The bipartisan RESULTS Act, designed to overhaul Medicare’s payment system for clinical laboratory testing, is on hold amid the ongoing government shutdown. With cuts of up to 15% set to hit 800 common lab tests in 2026, laboratory leaders warn that the delay threatens patient access and lab stability nationwide.
Efforts to reform how Medicare pays for clinical laboratory testing have hit a standstill as the ongoing federal government shutdown freezes legislative progress on Capitol Hill, delaying long-awaited relief for labs facing steep payment cuts in 2026.
The bipartisan Reforming and Enhancing Sustainable Updates to Laboratory Testing Services (RESULTS) Act—introduced in September by Senators Raphael Warnock (D-GA) and Thom Tillis (R-NC)—was gaining momentum as a fix to long-standing problems in the Medicare Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS). But with Congress largely at a standstill, the bill and several other healthcare measures are now in limbo, leaving labs anxious about their financial outlook heading into next year.
At stake are payment reductions of up to 15% for more than 800 commonly ordered laboratory tests, scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026. Laboratory organizations warn that without swift action, the cuts could destabilize the nation’s diagnostic infrastructure, threaten patient access, and further weaken community and hospital outreach laboratories already strained by workforce shortages and inflation.
Organizations Pen Letter
In a letter sent to congressional leaders on October 30, more than two dozen healthcare and laboratory organizations, including the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA), the College of American Pathologists (CAP), the American Hospital Association (AHA), and the American Medical Association (AMA), urged Congress to pass the RESULTS Act to “protect patient access to clinical laboratory services.”
“Timely access to innovative clinical laboratory tests is critical to the prevention, early detection, therapy selection, and effective management of chronic and life-threatening diseases,” the coalition wrote. “Without action, around 800 laboratory tests will be subject to payment cuts of up to 15% on January 1, 2026, threatening patient access to routine and life-saving diagnostics.”
The letter highlights a decade-long problem stemming from the Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA) of 2014. That law aimed to align Medicare reimbursement with private market rates but relied on limited data reporting—less than 1% of lab data nationwide—resulting in artificially low payment rates. In its first three years alone, PAMA implementation cut nearly $4 billion from the CLFS. Congress has since delayed those cuts five times, but advocates say temporary fixes are no longer sustainable.
“The time for permanent reform is now,” the coalition urged.
Shutdown Leaves Critical Medicare Lab Payment Fix Hanging in the Balance
The RESULTS Act seeks to overhaul the payment process to ensure rates reflect the full diversity of the laboratory market, including independent, hospital outreach, and physician office laboratories. It would reduce administrative burdens on both labs and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), cap annual payment reductions at 5% instead of 15%, and extend data reporting cycles to every four years. The bill would also empower CMS to work with an independent third party to collect more representative market data and make rates subject to administrative or judicial review.
Supporters say these reforms would promote innovation and stabilize Medicare reimbursement. Industry groups agree that without reform, continued cuts could push smaller community and regional labs, particularly those serving rural or underserved populations, to close their doors.
ACLA president Susan Van Meter underscored the importance of laboratories in guiding medical decisions. “Clinical laboratories deliver essential information that individuals need to better understand their own health status, while also serving as the backbone of our healthcare system, providing the results that inform 70% of medical decisions,” she said.
ACLA president Susan Van Meter noted, “As our industry continues to innovate and tailor healthcare solutions through personalized medicine, the RESULTS Act is a critical step to safeguard access to these life-saving tools, reinforce our healthcare infrastructure, and support continued innovation in laboratory medicine.” (Photo credit: ACLA)
However, with the government shutdown halting normal committee business and delaying budget negotiations, the RESULTS Act—along with various other bipartisan healthcare bills—remains stuck in legislative limbo. For laboratory leaders, that means more uncertainty and a narrowing window for action before the 2026 cuts take effect.
The coalition letter concluded, “We stand ready to help advance the RESULTS Act to achieve fundamental reform of the flawed Medicare clinical laboratory payment system.”
Lab leaders warn that without the RESULTS Act, up to 800 common tests could see steep Medicare payment cuts, threatening patient access and community laboratory stability.
Clinical laboratory leaders have been expressing concern over looming Medicare payment cuts they say could destabilize their operations, threaten patient access, and undermine preparedness for future public health crises. With reductions of up to 15% scheduled to take effect in 2026, the introduction of the bipartisan Reforming and Enhancing Sustainable Updates to Laboratory Testing Services (RESULTS) Act is being hailed by lab organizations as a lifeline to preserve financial stability and ensure seniors continue to receive timely, high-quality diagnostic testing.
