Literature DB >> 23997309

Using fee-for-service testing to generate revenue for the 21st century public health laboratory.

Carol Loring1, R Brock Neil, Laura Gillim-Ross, Matthew Bashore, Sandip Shah.   

Abstract

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.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23997309      PMCID: PMC3730011          DOI: 10.1177/00333549131280S214

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health Rep        ISSN: 0033-3549            Impact factor:   2.792


  1 in total

1.  The State Public Health Laboratory System.

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

  1 in total
  4 in total

1.  Public Health Laboratories and the Affordable Care Act: What the New Health-Care System Means for Public Health Preparedness.

Authors:  Mary-Beth Malcarney; Naomi Seiler; Katie Horton
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.792

2.  Public health laboratory systems: at the crossroads.

Authors:  John C Ridderhof; Burton W Wilcke
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2013 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.792

3.  How Health Department Contextual Factors Affect Public Health Preparedness (PHP) and Perceptions of the 15 PHP Capabilities.

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

4.  Regional Consortia: A Framework for Public Health Laboratory Collaboration and Service Sharing.

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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.