Factors contributing to shortage of med techs and other lab scientists include limited training programs in clinical laboratory science, pay disparity, and staff retention, notes infectious disease specialist Judy Stone, MD
Staff shortages are a growing challenge for medical laboratories, and now the problem has grabbed the attention of a major media outlet.
In a story she penned for Forbes, titled, “We’re Facing a Critical Shortage of Medical Laboratory Professionals,” senior contributor and infectious disease specialist Judy Stone, MD, wrote, “Behind the scenes at every hospital are indispensable medical laboratory professionals. They performed an estimated 13 billion laboratory tests in the United States each year before COVID. Since the pandemic began, they have also conducted almost 997 million diagnostic tests for COVID-19. The accuracy and timeliness of lab tests are critically important, as they shape approximately two-thirds of all medical decisions made by physicians.”
Though Stone states in her Forbes article that clinical laboratories in both the US and Canada are facing staff shortages, she notes that the problem is more acute in the US.
As Dark Daily reported in February, the so-called “Great Resignation” caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has had a severe impact on clinical laboratory staffs, creating shortages of pathologists as well as of medical technologists, medical laboratory technicians, and other lab scientists who are vital to the nation’s network of clinical laboratories.
In her analysis, however, Stone accurately observes that the problem pre-dates the pandemic. For examples she cites two surveys conducted in 2018 by the American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP):
Many pathologists and clinical laboratory managers would agree that Stone is right. Dark Daily has repeatedly reported on growing staff shortages at clinical laboratories worldwide.
And in “Lab Staffing Shortages Reaching Dire Levels,” Dark Daily’s sister publication, The Dark Report, noted that CAP Today had characterized the current lab staffing shortage as going “from simmer to rolling boil” and that demand for medical technologists and other certified laboratory scientists far exceeds the supply. Consequently, many labs now use overtime and temp workers to handle daily testing, a strategy that has led to staff burnout and more turnover.
“There is a critical shortage of medical laboratory professionals in the US, and in Canada to a lesser extent,” wrote infectious disease specialist Judy Stone, MD (above), in an article she penned for Forbes. “Here [in the US],” she added, “we are 20-25,000 short on staff, with only 337,800 practicing. That is roughly one medical laboratory scientist per 1,000 people.” Clinical laboratories are well aware of the problem. A solution to solve it and return labs to former staffing levels is proving elusive. (Photo copyright: Forbes.)
Why the Shortfall?
In her Forbes article, Stone notes the following as factors behind the shortages:
Decline in training programs. “There are only [approximately] 240 medical laboratory technician and scientist training programs in the US, a 7% drop from 2000,” Stone wrote, adding that some states have no training programs at all. She notes that lab technicians must have a two-year associate degree while it takes an average of five years of post-secondary education to obtain a lab science degree.
Pay disparities. Citing data from the ASCP, Stone wrote that “medical lab professionals are paid 40%-60% less than nurses, physical therapists, or pharmacists.” Moreover, given the high cost of training, “many don’t feel the salary is worth the high investment,” she added.
Staff retention. In the ASCP’s 2018 job satisfaction survey, 85.3% of respondents reported burnout from their jobs, 36.5% cited problems with inadequate staffing, and nearly that many complained that workloads were too high.
Inconsistent licensing requirements. These requirements “are different from state to state,” Stone wrote. For example, the American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science (ASCLS) notes that 11 states plus Puerto Rico mandate licensure of laboratory personnel whereas others do not. Each of those states has specific licensing requirements, and while most offer reciprocity for other state licenses, “California [for example] does not recognize any certification or any other state license.”
In a 2018 report, “Addressing the Clinical Laboratory Workforce Shortage,” the ASCLS cited other factors contributing to the shortages, including retirement of aging personnel and increased demand for lab services.
Possible Solutions
Stone suggested the following remedies:
Improve working conditions. “We need to reduce the stress and workload of the lab professionals before we reach a greater crisis,” Stone wrote.
Standardize state certification. This will facilitate “mobility of staff and flexibility in responding to needs,” Stone suggested.
Improve education and training opportunities. The ASCLS has called for clinical lab science to be included in the Title VII health professions program, which provides funding for healthcare training. Rodney Rohde, PhD, a clinical laboratory science professor at Texas State University, “also suggests outreach to middle and high school STEM programs, to familiarize students early with career opportunities in the medical laboratory profession,” Stone wrote.