US Senators Raphael Warnock (D-GA) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), along with a bipartisan coalition of House members, introduced the RESULTS Act on Sept. 10, 2025, to reform how Medicare pays for clinical laboratory services, a move aimed at protecting seniors’ access to essential diagnostic tests and stabilizing the nation’s lab infrastructure.
The legislation seeks to overhaul the payment system established under the Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA) of 2014. While PAMA was intended to align Medicare rates with private insurers, laboratory groups argue that the way the law was implemented resulted in steep, unsustainable cuts. Without reform, payment reductions of up to 15% are scheduled to hit more than 800 commonly ordered tests starting January 1, 2026, and again in subsequent years.
“Access to quality clinical labs is essential to keeping our seniors living long, healthy lives,” said Warnock. “I’m proud to partner with my colleague Senator Tillis to put forward this legislative fix that will help ensure Georgia seniors will continue to have access to high-quality diagnostic services.”
Tillis emphasized that the bill is about long-term stability. “It is critically important that seniors have uninterrupted access to innovative diagnostic tests,” he said. “The RESULTS Act is a necessary step toward ensuring this access and supporting seniors’ healthcare needs. I’m proud to work with my colleagues to permanently fix flawed data collection and reporting methods which will allow Medicare beneficiaries to continue receiving quality and affordable lab services.”
CAP: Current Cuts Would “Undermine” Lab Operations
“The CAP supports congressional efforts to improve the PAMA rate-setting process for clinical lab services and reduce unnecessary burdens on laboratories,” said CAP president Donald S. Karcher, MD, FCAP.
Donald S. Karcher, MD, FCAP, CAP president noted, “Under the current structure dictated by PAMA, the severity of fee reductions would undermine the operational infrastructure of clinical laboratories throughout the United States. The RESULTS Act will mitigate these cuts, avert needless loss in access to care, and allow laboratories to continue providing timely, high quality clinical services for patients. We urge Congress to pass the RESULTS Act before cuts take effect on January 1, 2026.” (Photo credit: CAP)
ACLA: Nearly $4 Billion Cut Already
The American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) also praised the legislation, calling it essential to protect access to both routine and advanced diagnostics. The group noted that implementation of PAMA slashed nearly $4 billion from the Medicare Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule in just three years.
“When PAMA was implemented, this goal was not achieved, as CLFS [Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule] rates were set based on data collected from less than 1% of all laboratories, resulting in artificially low payment rates,” ACLA said. Without intervention, “about 820 laboratory tests’ CLFS rates will be cut by up to 15% beginning January 1, 2026, threatening patient access to routine and life-saving diagnostics.”
ACLA president Susan Van Meter underscored the importance of laboratories in guiding medical decisions. “Clinical laboratories deliver essential information that individuals need to better understand their own health status, while also serving as the backbone of our healthcare system, providing the results that inform 70% of medical decisions,” she said. “As our industry continues to innovate and tailor healthcare solutions through personalized medicine, the RESULTS Act is a critical step to safeguard access to these life-saving tools, reinforce our healthcare infrastructure, and support continued innovation in laboratory medicine.”
“NILA applauds the bipartisan introduction of the RESULTS Act and urges Congress to quickly pass this vital legislation to strengthen our nation’s clinical laboratory infrastructure,” said NILA’s executive director Mark S. Birenbaum, PhD. “Our members are facing up to 15% in cuts to many of the most common laboratory tests; without immediate reform to PAMA this year, regional and community clinical laboratories could be forced to close their doors, leaving patients without access to critical laboratory testing.”
Birenbaum added that continued cuts could also erode preparedness for future public health emergencies. “PAMA cuts have weakened our nation’s community and regional clinical laboratories by leaving them without the necessary resources to continue providing essential services to people across the country,” he said. “Further cuts would continue to harm this infrastructure and threaten the ability of clinical laboratories to be prepared for a future pandemic or public health emergency.”
What the Bill Would Do
The RESULTS Act proposes several key reforms:
Adjust data reporting requirements and allow CMS to work with an independent third-party to collect more representative data
Exclude Medicaid managed care organizations from the definition of private payors
Cap annual Medicare payment cuts at 5% instead of 15%, while allowing increases with no cap
Extend the reporting cycle to every four years
Make payment rates subject to administrative or judicial review
Both widely available and more specialized tests would be covered under the new structure, using a mix of independent claims databases and targeted lab reporting to set accurate rates
Supporters say these changes would reduce administrative burden, stabilize Medicare reimbursement, and protect seniors’ access to vital testing.
“Congress has an opportunity this year to ensure long-term stability for the nation’s clinical laboratories,” ACLA’s Van Meter said. “We look forward to working with lawmakers to deliver this urgently needed reform.”
