It’s one of the most common phrases you hear from your health care practitioner: “I just want to run a few tests.”
Laboratory tests are among the most important and pervasive aspects of modern medicine. The results of clinical laboratory tests contribute to the majority of healthcare decisions. Laboratory tests provide healthcare practitioners with the information for decisions from diagnosis through therapy and determining outlook (prognosis). For some conditions, there is just no substitute for a laboratory test. For example, high cholesterol can be identified through laboratory work long before any symptoms might appear.
Healthcare practitioners rely on the laboratory for help in diagnosing any number of conditions and for managing their treatment. They trust the results that laboratories produce. But you’ve probably seen headlines or heard stories about patients who suffered dire consequences, such as unnecessary surgery or even death, as a result of inaccurate laboratory test results or incorrect interpretation of the results. So, a reasonable question for any patient is: should I trust my laboratory results?
The short answer is yes, you can have as much trust in these results as your health care practitioner does. There are many protections in place to ensure that laboratories produce reliable results. These have been instituted by federal and state government, laboratory accrediting organizations, and individual laboratories themselves to help maintain standards of quality. In addition, there are steps that you personally can take to further increase your comfort with the quality of your laboratory results, including questions that you can ask your healthcare practitioner.
Regulations: The Key Players
Federal Government
All laboratories that perform tests on “specimens derived from humans for the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of disease” fall under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA). This means that if your healthcare practitioner wants to run a blood test or urinalysis, or asks you for a stool or sputum sample, then CLIA will influence how these samples are handled and how the tests are performed.
Passed by Congress in 1988, CLIA was adopted to ensure the accuracy, reliability, and timeliness of patient test results. CLIA covers testing in all U.S. states, and every clinical laboratory in the country must obtain a CLIA certificate appropriate for the complexity of tests that the particular laboratory can perform. The various types of CLIA certificates are described in the next section.
Three federal government agencies have roles in clinical laboratory oversight.
- The CLIA program is housed within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Center for Clinical Standards and Quality.
- Laboratory test complexity is generally determined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA classifies tests as waived, moderate, or high complexity.
- A third federal government agency that has a role in laboratory oversight is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This agency provides scientific support to the CLIA program.
State Government
Two states, New York and Washington, have state laboratory regulations that are equal to or more stringent than those outlined in the CLIA regulations. These states have gone through a rigorous process to be recognized by the federal government and are referred to as CLIA “exempt” states, due to the fact that the state regulations meet or exceed the CLIA regulations. In these cases, the state, not the federal government, assumes primary responsibility for oversight of laboratory practices. This situation can occur only after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have “deemed” the state requirements to be equal to or more stringent than the CLIA requirements.
Several other states have requirements that are above and beyond the CLIA regulations, such as requirement to obtain a state laboratory license in addition to the federal CLIA certificate, and laboratory personnel licensure requirements.
Laboratory Accrediting Organizations
The most visible line of defense for accurate results is federal regulation, but several laboratory accrediting organizations have laboratory standards that are equal to or more stringent than CLIA and have been “deemed” by CMS to oversee laboratories that are enrolled in their accreditation programs.
The federal government oversees the performance of the “deemed” accrediting organizations in several ways. Accrediting organizations with “deemed” status must apply for reapproval on a regular basis to demonstrate that their standards continue to be equal to or more stringent than CLIA. The federal government also provides oversight of the accrediting organizations by performing validation surveys. This means that a CLIA inspector will inspect a lab within 90 days of the inspection date of the accrediting organization. When there are significant deficiencies identified by the CLIA inspector, the findings of the two agencies for that laboratory will be compared. CMS will then calculate an annual “disparity rate” for the accrediting agency, which must be under a disparity threshold established by the CLIA regulations.
Two accrediting organizations, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) and The Joint Commission, had stringent, voluntary laboratory accreditation programs many years before the government required it. Today, more organizations offer highly respected laboratory accreditation programs, including COLA, AABB, the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), the American Osteopathic Association/Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program (AOA/HFAP), and the American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics.