Recruit foreign workers. Stone suggested this as an interim solution, with programs to help them acclimate to practice standards in the US.
It will likely take multiple solutions like these to address the Great Resignation and bring the nation’s clinical laboratory staffing levels back to full. In the meantime, across the nation, a majority of clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups operate short-staffed and use overtime and temporary workers as a partial answer to their staffing requirements.
The researchers believe their test ‘could reduce the number of unnecessary prostate cancer biopsies by 32%,’ UEA reported
New diagnostic technologies may make it possible for men to provide a urine sample that can allow a clinical laboratory to not only accurately diagnose prostate cancer but also help determine whether it is an aggressive form of prostate cancer. Researchers in the United Kingdom (UK) recently described just such a test in an online, peer-reviewed journal.
Development of a non-invasive method of diagnosing prostate cancer would be significant for anatomic pathologists in the United States. In the US alone, approximately 248,000 men will be diagnosed with this type of cancer in 2021. Prostate biopsies represent a major proportion of case referrals to community pathology groups.
Moreover, were such a non-invasive test for prostate cancer also able to identify those individuals with fast-growing prostate cancers, that would help urologists make more informed treatment decisions.
A Disease Men More Commonly Die ‘With’ Rather than ‘From’
According to CDC statistics, most men over the age of 80 will have some form of slow-growing prostate cancer when they die. However, a percentage of men each year contract a rapidly growing aggressive form of the cancer, and until recently, diagnosing which cancer a patient was fighting often required multiple invasive prostate needle biopsies. But that may soon change.
Researchers at the University of East Anglia (UEA) Norwich Medical School in the United Kingdom (UK) have developed a non-invasive urine test for prostate cancer that they say also can determine the aggressiveness of the disease. Knowing this may help physicians better assess a patient’s risk prior to ordering invasive needle biopsies, a UEA article notes.
The UEA test may also allow for self-collection of the biological sample, and if it proves accurate, the test could bring additional revenue to clinical laboratories that would perform the urine testing.
“In this work we develop a test that predicts whether a patient has prostate cancer and how aggressive the disease is from a urine sample. This model combines the measurement of a protein-marker called EN2 and the levels of 10 genes measured in urine and proves that integration of information from multiple, non-invasive biomarker sources has the potential to greatly improve how patients with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer are risk-assessed prior to an invasive biopsy,” they wrote.
“While prostate cancer is responsible for a large proportion of all male cancer deaths, it is more commonly a disease men die with rather than from,” said Daniel Brewer, PhD, one of the lead researchers on this study. “Therefore, there is a desperate need for improvements in diagnosing and predicting outcomes for prostate cancer patients to minimize over-diagnosis and overtreatment whilst appropriately treating men with aggressive disease, especially if this can be done without taking an invasive biopsy.
“Invasive biopsies come at considerable economic, psychological, and societal cost to patients and healthcare systems alike,” he added. Brewer is Senior Lecturer in Cancer Bioinformatics and a group leader within the Cancer Genetics Team at UEA’s Norwich Medical School.
“Our new urine test not only shows whether a patient has prostate cancer, but it importantly shows how aggressive the disease is. This allows patients and doctors to select the correct treatment,” said Daniel Brewer, PhD (above), Senior Lecturer and Lead Researcher, UEA Norwich Medical School, in the news release. (Photo copyright: Eastern Daily Press.)
Possibility of Reducing Needle Biopsies by 32%
Called “ExoGrail,” the UEA’s new test builds on their earlier development of the Prostate Urine Risk (PUR) and ExoMeth tests. The test works by integrating two biomarkers.
Levels of gene expression of 10 genes related to prostate cancer.
The researchers tested ExoGrail on urine samples from 207 patients at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital (NNUH) who also had needle biopsy samples available.
According to the published study, the UEA ExoGrail urine test enabled:
Results comparable to the biopsy findings.
Identification of people with prostate cancer and people without it.
Risk scoring that noted aggressive prostate cancer and need for biopsy.
Potential to reduce unnecessary biopsies by 32%.
