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Ensuring Medicare rates are based on actual, adjudicated claims instead of outdated 2016 data.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.
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.)
Organizations representing clinical laboratories and other critical healthcare providers urged Congress to pass the Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act by January 1, 2023, to prevent deep cuts in reimbursements
Lessons about the essential role of clinical laboratories during a pandemic was the central theme in a significant publication released recently. The authors were the presidents of two of the nation’s largest healthcare companies and their goal was to connect the value clinical labs delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic to the financial threat labs face should the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) fee cuts coming to the Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) be implemented.
In an article for RealClearPolicy, healthcare executives William G. Morice II, MD, PhD (left), CEO/President, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, and Matt Sause (right), President of Roche Diagnostics North America wrote, “Without PAMA reform, labs could face drastically reduced reimbursement for commonly performed lab tests for a host of diseases.” (Photo copyrights: Mayo Clinic Laboratories/Roche Diagnostics.)
IVD Companies and Clinical Laboratories Sound Alarm
Morice and Sause warn that—without PAMA reform—the nation’s vital medical laboratories will face “drastically reduced reimbursement” for commonly performed lab tests for diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Reimbursement cuts may cause clinical labs serving “the most vulnerable and homebound” to reduce services or close, they noted.
“To emerge from nearly three years of a pandemic by sending the signal that austerity is our nation’s health policy when it comes to testing and diagnostics would be a significant mistake,” they wrote.
“If the proposed cuts to reimbursements for diagnostic tests are allowed to take effect, disparities caused by challenges with accessing diagnostic tests will likely grow even further,” the authors continued.
However, they added, “The Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act [SALSA] would reform PAMA to require accurate and representative data from all laboratory segments that serve Medicare beneficiaries to be collected to support a commonsense Medicare fee schedule that truly represents the market.”
How PAMA Affects Clinical Laboratory Reimbursements
PAMA, which became law in 2014, was aimed at marrying Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) reimbursement rates to rates medical laboratories receive from private payers, the National Independent Laboratory Association (NILA) explained in a news release.
But from the start, in its implementation of the PAMA statute, the methods used by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to collect data on lab test prices paid by private payers—which were the basis for calculating new lab test prices for the Medicare program—were criticized by many laboratory professionals and other health experts.
Critics frequently pointed out that several types of clinical laboratories were excluded from reporting their private payer lab test prices. Thus, the data collected and used by CMS did not accurately represent the true range of prices paid for clinical lab tests by private health insurance plans, said lab industry groups.
CMS regulations “exclude most hospital outreach laboratories and physician office laboratories from data collection. This approach depresses median prices and has led to deep cuts to lab reimbursement. Many tests were cut up to 30% in 2018 when the new system went into effect,” the America Association for Clinical Chemistry (AACC) noted in a statement.
On September 8, just weeks after publication of the article authored by Morice and Sause, 26 organizations representing clinical laboratories and diagnostics manufacturers sent a letter to Congressional leaders. In it they described the financial impact on labs due to the current law’s omission of some outreach and physician office lab testing, and they urged the passage of the SALSA legislation.
“The significant under-sampling led to nearly $4 billion in cuts to those labs providing the most commonly ordered test services for Medicare beneficiaries,” the organizations wrote in their letter. “For context, the total CLFS spend for 2020 was only $8 billion.”
Reimbursement Cuts to Lab Tests are Coming if SASLA Not Passed
“Without Congressional action, beginning on Jan. 1, 2023, laboratories will face additional cuts of as much as 15% to some of the most commonly ordered laboratory tests,” the NILA said.
“Enactment of the Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act (SALSA/H.R. 8188/S.4449) is urgently needed this year, to allow laboratories to focus on providing timely, high quality clinical laboratory services for patients, continuing to innovate, and building the infrastructure necessary to protect the public health,” NILA added.
In an editorial she wrote for Clinical Lab Products, titled, “Be a Labvocate: Help Pass SALSA Legislation,” Kristina Martin, Clinical Pathology Operations Director, Department of Pathology, University of Michigan Medicine said, “The SALSA legislation provides a permanent, pragmatic approach to evaluating the CLFS, eliminating huge swings, either positive or negative as it pertains to Medicare reimbursement. It also allows for a more comprehensive evaluation of data to be collected from a broader sampling of laboratory sectors.”
Uses statistical sampling for widely available tests performed by a “representative pool of all clinical laboratory market segments.”
Introduces annual “guardrails” aimed at creating limits for reductions as well as increases in CLFS rates.
Excludes Medicaid managed care rates since they are not true “market rates.”
Gives labs the option to exclude mailed remittances from reporting if less than 10% of claims.
Eases clinical labs’ reporting requirements by changing data collection from three years to four.
Make Your Views Known
Proponents urge Congress to act on SALSA before the end of the year. Clinical laboratory leaders and pathologists who want to express their views on SALSA, test reimbursement, and the importance of access to medical laboratory testing can do so through Stop Lab Cuts.org. The website is sponsored by the ACLA.
