This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (5)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

J. Stephen Kroger, MD

JAMA. 1994;271(20):1621-1622.

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

Although most physicians support Congress' intent to improve the reliability of laboratory testing at all testing sites, they are frustrated and confused about what they must do to comply with the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) of 1988.¹ And it is no wonder. The CLIA regulations have proliferated since the first rule was published on May 2,1990.² Extremely controversial, this proposed rule significantly restructured the approach to federal laboratory regulation by introducing rules that are based on the complexity of performing and evaluating tests. It provoked an unprecedented 60 000 written comments from physicians and laboratory professionals and forced the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) to seek input from the regulated community. A second proposed rule responding to this input was published by HCFA on February 28, 1992.³ Additional rules have been published describing fees,⁴ sanctions and enforcement procedures,⁵ categories of tests classified by complexity, . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Commission on Office Laboratory Accreditation, Longmont, Colo.

Footnotes
Reprint requests to Commission of Office Laboratory Accreditation, 9881 Broken Land Pkwy, Suite 200, Columbia, MD 21046, (Dr Kroger).

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