Despite FDA approval of at-home self-collection kits, 61% of women favor clinician-collected testing, signaling continued stability for traditional lab workflows.
A new national study suggests that while home-based cervical cancer screening is now an option in the United States, most women still prefer in-clinic testing—an important signal for clinical laboratories preparing for potential shifts in specimen volume and workflow.
Researchers at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center found that 60.8% of screening-eligible women prefer to undergo cervical cancer screening in a clinical setting rather than use an at-home self-collection kit. The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, come months after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first home-based self-sampling device for cervical cancer screening, a move intended to expand access and improve uptake among under-screened populations.
Among 2,300 women aged 21 to 65 surveyed through the 2024 Health Information National Trends Survey , 20.4% said they would prefer at-home screening, while 18.8% were unsure. For laboratory professionals, the data suggest that while home-based human papillomavirus (HPV) testing may grow, traditional clinician-collected specimens are likely to remain the dominant source of cervical screening volume—at least in the near term.
For laboratories, the findings suggest that traditional clinician-collected Pap and HPV specimens are likely to remain the primary driver of screening volume in the near term, with home-based kits adding incremental growth rather than immediately shifting overall test mix.
Demographic Differences Point to a More Segmented Screening Market
The study also highlights important demographic differences that could shape outreach strategies and testing patterns. Women who were overdue for screening were more likely to prefer at-home kits, as were individuals who reported experiencing prejudice or discrimination in healthcare settings. Privacy (54.9%), time constraints (35.1%), and avoidance of embarrassment (33.4%) were the most commonly cited reasons for choosing self-collection.
However, Black women were less likely than White women to prefer at-home screening, a finding that underscores the need for culturally tailored education and engagement strategies. Women with lower incomes and those who reported distrust of the healthcare system were more likely to say they were uncertain about which screening option to choose.
For clinical laboratories, these nuances may translate into a more segmented screening market. Health systems and public health programs that deploy mailed self-collection kits could see incremental increases in HPV testing from previously unscreened patients. At the same time, uncertainty and limited familiarity with the newly approved devices—particularly since FDA approval occurred after the survey was conducted—suggest that adoption may be gradual.
“Home-based self-sampling has the potential to remove many of the barriers women face when it comes to cervical cancer screening,” said lead author Sanjay Shete, PhD, of MD Anderson’s Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences. (Photo credit; MD Anderson)
Co-author Joël Fokom Domgue, MD, noted that national organizations such as the Health Resources and Services Administration and the American Cancer Society have already adopted home-based self-collection as part of their screening recommendations, and he suggested broader policy updates could help reduce inequities.
For laboratory professionals, the study underscores both opportunity and operational complexity: Expanding access through self-collection may boost overall screening rates, but in-clinic testing remains the clear preference for most women. Strategic planning around specimen logistics, patient education, and payer policies will likely determine how quickly—and how substantially—home-based screening reshapes the cervical cancer testing landscape.
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.
A growing measles outbreak in South Carolina, combined with rising cases nationwide, is putting renewed pressure on clinical and public health laboratories as the US risks losing its measles elimination status.
A rapidly expanding measles outbreak in South Carolina is reinforcing the critical role laboratories play in outbreak detection and response. State health officials report 188 measles cases statewide, with 185 linked to a concentrated outbreak in the Upstate region.
The outbreak is centered around elementary schools with low vaccination rates, a setting that often drives sudden spikes in testing demand. For laboratory leaders, these environments can translate into urgent diagnostic needs and close coordination with public health officials.
Health authorities say most new cases are tied to known exposures. Four recent infections were linked to household transmission, and one resulted from a previously reported school exposure.
However, signs of broader spread are emerging. The source of three new cases remains unknown, and another is still under investigation, suggesting transmission may be extending beyond clearly identified clusters.
As of the week of Dec. 29, 2025, 223 individuals in South Carolina were under quarantine following measles exposure. Each quarantine case increases reliance on timely laboratory confirmation to support isolation, contact tracing, and clearance decisions.