Survey respondents can give their opinions about the proposed VALID and VITAL acts
Two bills are pending in Congress, and each is written to change the current regulatory scheme for laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) and in vitro clinical tests (IVCTs). The bills go by the acronyms of the VALID Act and VITAL Act. Many clinical laboratories offering LDTs today may be unaware of the details within each bill as currently written.
That existing regulatory arrangement will change if one of the two pending bills in Congress were to pass and be signed into law. That proposal is known as the Verifying Accurate Leading-Edge IVCT Development Act, or VALID Act. It is a bipartisan, 245-page bill that proposes FDA oversight of LDTs and is making its way through both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
A smaller, seven-page counterproposal is also before the Senate called the Verified Innovative Testing in American Laboratories Act, or VITAL Act. The VITAL Act would keep LDTs under CLIA but mandate updates to CLIA’s rules to account for modern tests.
Readers: Are you in favor of more or less regulation of LDTs? Take this quick survey and let us know what you think. Dark Daily wants to know your thoughts about LDT oversight. Click here to take our six-question survey. Results of this survey will be reported in a coming Dark Daily e-briefing.
Alert pathologists and clinical laboratory managers know that behind every bill proposed in Congress is a party with a vested interest that brought the issue to a senator or representative. Once enacted into law, a new bill changes the status quo, generally to the benefit of the private interests that requested that bill. This is true of both the VALID Act and the VITAL Act.
The table at the bottom of this briefing compares the provisions of each act and is current as of March 28.
Who Opposes VALID Act?
The VALID Act is garnering more attention than the VITAL Act.
On March 22, the American Association for Clinical Chemistry (AACC) sent out an email message urging its members to oppose the VALID Act.
“Let your legislators know that that if VALID becomes law, your institution and other hospitals and small commercial laboratories could be forced to stop providing LDTs,” wrote Patricia Jones, PhD, DABCC, FACB, Chair of AACC’s Policy and External Affairs Core Committee. The AACC has long criticized the VALID Act..
On the other side of the debate, Philadelphia-based The Pew Charitable Trusts, a nonprofit that in part analyzes publics policy, has come out in support of the VALID Act’s proposed requirements.
Two bills are pending in Congress about the future of LDT regulation.
“Although the [current] LDT regulatory process offers labs significant flexibility and enables a more rapid response to public health needs when no FDA-cleared or -approved test exists, the relative lack of oversight for LDTs puts the health of patients at risk,” Pew wrote in an October 2021 report on LDTs.
The Advanced Medical Technology Association also supports the VALID Act, as do many manufacturers of in vitro test kits and large commercial labs. Proponents also believe FDA regulation is needed for IVCTs because they are similar to medical devices and bring with them patient safety concerns.
The American Clinical Laboratory Association and the National Independent Laboratory Association (NILA) have not taken formal positions on the VALID Act.
Congress Could Roll VALID Act into MDUFA Vote to Win Passage
There may be an effort to attach the VALID Act to the authorization vote for the Medical Device User Fee Agreement V (MDUFA), according to a February health legislation alert from law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld based in Washington.
MDUFA funding provides resources to the FDA’s medical device review program. Congress is set to receive final MDUFA V recommendations in April.
Nineteen healthcare and lab industry groups, including the American Medical Association, AACC, AMP, and NILA, sent a joint letter to four Congress members on Feb. 23 requesting they deliberate the VALID Act separately and not as part of MDUFA.
Again, please complete this survey and tell us what you think about FDA regulation of LDTs, as defined in the VALID Act, compared to continuing LDT oversight via a modernized CLIA in the VITAL Act.
—Scott Wallask
Comparison of VALID Act and VITAL Act
VALID Act
VITAL Act
Full act name
Verifying Accurate Leading-Edge IVCT Development Act
Verified Innovative Testing in American Laboratories Act
Bill numbers
House Bill H.R.4128 Senate Bill S.2209
Senate Bill S.1666
Sponsors
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) , Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN), Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), and Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO)
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
Provisions
Developers shall apply for premarket approval of IVCTs if there is insufficient evidence of analytical validity or clinical validity or if it’s reasonably possible an IVCT will cause serious adverse health effects.
Applications shall include a summary of test data and scientific evidence to support analytical and clinical validity of the test.
Through a technology certification, developers can submit an IVCT to the FDA for review, and if granted, the certification allows them to develop similar tests without going back for review each time.
The FDA must establish a program for rapid review of breakthrough IVCTs that provide effective treatment of life-threatening diseases
The federal government should work to ensure that regulatory oversight of laboratory tests does not limit patient access, impede innovation, or limit a test’s sustainability as a result of being unduly burdensome or beyond the fiscal capacity of the laboratory to reasonably validate and perform.
No aspects of LTDs shall be regulated under the FDA.
No later than 180 days after enactment of the bill, the secretary of health and human services shall report to the Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions about recommendations to update clinical lab regulations and provide an assessment of LDT use during the 2020 pandemic response.
