OBJECTIVES: The decrease in appropriations for state public health laboratories (SPHLs) has become a major concern as tax revenues and, subsequently, state and federal funding, have decreased. These reductions have forced SPHLs to pursue revenue-generating opportunities to support their work. We describe the current state of funding in a sampling of SPHLs and the challenges these laboratories face as they implement or expand fee-for-service testing. METHODS: We conducted surveys of SPHLs to collect data concerning laboratory funding sources, test menus, fee-for-service testing, and challenges to implementing fee-for-service testing. RESULTS: Most SPHLS receive funding through three revenue sources: state appropriation, federal funding, and fee-for-service testing (cash funds). Among SPHLs, state appropriations ranged from $0 to more than $6 per capita, federal funding ranged from $0.10 to $5 per capita, and revenue from fee-for-service testing ranged from $0 to $4 per capita. The tests commonly performed on a fee-for-service basis included assays for sexually transmitted diseases, mycobacterial cultures, newborn screening, and water testing. We found that restrictive legislation, staffing shortages, inadequate software for billing fee-for-service testing, and regulations on how SPHLs use their generated revenue are impediments to implementing fee-for-service testing. CONCLUSIONS: Some SPHLs are considering implementing or expanding fee-for-service testing as a way to recapture funds lost as a result of state and federal budget cuts. This analysis revealed many of the obstacles to implementing fee-for-service testing in SPHLs and the potential impact on SPHLs of continued decreases in funding.
OBJECTIVES: The decrease in appropriations for state public health laboratories (SPHLs) has become a major concern as tax revenues and, subsequently, state and federal funding, have decreased. These reductions have forced SPHLs to pursue revenue-generating opportunities to support their work. We describe the current state of funding in a sampling of SPHLs and the challenges these laboratories face as they implement or expand fee-for-service testing. METHODS: We conducted surveys of SPHLs to collect data concerning laboratory funding sources, test menus, fee-for-service testing, and challenges to implementing fee-for-service testing. RESULTS: Most SPHLS receive funding through three revenue sources: state appropriation, federal funding, and fee-for-service testing (cash funds). Among SPHLs, state appropriations ranged from $0 to more than $6 per capita, federal funding ranged from $0.10 to $5 per capita, and revenue from fee-for-service testing ranged from $0 to $4 per capita. The tests commonly performed on a fee-for-service basis included assays for sexually transmitted diseases, mycobacterial cultures, newborn screening, and water testing. We found that restrictive legislation, staffing shortages, inadequate software for billing fee-for-service testing, and regulations on how SPHLs use their generated revenue are impediments to implementing fee-for-service testing. CONCLUSIONS: Some SPHLs are considering implementing or expanding fee-for-service testing as a way to recapture funds lost as a result of state and federal budget cuts. This analysis revealed many of the obstacles to implementing fee-for-service testing in SPHLs and the potential impact on SPHLs of continued decreases in funding.
Authors: Stanley L Inhorn; J Rex Astles; Stephen Gradus; Veronica Malmberg; Paula M Snippes; Burton W Wilcke; Vanessa A White Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2010 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Jennifer A Horney; Eric G Carbone; Molly Lynch; Z Joan Wang; Terrance Jones; Dale A Rose Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Renée M Ned-Sykes; Michael Pentella; Lorelei Kurimski; Susanne Zanto; E Matt Charles; Christine Bean; Deborah Gibson; Karen Breckenridge; Bertina Su; John Ridderhof Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 2.792