“ExoGrail resulted in accurate predictions even when serum PSA [protein-specific antigen] levels alone proved inaccurate; patients with a raised PSA but negative biopsy result possessed ExoGrail scores significantly different from both clinically benign patients and those with low-grade Gleason 6 disease, whilst still able to discriminate between more clinically significant Gleason ≥ 7 cancers,” the researchers stated in their published study.
“The adoption of ExoGrail into current clinical pathways for reducing unnecessary biopsies was considered, showing the potential for up to 32% of patients to safely forgo an invasive biopsy without incurring excessive risk,” they noted.
Prostate Cancer Patients May Soon Have Options
While more research is needed, the new UEA Norwich Medical School ExoGrail test introduces compelling non-invasive methods for diagnosing prostate cancer. Patients with findings of aggressive cancer can proceed to biopsies, while others determined to have non-aggressive forms of prostate cancer may be able to avoid more invasive tests and the associated costs and stress.
Additionally, men may soon be able to collect their own specimens without the need to visit the primary care doctor or a patient service center.
A follow-up study underway at the University of East Anglia and the NNUH involves sending 2,000 men in the UK, Europe, and Canada home testing “prostate screening boxes” to “to collect men’s urine samples at-home,” according to a UEA new release, which noted that “the Prostate Screening Box has been developed in collaboration with REAL Digital International Limited to create a kit that fits through a standard letterbox.”
“We have developed the PUR (Prostate Urine Risk) test, which looks at gene expression in urine samples and provides vital information about whether a cancer is aggressive or ‘low risk,’” said Jeremy Clark, PhD, Senior Research Associate at UEA’s Norwich Medical School.
“The Prostate Screening Box part sounds like quite a small innovation, but it means that in future the monitoring of cancer in men could be so much less stressful for them and reduce the number of expensive trips to the hospital,” he added.
Anatomic pathologists and clinical laboratory managers will want to follow the progress of these clinical studies. A non-invasive, urine-based test for prostate cancer could be a game-changer if it can detect prostate cancer with comparable accuracy to the tissue-based diagnostics that are the current standard of care in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.
Four International Pandemics That Occurred Prior to COVID-19 and Contributed to Increased Clinical Laboratory Testing to Aid in Managing the Outbreaks
Since 1900, millions have died worldwide from previous viruses that were as deadly as SARS-CoV-2. But how much do pathologists and clinical laboratory scientists know about them?
SARS-CoV-2 continues to infect populations worldwide. As of May 28, 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that 168,599,045 people have been diagnosed with COVID-19 infections globally, and 3,507,377 individuals have perished from the coronavirus.
At the same time, federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistics show there have been 33,018,965 cases of COVID-19 in the United States, 589,547 of which resulted in death.
But COVID-19 is just the latest in a string of pandemics that spread across the planet in the past century. Since 1900, there have been four major international pandemics resulting in millions of deaths. But how many people even remember them? And how many pathologists, microbiologists, and clinical laboratory scientists working today experienced even the most recent of these four global pandemics?
Here is a summary/review of these major pandemics to give clinical laboratory professionals context for comparing the COVID-19 pandemic to past pandemics.
Spanish Flu of 1918
The 1918 influenza pandemic, commonly referred to as the Spanish Flu, was the most severe and deadliest pandemic of the 20th century. This pandemic was caused by a novel strand of the H1N1 virus that had avian origins. It is estimated that approximately one third of the world’s population (at that time) became infected with the virus.
According to a CDC article, the flu pandemic of 1918 was responsible for at least 50 million deaths worldwide, with about 675,000 of those deaths occurring in the United States. This pandemic had an unusually high death rate among healthy individuals between the ages of 15 and 34 and actually lowered the average life expectancy in the United States by more than 12 years, according to a CDC report, titled, “The Deadliest Flu: The Complete Story of the Discovery and Reconstruction of the 1918 Pandemic Virus.”
Interestingly, experts feel the 1918 flu strain never fully left us, but simply weakened and became less lethal as it mutated and passed through humans and other animals.
“All those pandemics that have happened since—1957, 1968, 2009—all those pandemics are derivatives of the 1918 flu,” he told The Washington Post. “The flu viruses that people get this year, or last year, are all still directly related to the 1918 ancestor.”