A more in-depth look at the RESULTS Act will be featured in the next edition of The Dark Report. (If you’re not a Dark Report subscriber, check out our 14-day free trial.)
Industry commenters point to a void since the federal government shuttered the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee
For readers wondering what has happened to the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee (CLIAC), the bottom line is the panel has been terminated, causing a significant void for the lab industry at the federal level.
Dark Daily’s sibling brands, including The Dark Report, G2 Intelligence, and Today’s Clinical Lab, have been exploring various aspects about the demise of CLIAC.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed to G2 Intelligence that CLIAC was terminated as of March 31, citing an executive order from President Donald Trump intended to reduce federal advisory committees. The decision blindsided even those closest to CLIAC. Incoming committee chairman Jordan Laser, MD, revealed in an email to colleagues that he did not have more insight into CLIAC’s demise beyond media reports, G2 reported.
Since its founding in 1992, CLIAC has played an influential—though non-regulatory—role in shaping updates to the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA). The committee brought together pathologists, lab directors, public health leaders, and representatives from federal agencies such as the CDC, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Food and Drug Administration.
The federal government’s decision to eliminate CLIAC “risks stalling progress in laboratory medicine, which could ultimately hinder efforts to improve patient care,” CAP President Donald Karcher, MD, FCAP, told The Dark Report. (Photo copyright: College of American Pathologists.)
‘Critical Venue’ for Labs Has Been Eliminated
Industry groups are sounding alarms about what comes next. In an interview with Today’s Clinical Lab, Anthony Killeen, MD, PhD, president of the Association for Diagnostics and Laboratory Medicine (ADLM), said CLIAC was an important forum for medical lab scientists to discuss CLIA.
“[CLIAC] served as a critical venue for working through current problems with the rule and also for expert input on how new technologies—such as next-generation sequencing, digital pathology, and artificial intelligence-assisted diagnostics—should be assessed and integrated under CLIA,” Killeen said.
ADLM has formally urged Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to reverse the CLIAC decision. In a May letter, the association emphasized that CLIAC’s work was funded entirely through user fees paid by clinical laboratories rather than taxpayer dollars—a point many in the lab industry say underscores CLIAC’s value.
CAP President Wonders about Future Communication Gaps
The Dark Report noted that the disbanding of CLIAC may cost labs time in certain cases, a commodity that few diagnostic settings have in abundance.
“The absence of this advisory body may lead to gaps in communication and slower response times in addressing [industry] challenges,” Donald Karcher, MD, FCAP, president of the College of American Pathologists (CAP), told The Dark Report.
The absence of CLIAC raises uncertainty for clinical labs because federal agencies have lost a prime source to gather specialized input on complex scientific and operational issues facing the lab industry. Dark Daily’s partner brands will continue to track this matter closely. If you’re not a subscriber, you can check out The Dark Report’s insider coverage with a 14-day free trial.
However, effective communication can bring more harmony to medical lab managers and scientists when it comes to compliance
Depending on how lab professionals view it, clinical laboratory regulations can be characterized as a series of checklists to fill out or an opportunity to grow an organization.
Leaning into the latter option will preserve regulatory compliance while also ensuring the operational health of the clinical laboratory.
At the Lab Manager Leadership Summit, Kelly VanBemmel, MS, MB(ASCP)CM (above) pressed attendees to open the lines of communication between bench scientists and lab managers when it comes to clinical laboratory regulations. (Photo copyright: Scott Wallask.)
‘There’s a Gap’ in How Both Sides View Regulatory Compliance
VanBemmel spent her presentation aiming to bridge the rift between how bench scientists look at clinical laboratory regulations compared to the views of medical lab managers.
“There’s a gap between how staff experience regulations and how management does,” she noted. “Staff typically think of compliance as a checklist to do their jobs.” Managers, however, need to understand a wider compliance picture. She illustrated her point by comparing views on the following regulatory bodies.
Staff understand that the FDA clears tests and devices for use in non-research environments, though not all consumables or equipment are in that setting.
Managers understand that the FDA develops rules and guidance for CLIA complexity categorization.
Communication Leads to Common Ground with Clinical Laboratory Regulations
Given the above differences among managers and staff, VanBemmel explained that both sides must frequently talk to each other to fill in the missing details.
“When you’re in the thick of regulations, communication becomes critical,” she said.
For example, bench staff may feel it is solely their manager’s responsibility to comply with clinical laboratory regulations. Savvy lab leaders will point out non-compliant conditions—such as diagnostic analyzer malfunctions and sample cross contamination—over which bench staff have direct control, helping workers better understand their responsibility when it comes to compliance.