Other organizations, such as the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), a globally recognized, standards-developing organization, are involved in improving medical testing through the development and dissemination of standards, guidelines, and best practices.
AACC, the American Society for Clinical Pathologists (ASCP), the American Society for Clinical Laboratory Scientists (ASCLS), and the Clinical Laboratory Management Association (CLMA) are other examples of laboratory professional organizations that provide education and resources for laboratories and laboratory scientists.
Key Components of Lab Oversight
Additional Resources
Elsewhere on the Web
- The Joint Commission Laboratory Accreditation Program
- The Joint Commission also has a link to “Quality Check,” a comprehensive guide to all Joint Commission-accredited healthcare organizations.
- The CLIA program home page at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services contains a “General Program Description,” “Laboratory Registry” (to check the accreditation status of a laboratory), links to inspection agencies, and more. There is also a demographic lookup that you can use to find out what type of CLIA certificate the laboratory has.
- To see sample inspection checklists used for laboratory inspections, visit the College of American Pathologists site
- To see which tests are classified as waived (called “waived tests” because CLIA requirements have been waived for them), visit the Food and Drug Administration site.
- For more technical information, including links to “Search Federal Register” and “Code of Federal Regulations,” visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention page.
Sources
This article was originally written by Eric Seaborg.
Sources Used in Current Review
(Enacted December 31, 2018) The Public Health Services Act, 353 (d) (3). Available online at https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/PHSA-merged.pdf. Accessed February 2019.
(February 2019) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CLIA Law and Regulations. Available online at https://wwwn.cdc.gov/clia/Regulatory/default.aspx. Accessed February 2019.
Sources Used in Previous Reviews
Tietz Textbook of Clinical Chemistry. Edited by Carl A. Burtis & Edward R. Ashwood; W. B. Saunders: Philadelphia, 1994, Pp 75.
Clinical Chemistry: Theory, Analysis, Correlation. Third Edition, Lawrence A. Kaplan and Amadeo J. Pesce; Mosby: St. Louis, 1996, Pp 45-64: “Laboratory Management” and Pp 65-82: “Sources of Control of Preanalytical Variation.”
Interview with Vince Stine, Government Affairs Program Director at the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.
Interview with Debra Nadel, Professional Affairs Manager at the American Association for Clinical Chemistry and former laboratory director.
Interview with Dr. Scott Luria, MD, board-certified internist, Associate Professor of Medicine, University of Vermont, Fellow of the American College of Physicians, Site Manager, Fletcher Allen Health Care, Division of Primary Care Internal Medicine, UHC campus.
Interview with Dr. William Cobb, MD, infectious disease specialist in Grand Junction, Colorado.
Interview with Elissa Passiment, Executive Vice President, American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science, Bethesda, Maryland.
AACC Government Affairs Update, June 2001, quoting from a presentation by Judith Yost of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on June 14, 2001, at a meeting of the Food and Drug Administration’s Blood Product Advisory Committee.
Diagnostics Enable Medical Information Age; Improving Health Care Decisions. Presentation by AdvaMed to the House of Representatives, May 11, 2006. Available online at https://www.advamed.org/publicdocs/news_event_ald_act2006.shtml.
Forsman, Rodney. The Value of the Laboratory Professional in the Continuum of Care. Clinical Leadership & Management Review. November/December 2002. Pp 370-373.
Henry’s Clinical Diagnosis and Management by Laboratory Methods. 22nd ed. McPherson R, Pincus M, eds. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elsevier: 2011. Pp 7-9, 73-78, 132-134.
Tietz Textbook of Clinical Chemistry and Molecular Diagnostics. Burtis CA, Ashwood ER, Bruns DE, eds. 5th edition, St. Louis: Elsevier Saunders; 2012, Chp 8.
(Aug 10, 2015) Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA). Available online at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/CLIA/index.html?redirect=/clia/. Accessed September 2015.