1957 Asian Flu
The H2N2 virus, which caused the Asian Flu, first emerged in East Asia in February 1957 and quickly spread to other countries throughout Asia. The virus reached the shores of the US by the summer of 1957, where the number of infections continued to rise, especially among the elderly, children, and pregnant women.
Between 1957-1958, the Asian Flu spread across the planet causing between one to two million deaths, including 116,000 deaths in the US alone. However, this pandemic could have been much worse were it not for the efforts of microbiologist and vaccinologist Maurice Hilleman, PhD, who in 1958 was Chief of the Department of Virus Diseases at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
Concerned that the Asian flu would wreak havoc on the US, Hilleman—who today is considered the father of modern vaccines—researched and created a vaccine for it in four months. Public health experts estimated the number of US deaths could have reached over one million without the fast arrival of the vaccine, noted Scientific American, adding that though Hilleman “is little remembered today, he also helped develop nine of the 14 children’s vaccines that are now recommended.”
During his lifetime, Maurice Hilleman, PhD (above), developed a staggering 40 vaccines to help prevent everything from measles, mumps, rubella, pneumonia, meningitis, hepatitis A and B, and other infectious diseases. (Photo copyright: Scientific American.)
1968 Hong Kong Flu
The 1968 influenza pandemic known as the Hong Kong flu emerged in China and persisted for several years. Within weeks of its emergence in the heavily populated Hong Kong, the flu had infected more than 500,000 people. Within months, the highly contagious virus had gone global.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, this pandemic was initiated by the influenza A subtype H3N2 virus and is suspected to have evolved from the viral strain that caused the 1957 flu pandemic through a process called antigenic shift. In this case, the hemagglutinin (H) antigen located on the outer surface of the virus underwent a genetic mutation to manufacture the new H3 antigen. Persons who had been exposed to the 1957 flu virus seemed to retain immune protection against the 1968 virus, which, Britannica noted, could help explain the relative mildness of the 1968 outbreak.
It is estimated that the 1968 Hong Kong Flu killed one to four million people worldwide, with approximately 100,000 of those deaths occurring in the US. A vaccine for the virus was available by the end of 1968 and the outbreaks appeared to be under control the following year. The H3N2 virus continues to circulate worldwide as a seasonal influenza A virus.
2009 H1N1 Swine Flu
In the spring of 2009, the novel H1N1 influenza virus that caused the Swine Flu pandemic was first detected in California. It soon spread across the US and the world. This new H1N1 virus contained a unique combination of influenza genes not previously identified in animals or people. By the time the World Health Organization (WHO) declared this flu to be a pandemic in June of 2009, a total of 74 countries and territories had reported confirmed cases of the disease. The CDC estimated there were 60.8 million cases of Swine Flu infections in the US between April 2009 and April 2010 that resulted in approximately 274,304 hospitalizations and 12,469 deaths.
This pandemic primarily affected children and young and middle-aged adults and was less severe than previous pandemics. Nevertheless, the H1N1 pandemic dramatically increased clinical laboratory test volumes, as Dark Daily’s sister publication, The Dark Report, covered in “Influenza A/H1N1 Outbreak Offers Lessons for Labs,” TDR June 8, 2009.
“Laboratories in the United States experienced a phenomenal surge in specimen volume during the first few weeks of the outbreak of A/H1N1. This event shows that the capacity in our nation’s public health system for large amounts of testing is inadequate,” Steven B. Kleiboeker, DVM, PhD, told The Dark Report. At that time Kleiboeker was Chief Scientific Officer and a Vice-President of ViraCor Laboratories in Lee’s Summit, Mo.
1.7 Million ‘Undiscovered’ Viruses
As people travel more frequently between countries, it is unlikely that COVID-19 will be the last pandemic that we encounter. According to the World Economic Forum (WEF), there are 1.7 million “undiscovered” viruses that exist in mammals and birds and approximately 827,000 of those viruses have the ability to infect humans.
Thus, it remains the job of pathologists and clinical laboratories worldwide to remain ever vigilant and prepared for the next global pandemic.
Outspoken Wecht wants readers to understand ‘the multifaceted challenges of the interface of law and medicine’
Pathologists will recognize the name of nationally-acclaimed forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, who for more than a half-century has been at the center of many of the country’s highest-profile civil and criminal cases. Thus, Dark Daily readers will be intrigued to learn the so-called “godfather of forensic pathology” has published a memoir that takes readers behind the scenes of many of his most controversial forensic pathology cases.