On the other hand, lazy communication from managers to their bench scientists can stunt compliance efforts. She recalled a prior supervisor who often answered questions about regulations by asking: What does the standard operation procedure state?
“That answer wasn’t particularly helpful,” VanBemmel recalled. “That made me think that my supervisor didn’t understand nuance.”
Thorough communication builds greater trust, and seasoned clinical laboratory professionals of all ranks will quickly recognize the compliance benefits when the worker-manager relationship gels.
Development of the Critical Values system redefined what STAT means in clinical laboratory testing turnaround times
Where did the concept of critical values and having clinical laboratories report them to referring physicians originate? How did the concept blossom into a standard practice in laboratory medicine? Given the importance of critical values, a lookback into how this aspect of laboratory medicine was developed is helpful to understand how and why this has become an essential element in the practice of medicine and an opportunity for labs to add value in patient care.
According to Stanford Medicine, critical/panic values are defined as “values that are outside the normal range to a degree that may constitute an immediate health risk to the individual or require immediate action on the part of the ordering physician.”
What you’ll read below is an insider’s account of the “birth of critical values reporting.”
According to Lundberg, an unaccompanied man was brought to the hospital in a coma and an examination revealed a laceration to his scalp. The patient was admitted to the neurosurgical unit where clinical laboratory tests were performed, including a complete blood count (CBC) analysis, urinalysis, and serum electrolytes. All the test results came back normal except the patient’s serum glucose (blood sugar level) which was 6 mg% in concentration.
“The hard-copy laboratory results were returned to the ward of origin within two hours of receipt of the specimens in the laboratory. However, the results were not noticed by the house officers who were busy with several other seriously ill patients. Ward personnel also failed to communicate the lab results to the responsible physicians,” Lundberg wrote.
When hospital staff did finally notice the test result the next morning glucose was immediately administered to the patient, but it was too late to prevent irreversible brain damage. The man soon passed away.
Following this incident, the hospital developed a “Critical Value Recognition and Reporting System.” The system generated new numbers that were termed “Panic Values.”
However, “critics complained that good doctors should never panic, so the name was changed to Critical Values,” Lundberg explained.
When any of these critical test values were out of the norm, “we required the responsible laboratory person to quickly verify the result and use the telephone (long before laboratory computers) to personally notify a responsible individual (no messages left) who agreed to find a physician who could quickly act on the result. All was documented with times and names,” he wrote.
“We understand that when a physician wants something, he/she wants it, no matter what. Well, in this patient-focused approach, the physician cannot have it, except as offered by the patient-focused approach, based on TAT [turnaround times of clinical laboratory tests],” wrote George Lundberg, MD (above), President and Chair of the Board of Directors of the Lundberg Institute, and Clinical Professor of Pathology at Northwestern University in an article he penned for the National Medical Journal of India (Photo copyright: Dark Intelligence Group. Shows Dr. Lundberg in 2011 addressing the Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management.)
New Clinical Laboratory Standards
Recognition of the urgency to adopt new hospital standards related to certain clinical laboratory test results came swiftly. In 1972, Lundberg was invited to publish an article explaining the new Critical Value Recognition and Reporting System in Medical Laboratory Observer.
According to Lundberg, “most laboratory tests that are done do not need to be done; the results are either negative, normal, or show no change from a prior result. But some are crucial.”
The original set of Critical Values included the following testing results:
The list of values were later expanded to include “vital values.” These values describe lab results for which “action” is important, but where timing is less urgent. Examples of vital values include:
Lundberg and his colleagues went on to redefine what constitutes a laboratory test and what renders a test successful. They discussed laboratory procedures with committees of clinicians, lab personnel and patients, and reorganized hematology, chemistry, and toxicology based on the turnaround time (TAT) of tests.
“We ‘started the clock’—any and all days/times 24×7—when a specimen arrived at some place within the laboratory, and stopped the clock when a final result was available somewhere in the laboratory,” Lundberg wrote in NMJI. “We categorized all tests as: less than one hour, less than four hours, less than 24 hours, and more than 24 hours, guaranteed, 24×7. As a trade-off, we abolished the concept of ‘STAT’ orders … NO EXCEPTIONS. The rationale of each TAT was the speed with which a result was needed to render proper medical care that mattered to the welfare of the patient, and, of course, that was technically possible.”
Since then, very little has changed for the Critical Values System over the past 50 years. The majority of values added have fallen under the “Vital” category and not the “Critical” category. Today, most health systems and clinical laboratories create their own internal processes and procedures regarding which values need to be reported immediately (critical), which values are not urgent (vital), and how those results should be handled.