Exemptions
IVCTs being marketed before the VALID Act goes into effect
Low-risk tests
IVCTs that are granted emergency use
No new exemptions
Review timelines
The FDA shall make a decision no later than 90 days after an application is submitted.
No new requirements noted.
Sources: VALID Act and VITAL Act bills. Information is current as of March 28, 2022.
CAP president maintains medical laboratory staff are ‘indispensable’ in pandemic fight and should be in ‘top tier’ for vaccination
As COVID-19 vaccinations continue to roll out, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) is lobbying for clinical pathologists and medical laboratory staff to be moved up the priority list for vaccinations, stating they are “indispensable” in the pandemic fight.
In a news release, CAP’s President Patrick Godbey, MD, FCAP argued for the early vaccination of laboratory workers, “It is essential that early access to the vaccine be provided to all pathologists and laboratory personnel,” he said. “Pathologists have led throughout this pandemic by bringing tests for the coronavirus online in communities across the country and we must ensure that patient access to testing continues. We must also serve as a resource to discuss the facts about the vaccine and answer questions patients, family members, and friends have about why they should get the vaccine when it is available to them.”
In a phone call following a virtual press conference, pathologists and CAP President Patrick Godbey, MD (above), told MedPage Today that even if medical laboratory staff are not directly in contact with patients, they should be considered “top tier” (designated as Phase 1a) for getting the vaccine. “I think they [clinical laboratory workers] should be considered in the same tier as nurses,” said Godbey, who also is Laboratory Director at Southeastern Pathology Associates and Southeast Georgia Health System in Brunswick, Ga. “They’re indispensable. Without them, there’d be no one to run the tests.” (Photo copyright: Southeast Georgia Health System.)
Who Does CDC Think Should Be First to Be Vaccinated?
According toThe New York Times (NYT), there are an estimated 21 million healthcare workers in the United States, making it basically “impossible,” the NYT wrote, for them all to get vaccinated in the first wave of COVID-19 vaccinations.
A December 11, 2020, CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, titled, “ACIP Interim Recommendation for Allocating Initial Supplies of COVID-19 Vaccine—United States, 2020,” notes that “The [federal] Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended, as interim guidance, that both 1) healthcare personnel and 2) residents of long-term care facilities be offered COVID-19 vaccine in the initial phase of the vaccination program.”
The ACIP report defines healthcare personnel as “paid and unpaid persons serving in healthcare settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials.”
However, a CDC terminology guidance document listed at the bottom of the ACIP report states, “For this update, HCP [Healthcare Personnel] does not include dental healthcare personnel, autopsy personnel, and laboratory personnel, as recommendations to address occupational infection prevention and control (IPC) services for these personnel are posted elsewhere.”
In part, the letter stated, “We are convinced that ACIP did not intend to exclude any healthcare workers from its recommendation to offer vaccinations to healthcare personnel in the initial phase of the COVID-19 vaccination program (Phase 1a). However, we would hate for jurisdictions to overlook dental, autopsy, and laboratory personnel because of a minor footnote in [CDC] guidance that was developed for an entirely different purpose (i.e., infection control).
“We respectfully ask CDC to clarify,” the letter continues, “… that all healthcare workers—including dental, autopsy, and laboratory personnel—are among those who should be given priority access to vaccine during the initial phase of the COVID-19 vaccination program.”
“In the laboratory, they are encountering and handling thousands of samples that have active live virus in them,” said Karger, who called clinical laboratory staff and phlebotomists the “forgotten” frontline healthcare workers. “We’re getting 10,000 samples a day. That’s a lot of handling of infectious specimens, and we do want [staff] to be prioritized for vaccination.”
Karger continued to stress the vital role clinical laboratories play not only in COVID-19 testing but also in the functioning of the overall health system. She added that staff burnout is a concern since laboratory staff have been working “full throttle” since March.
“From an operational standpoint, we do need to keep our lab up and running,” she said. “We don’t want to have staff out such that we would have to decrease our testing capacity, which would have widespread impacts for our health system and state.”
Testing for Post-Vaccine Immunity
The CAP panelists also highlighted the need to prepare for the aftermath of widespread COVID-19 vaccinations—the need to test for post-vaccine immunity.
“It’s not routine practice to check antibody levels after getting a vaccine but given the heightened interest in COVID testing, we are anticipating there is going to be some increased in demand for post-vaccine antibody testing,” Karger said. “We’re at least preparing for that and preparing to educate our providers.”
Karger pointed out that clinical pathologists will play an important role in educating providers about the type of antibody tests necessary to test for COVID-19 immunity, because, she says, only the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibody test will check for an immune response.
With the pandemic expected to stretch far into 2021, clinical laboratories will continue to play a crucial role in the nation’s healthcare response to COVID-19. As essential workers in the fight against infectious disease, clinical pathologists, clinical chemists, and all medical laboratory staff should be prioritized as frontline healthcare workers.