In his recently published memoir (above), forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, offers readers an inside look at some of his most controversial cases, as well as a defense of his own brushes with the legal system. Anatomic and clinical pathologists may be especially intrigued by Wecht’s description of how “he was acquitted on charges of personally profiting from his office as Allegheny County Coroner” during a federal public corruption charge that was dismissed in 2008, the book’s description states. (Photo copyright: Exposit Books.)
A ‘No-Holds-Barred’ Account
According to TribLIVE, the book—written by Wecht and award-winning writer/filmmaker Jeff Sewald—is a “no-holds-barred account” of Wecht’s personal and professional life. Among the more interesting tidbits are details regarding Wecht’s 1972 discovery that JFK autopsy materials and specimens had gone missing.
“They had been in the government’s possession, so nobody could have touched them, but now the metal container which has held John Kennedy’s brain in formalin was no longer on the list of contents. In addition, various photographs and microscopic tissue slides were also no longer listed. The President’s brain was missing!” wrote Wecht, who argued Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone in killing JFK and may not have fired the shots that killed him.
In 2006, Wecht faced an 84-count federal public corruption trial, which resulted in him resigning as Alleghany, Pa. medical examiner, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported. In his memoir, Wecht wrote extensively about his public corruption trial. TribLIVE noted Wecht “expresses particular disgust” over the accusation that he supplied Pittsburgh’s Carlow University with cadavers in exchange for use of their laboratory space for his own practice. His trial ended in a hung jury.
“The body-snatching issue was seized upon by the media and was the subject of some of the most horrible cartoons ever,” Wecht wrote. “What made them especially horrible was the fact that I believe anti-Semitism was at their core. They made me look wicked and shadowy, like a ‘Shylock’ who was willing to stoop as low as selling human corpses for a handful of shekels. It was sickening.”
Wecht became known nationally through media appearances and his many decades of work as a medical-legal consultant in civil and criminal cases. At the 2000 Forensic Science and the Law Conference, television host and political commentator Geraldo Rivera, JD, stated, “I’ve known Cyril Wecht for most of my 30-year broadcasting career, and my respect for him has only grown over the decades. His skills as an attorney, as a pathologist, as a medical examiner are legendary.
“Dr. Wecht has guided my audiences through our coverage of crimes ranging from the Kennedy assassination to the O.J. Simpson trial to the JonBenet Ramsey murder mystery,” Rivera added. “And whether or not my audiences knew it, they were getting an education in forensic science—and a lesson in how medical science is applied to this country’s criminal laws.”
An ‘Expert’ and an ‘Irritant’
Though also certified in anatomic pathology and clinical pathology, Wecht has spent his career as a forensic pathologist focused on determining the cause of death. He has performed approximately 17,000 autopsies and has supervised, reviewed, or been consulted on approximately 30,000 additional postmortem examinations, the Cyrilwecht.com website states.
Cyril Wecht, MD, JD (above), told the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle that he wrote this memoir so readers could understand the “… complexity and the multifaceted challenges of the interface of law and medicine, specifically in the realm of pathology, and how important it is for justice to be served, with the input from forensic science, and how the system can be subverted, perverted, suppressed, and manipulated.” (Photo copyright: Pittsburg Business Times.)
Pathologists who followed Wecht’s career may know of his reputation “as both an expert and an irritant,” noted the Pittsburg Post-Gazette. For his part, Wecht stated, “If I had been a bit more diplomatic and patient, and a little less antagonistic and controversial, I might have achieved more,” the newspaper reported.
Anyone interested in forensic pathology will likely enjoy reading the behind-the-scenes stories from Wecht’s more than six decades of work. But Wecht’s memoir should be particularly intriguing and informative for clinical and anatomic pathologists, as well as all medical laboratory scientists.
The No Surprises Act, passed as part of the COVID-19 relief package, ensures patients do not receive surprise bills after out-of-network care, including hospital-based physicians such as pathologists
Consumer demand for price transparency in healthcare has been gaining support in Congress after several high-profile cases involving surprise medical billing received widespread reporting. Dark Daily covered many of these cases over the years.
