This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (9)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Medical Practice  • Law and Medicine  • Pathology & Laboratory Medicine  • Quality of Care  • Quality of Care, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Paul Bachner, MD

JAMA. 1998;279:473-475.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

The passage of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) and the implementation of the regulations in 1993 constituted a sea change in the regulation of clinical laboratories in the United States. Although conceived predominantly as a response to perceived and documented problems in cytology testing, CLIA was viewed by many in Congress as a needed extension of federal regulatory oversight to large numbers of previously unregulated laboratories, most of which were physicians' office laboratories (POLs). Professionals in hospital and independent laboratories previously regulated under Medicare and federal interstate commerce statutes have experienced portions of the CLIA regulations as overly prescriptive and burdensome. Others, primarily in management positions, welcomed the decreased stringency of personnel requirements as an opportunity for greater flexibility in staffing, whereas many in the professional laboratory community interpreted these changes as a dangerous weakening and dumbing down of personnel standards. From the onset, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

From the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Kentucky, Chandler Medical Center, Lexington.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

Variation in Proficiency Testing Performance by Testing Site
Tina M. Stull, Thomas L. Hearn, John S. Hancock, James H. Handsfield, and Carlyn L. Collins
JAMA. 1998;279(6):463-467.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Are Physicians' Office Laboratory Results of Comparable Quality to Those Produced in Other Laboratory Settings?
Jerry Hurst, Karen Nickel, and Lee H. Hilborne
JAMA. 1998;279(6):468-471.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

A Brief Review of Current and Proposed Federal Government Regulation of Assisted Reproduction Laboratories in the United States
Carrell and Cartmill
J Androl 2002;23:611-617.
FULL TEXT  

Turf Battles in Radiology: How the Radiology Community Can Collectively Respond to the Challenge
Levin et al.
Radiology 1999;211:301-305.
FULL TEXT  

Accuracy of Physicians' Office Laboratory Results
Huffstutter et al.
JAMA 1998;280:129-132.
FULL TEXT