Apr 27, 2011 | Laboratory Pathology, News From Dark Daily
Government agencies in both the United States and the United Kingdom look at direct-to-consumer (DTC) tests
Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) medical tests are under attack by multiple federal agencies here in the United States, even as authorities in the United Kingdom (UK) similarly question the potential of these genetic tests and molecular diagnostic assays to harm and/or mislead consumers.
Of course, many pathologists and clinical laboratory managers here in the United States know that multiple government agencies have spent the last year scrutinizing the DTC market. There is the possibility that new regulations and laws enacted as a result of these investigations could not only bring DTC genetic testing under tighter government oversight, but these same regulations might also ensnare certain genetic tests and medical laboratory assays that have appropriate uses in clinical care.
(more…)
Feb 2, 2011 | Laboratory News, Laboratory Pathology
Speakers at Frontiers in Laboratory Medicine See Increased Role for Pathology
DATELINE: BIRMINGHAM, ENGLAND—As our North American readers of Dark Daily arrive for work this morning, it will be late afternoon here in the United Kingdom and the last presentations on the second day of the 10th annual Frontiers in Laboratory Medicine (FiLM) will be wrapping up.
It was a packed auditorium this year at FiLM, as clinical biochemists, pathologists, and medical laboratory scientists gathered to learn about achieving best practices in pathology management and clinical laboratory operations. One reason for this heightened interest is the major reforms already cascading throughout the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS).
(more…)
Jan 6, 2011 | Laboratory News, Laboratory Pathology
Pathologists and Medical Laboratory Leaders to Gather For 9th Annual FiLM Conference
Many pathologists and clinical laboratory managers outside of the United Kingdom (U.K.) remain unaware of its government budget-cutting initiatives that call for all sectors of government services to spend as much as 20% less money during the coming budget cycle. The nation’s oft-admired National Health Service (NHS) will also undergo unprecedented reforms even as it sees severe budget cuts.
Critics of the announced budget cutbacks—put forth by the newly-elected coalition government that took office last spring—predict that reduced spending on healthcare will affect everything from hospital staffing to clinical laboratory testing to the available number of students in medical schools. These critics believe patient wait times will greatly increase, and access to some medical services may be severely restricted. (more…)
Jan 27, 2010 | Laboratory News, Laboratory Pathology, Management & Operations
Speakers at FiLM conference emphasize that laboratories must organize to support ongoing integration of clinical care
BIRMINGHAM, ENGLAND: As you read this, several hundred pathology and clinical laboratory leaders are gathered in Birmingham, England, today to learn about the latest trends and most important developments in healthcare and laboratory medicine. They have assembled to participate in the Eighth Annual Frontiers in Laboratory Medicine (FiLM).
The short term news for pathology laboratories in the United Kingdom is discouraging. The National Health Service recently declared a goal of reducing spending on laboratory testing by £500 million (US $807.2 million) in upcoming budget cycles. This represents a reduction from current funding levels of about 15%.
(more…)
Oct 16, 2006 | Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory Pathology
Pay-for-Performance programs are not limited to the United States. In 2004, the National Health Service (NHS) of the United Kingdom introduced a pay-for-performance program for family practitioners with much acclaim. A study called Pay for-Performance Programs in Family Practices in the United Kingdom published in the New England Journal of Medicine in July of this year reported findings on the success of the program in its first year.
The National Health Service in the UK committed £1.8 billion ($3.2 billion) in additional funding over a period of three years for the pay-for-performance program for family practitioners. The program would increase practitioners’ income by up to 25%. Incentives were based on practitioners’ performance with respect to 146 indicators covering clinical care for 10 chronic diseases, organization of care, and patient experiences.
It was reported that in the first year of the new pay-for-performance program, 95.5% of practices scored highly, earning them an average of £76,200 ($133,200) each. The pay-for-performance program increased the gross income of the average family practitioner by £23,000 ($40,200), but this was partially offset by the fact that practitioners were responsible for both the nursing and the administrative costs of meeting the targets.
It cannot be denied that the UK pay-for-performance program improved quality of patient care in its first year. Doctors in the UK were awarded a significant bonus and could justify the cost of improving their practices with equipment, training, and additional staff to achieve high quality scores. Unfortunately, this may not be the case with Medicare and Medicaid pay-for-performance programs in the United States.
Federal legislation directed the pay-for-performance model to be adopted in the U.S. by mid-2006. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) will then begin rewarding high-performing doctors, hospitals, health plans, and other providers. Unfortunately, according to another study in the New England Journal of Medicine – Paying for Performance in the United States and Abroad – the U.S. budget will only allow for bonuses of 1 to 2%, while the United Kingdom was able to provide 5 to 10%. These smaller bonuses might not be enough incentive for US physicians to meet high performance standards because the cost of upgrading their practices may eat up the entire bonus.
Already the number of pay-for-performance programs offered by private payers is increasing each year. As grades and rewards are directed to doctors based on their performance, it increases the likelihood is high that they will select labs based on reputation and quality. Furthermore, the CMS may adopt pay-for-performance programs for laboratories that provide them with incentives based on their turnaround time, the accuracy of their results, and other performance factors. Laboratories should be tracking the pay-for-performance trend to understand what indicators are likely to be used to evaluate and reward clinical labs.