Photo credit: CDC
Vaccination status among patients is low and a likely contributor. Of the 185 cases in the Upstate cluster, 172 individuals were unvaccinated. Four had unknown vaccination status, and only one patient was fully vaccinated.
Children make up the vast majority of infections. Forty patients are under age five, while 123 are between ages five and 17, reinforcing the role of school-based transmission and pediatric testing demand.
Regional Spread Raises Stakes
South Carolina’s surge mirrors similar outbreaks in the western United States. Arizona has now reported 205 measles cases, while neighboring Utah is tracking 156.
Many of those infections are linked to a multistate outbreak centered in Mohave County, Arizona, and Southwest Utah. The pattern highlights how quickly localized outbreaks can expand across jurisdictions.
Nationally, the situation is becoming more serious. By the end of December, the United States surpassed 2,000 measles cases.
At that level, the country risks losing its measles elimination status, first achieved in 2000. Losing the designation would signal the return of sustained endemic transmission and likely intensify surveillance and reporting requirements.
For laboratory leaders, these developments may bring increased volumes of measles PCR and serology testing, particularly in pediatric and outpatient settings. Rapid turnaround times will remain essential for guiding quarantine and infection control decisions.
Public health laboratories may also face expanded workloads related to confirmatory testing and molecular tracking of transmission chains. As measles resurges, laboratories once again serve as a frontline defense—where preparedness, capacity planning, and coordination can directly shape outbreak control.
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.
A new KFF poll shows Americans’ trust in the CDC has dropped to its lowest point since COVID-19, creating an opportunity for clinical laboratories to become trusted local voices in public health.
An article from CIDRAP recently reported that public trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has fallen to its lowest level since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a KFF poll. The decline comes amid renewed misinformation about vaccines and autism and reflects growing skepticism toward the agency from both sides of the political spectrum.
The survey, conducted September 23–29 among more than 1,300 adults, found that only 18% of respondents have “a great deal” of trust in the CDC to provide reliable vaccine information, and 32% have “a fair amount.” That means just half of Americans have at least some trust in the CDC—down from 63% in 2023 and 57% as recently as mid-2025.
The findings followed remarks by President Donald Trump linking acetaminophen use in pregnancy to autism and calling for the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine to be split into three separate shots, claims that lack scientific evidence.
The erosion of trust, however, extends beyond political statements. While conservatives have long viewed the CDC with suspicion over perceived government overreach during COVID-19, many liberals now express frustration with what they see as inconsistency and political influence within the agency.
Higher Trust in Professional Medical Organizations
Interestingly, trust remains higher in professional medical organizations. Sixty-nine percent of parents polled said they trust the American Academy of Pediatrics, and 64% said they trust the American Medical Association.
“It’s encouraging, if far from ideal, that as trust in our nation’s scientific agencies crumbles, the public does trust the professional associations who have stepped forward,” said KFF president and CEO Drew Altman, PhD, in the organization’s press release. (Photo credit: KFF)
Support for Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his “Make America Health Again” (MAHA) movement was also low, with 62% disapproving of his handling of vaccine policy and 59% disapproving of his overall job performance.
What Labs Can Do
Amid this erosion of trust in federal health leadership, local clinical and public health laboratories may be poised to fill an emerging gap. Because labs are often the first to detect spikes in testing volume or positive results, they have a front-line view of disease trends—sometimes days or weeks before such patterns are visible nationally. If skepticism toward the CDC continues to grow, local labs could play an increasingly vital role in identifying and communicating outbreaks, especially during flu season or in the event of a new respiratory virus surge.
Beyond surveillance, labs can also help rebuild confidence in science by engaging their communities directly. Educational outreach, transparent data sharing, and collaboration with local healthcare providers can position laboratories as trusted sources of public health information, at a time when trust in national institutions is faltering.
As the CDC works to rebuild its credibility, laboratories across the country have a unique opportunity to step into the information void by translating data into understanding, and helping restore the link between diagnostics, public awareness, and trust in science.
This article was created with the assistance of Generative AI and has undergone editorial review before publishing.
