentialing pathways, and increased investment in education and training programs. “There is an urgent need for advocacy on behalf of laboratory professionals and an increase in the number of laboratory education and training programs,” the authors stated.
For laboratory executives and pathologists, the message is clear: while the worst of the pandemic staffing crisis may be over, structural workforce challenges remain unresolved and without sustained attention, they threaten the long-term resilience of the nation’s diagnostic infrastructure.
Congress included lab relief in its latest funding bill, signaling growing awareness of PAMA’s impact. Here’s what lab leaders should do next.
During a Nov. 12 webinar hosted by Dark Daily, the discussion centered on why a small laboratory provision ended up in the massive continuing resolution (CR) to reopen the federal government, and what it signals about congressional awareness of the urgent issues surrounding PAMA.
Panelists Susan Van Meter, president, American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) and Jay Weiss, PhD, president and co-owner, Allermetrix explained that the inclusion reflects years of coordinated, persistent advocacy by ACLA, NILA, laboratorians, and industry partners, who have made the case that impending cuts on January 1 would be devastating. Although Congress has repeatedly delayed PAMA cuts and reporting requirements—five and six times respectively—stakeholders emphasized that this should never be taken for granted.
Both speakers highlighted that many lawmakers were initially unaware that laboratories were facing up to 15% reductions on roughly 800 codes beginning in 2026, with ripple effects extending to private insurers because their rates are indexed to Medicare. As Congress searched for a bipartisan path to reopen the government, advocates successfully argued that a short-term delay of the PAMA “cliff” needed to be included in the CR. That delay now runs only until January 30.
“We have been working very deliberately around the clock since the beginning of this year to encourage Congress to move forward legislation that would reform PAMA and address the reductions. It’s been a complicated legislative year,” said Susan Van Meter, president, ACLA. (Photo credit: ACLA)
RESULTS Act
The panel then outlined the RESULTS Act, a bipartisan proposal intended to fix structural flaws in PAMA. Its main provisions include:
Replacing lab-reported commercial rates with data from a nonprofit claims database for widely available tests
Requiring labs to report only for low-volume codes (100 or fewer labs)
Reducing reporting burden significantly
Eliminating three years of up to 15% cuts
Capping future reductions at 5% annually
Ensuring Medicare rates are based on actual, adjudicated claims instead of outdated 2016 data.
Speakers noted that commercial plans already submit claims data to independent entities such as FAIR Health, so the framework is neither novel nor untested. Claims would be reported only after full adjudication, typically six months post-submission.
On timing, the panel acknowledged that passing the RESULTS Act before Jan. 30 is ambitious, especially after weeks of congressional inaction during the shutdown fight. Still, they characterized the inclusion of lab relief in the CR as a strong signal that lawmakers view PAMA reform as legitimate and urgent. A Congressional Budget Office score has not yet been issued for the RESULTS Act, though preliminary scoring requests have been made.
What Lab Leaders Can Do
Both speakers urged labs to prepare dual budgets—one assuming RESULTS Act passage, another reflecting full PAMA implementation. Contingency planning may include staff reductions, automation investments, operational cuts, and pursuing non-payer revenue streams. They also emphasized that PAMA cuts would affect far more than Medicare because commercial payers peg rates to the CLFS.
Finally, both panelists stressed that advocacy in the next few weeks is critical. They encouraged labs to contact lawmakers through email, phone, or in-person visits—and especially to invite members of Congress to tour their laboratories. The StopLabCuts.org campaign has already generated 150,000 messages to Capitol Hill; speakers urged the audience to double that volume. With strong bipartisan sponsorship in both chambers, they said the RESULTS Act has momentum—but is not guaranteed without significant grassroots pressure.
If you missed the live webinar, view it on demand, here.
This article was created with the assistance of Generative AI and has undergone editorial review before publishing.
The Senate’s government funding proposal includes a 30-day delay in PAMA cuts, giving clinical labs more time to prepare for reduced Medicare reimbursement rates.
Tucked into the Senate’s government funding proposal is a modest yet impactful measure that gives clinical laboratories a brief reprieve from PAMA reimbursement cuts.
On Nov. 10, the Senate amended and passed a version of a House funding bill, H.R. 5371, designed to reopen the government and allocate funding across multiple agencies. Among its 394 pages is a 30-day stopgap measure delaying PAMA reimbursement cuts, pushing the effective date from January 1 to January 31, 2026.
“While this 30-day reprieve provides welcome relief and demonstrates growing awareness of the impact these cuts have on laboratories and patient access, our work is far from done,” said Clarisa Blattner, senior director of revenue and payor optimization at XiFin, who was among the first to publicly note the extension via a LinkedIn post.
The Senate provision references updates to Section 1834A of the Social Security Act, known internally as Section 6209. The amendment modifies how CMS phases in payment reductions based on private payer data:
The 2026 calendar year is divided into two periods: January 1–30, 2026, and January 31–December 31, 2026, rather than treating the entire year as a single implementation period.
Reporting windows for private-sector payment data, which inform Medicare rates, are also extended. Instead of ending December 31, 2025, the next reporting period will run from February 1 through April 30, 2026.
These changes give laboratories additional time to prepare, gather, and validate private payer data while adjusting to new reimbursement rates—a key operational relief, especially for smaller and independent labs.
Extra Time to Advance the RESULTS Act
G2 Intelligence also reported that the temporary delay also offers the clinical lab industry a critical window to rally support for the RESULTS Act (Reforming and Enhancing Sustainable Updates to Laboratory Testing Services Act). The bill aims to reform PAMA by reducing reimbursement rate cuts, using an independent database for commercial payer reporting, and lengthening intervals between reporting windows.
Industry observers had warned that Congress was unlikely to again delay PAMA cuts, which have been postponed periodically since the pandemic. The 30-day extension is therefore notable, giving laboratories a short but meaningful buffer to continue advocacy and prepare for upcoming rate adjustments.
Looking Ahead
Laboratory leaders can use this window to assess financial impacts, adjust operational plans, and ensure compliance with updated reporting requirements. As CMS continues to refine its private-payer-based payment system under PAMA, this modest delay offers a critical opportunity to stabilize lab operations and maintain patient access to essential diagnostic services.