Now, after initial opposition and months of legislative wrangling, organizations representing medical laboratories and clinical pathologists have expressed support for new federal legislation that aims to protect patients from surprise medical bills, including for clinical pathology and anatomic pathology services.
The new law Congress passed is known as the No Surprises Act (H.R.3630) and is part of the $900 billion COVID relief and government funding package signed by President Trump on December 27.
The law addresses the practice of “balance billing,” in which patients receive surprise bills for out-of-network medical services even when they use in-network providers. An ASCP policy statement noted that “a patient (consumer) may receive a bill for an episode of care or service they believed to be in-network and therefore covered by their insurance, but was in fact out-of-network.” This, according to the ASCP, “occurs most often in emergency situations, but specialties like pathology, radiology, and anesthesiology are affected as well.”
Most portions of the No Surprises Act take effect on January 1, 2022. The law prohibits balance billing for emergency care, air ambulance transport, or, in most cases, non-emergency care from in-network providers. Instead, if a patient unknowingly receives services from an out-of-network provider, they are liable only for co-pays and deductibles they would have paid for in-network care.
New Law Bars Pathologists from Balance Billing without Advance Patient Consent
The law permits balance billing under some circumstances, but only if the patient gives advance consent. And some specialties, including pathologists, are barred entirely from balance billing.
The law also establishes a process for determining how healthcare providers are reimbursed when a patient receives out-of-network care. The specifics of that process proved to be a major sticking point for providers. In states that have their own surprise-billing protections, payment will generally be determined by state law. Otherwise, payers and providers have 30 days to negotiate payment. If they can’t agree, payment is determined by an arbiter as part of an independent dispute resolution (IDR) process.
Early Proposal Drew Opposition
An early proposal to prohibit surprise billing drew opposition from a wide range of medical societies, including the ASCP, CAP, and the American Medical Association (AMA).
All were signatories to a July 29, 2020, letter sent to leaders of the US Senate and House of Representatives urging them to hold off from enacting surprise billing protections as part of COVID relief legislation. Though the groups agreed in principle with the need to protect patients from surprise billing, they contended that the proposed legislation leaned too heavily in favor of insurers, an ASCP news release noted.
“Legislative proposals that would dictate a set payment rate for unanticipated out-of-network care are neither market-based nor equitable, and do not account for the myriad inputs that factor into payment negotiations between insurers and providers,” the letter stated. “These proposals will only incentivize insurers to further narrow their provider networks and would also result in a massive financial windfall for insurers. As such, we oppose the setting of a payment rate in statute and are particularly concerned by proposals that would undermine hospitals and front-line caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
On December 11, leaders of key House and Senate committees announced agreement on a bipartisan draft of the bill that appeared to address these concerns, including establishment of the arbitration process for resolving payment disputes.
However, in a letter sent to the committee chairs and ranking members, the AHA asked for changes in the dispute-resolution provisions, including a prohibition on considering Medicare or Medicaid rates during arbitration. “We are concerned that the IDR process may be skewed if the arbiter is able to consider public payer reimbursement rates, which are well known to be below the cost of providing care,” the association stated. However, legislators agreed to the change after last-minute negotiations.
“The AHA is pleased that Congress rejected approaches that would impose arbitrary rates on providers, which could have significant consequences far beyond the scope of surprise medical bills and impact access to hospital care,” AHA President and CEO Rick Pollack (above) said in a statement. “We also applaud Congress for rejecting attempts to base rates on public payers.” (Photo copyright: American Hospital Association.)
Dispute Resolution for Pathologists
The CAP also expressed support for the final bill. In a statement, CAP noted that “As the legislation evolved during the 116th Congress, CAP members met with their federal lawmakers to discuss the CAP’s policy priorities.
“Through the CAP’s engagement and collaboration with other physician associations, the legislation improved drastically,” the CAP stated. “Specifically, the CAP lobbied Congress to hold patients harmless, establish a fair reimbursement formula for services provided, deny insurers the ability to dictate payment, create an independent dispute resolution (IDR) process that pathologists can participate in, and require network adequacy standards for health insurers.”
As laboratory testing was identified by thousands of respondents to the University of Chicago survey as the top surprise bill, it is likely that billing and transparency in charges for clinical pathologist and anatomic pathologist will continue to be scrutinized by law makers and healthcare associations.
